Their hate consumes them.

Posted by: butterfly at December 31, 2006 9:41 PM

I'm just NOT sure the world has really ever grown out of the Primitivation stage at all , to merit the term re- primitivation. Aside from the Western world the rest of the World and Islam as the number one offender in general ,have really just been plodding along, business as usual. I'd say that half the world has remained a semi primitive, and barbaric place , with Islam leading the pack. we have just been living in a bubble of Apathy and denial.

" The re-primitivization of the world proceeds, proceeds because the advanced peoples do not appreciate their own achieved advancement. The uncivilized are inheriting, because the civilized are ungrateful and ignorant, civilization -- and they will undo it. They already are "

True that. We have lost our Pride and dignity. Our ability to recognize things AS THEY REALLY ARE , rather than how we are told they are is also a big Flaw in our PC riddled societies.
IF we don't start calling a spade a spade and IF we continue to blame ourselves for all the world's woes and IF we don't start standing up as a United West and saying " Enough is enough " and address this Evil that is Islam head on then i think that we may not even have the culture that we think we do , and if we can't recognise those things i'm not even sure it is worth saving.

But we will wake up , eventually.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 31, 2006 9:48 PM

I heartily agree with you, Hugh! I think the biggest problem that the anti-jihadist movement has is the reluctance of Westerners to recognize islam as an inheritly evil and backwards religion and political ideology.

Jihadwatch, Dhimmiwatch, and a few other bastions of common sense are the only places where views like yours prevail. In my own efforts to spread jihad-awareness, I have been called every name in the book by PC-minded dhidiots. So-called ancient "Christian" attrocities are used to justify modern day islamic terrorism. When I suggested once a message board that the Turkish government return the Hagia Sophia to the Orthodox Church, a European told me not until america gives back the land it stole from the Native Americans.

Westerners are more comfortable indulging in self-hatred and guilt than they are defending civilization. And until that changes, we will continue to suffer an endless cycle of terrorism followed by excuse mongering followed again by terrorism.

Posted by: senatortombstone at December 31, 2006 10:08 PM

Once again another brilliant commentary expressing thoughts so many Conservatives have that the Muslim is a barbarian in every form and how sweet God's repayment will be once these sects are left without American protection to make war upon each other.
Persians hate Arabs and Arabs hate Palestinians and they all hate each other as Shia and Sunni.
They do not want peace so give them war.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at December 31, 2006 10:10 PM

War is what they've wanted all along, and when we as Americans responded. Most were gungho, now almost 4 years and 3ooo deaths of our Bravest Americans. Most Americans say we meed a new direction. The enemy is at our gates, will we lull our selves into complancey?

Posted by: AMartinez at December 31, 2006 10:39 PM

I'd say that half the world has remained a semi primitive, and barbaric place , with Islam leading the pack. we have just been living in a bubble of Apathy and denial.

That's because the West had the bright idea, some half century ago, to deconstruct Western Colonialism -- as though the non-Western world was ready to govern itself in the modern Westernized world.

Posted by: remote_control at December 31, 2006 10:48 PM

The "civilized" are indeed indifferent and ignorant to the fact that it was christianity that provided the environment for society to flourish throughout the centuries.

The loss of faith and love of the culture of death by the "civilized" West is slowly bringing about a homegrown barbarism. Maybe that is why the barbarism of islam does not threaten the secular left.

http://www.realclearreligion.com/the_religion_that_will_dest.html

Posted by: genevieve at December 31, 2006 11:28 PM

Hugh/

"En passant par la Lorraine..."

Do you remember verses five and six:

"Avec mes sabots,
Il m'a donné pour étrenne,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!"

Il m'a donné pour étrenne,
Avec mes sabots,
Un joli pied de verveine,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

For a New Year's Gift. Indeed!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at December 31, 2006 11:39 PM

The barbaric march of islam continues. Credible stats show islam to be the fastest growing religion on the planet. Seen in the light of history, the crusades, etc, the invasion of iraq was a stroke of genius. Take the fight to the enemy. Move the battle away from the mountainous regions to areas where mechanized infantry and air support are more effective, gain control of an important oil resource, close staging area for the coming war with iran, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately pc America has neither the intellect or the courage to stand fast. The genius of a few of our leaders is being canceled by the foolishness and cowardice of our electorate and the greed of our legislature.
I have a feeling it's gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets any better.
happy new year anyway.
JonB

Posted by: JonB at December 31, 2006 11:52 PM

By-the-way, the whole chanson which Hugh alluded to in his post (above) is:

En passant par la Lorraine

"En passant par la Lorraine,
Avec mes sabots,
Rencontrai trois capitaines
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

2.
Rencontrai trois capitaines,
Avec mes sabots,
Ils m'ont appelée vilaine,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

3.
Ils m'ont appelée vilaine,
Avec mes sabots,
Je ne suis pas si vilaine,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

4.
Je ne suis pas si vilaine,
Avec mes sabots,
Puisque le fils du roi m'aime,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

5.
Puisque le fils du roi m'aime,
Avec mes sabots,
Il m'a donné pour étrenne,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

6.
Il m'a donné pour étrenne,
Avec mes sabots,
Un joli pied de verveine,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

7.
Un joli pied de verveine,
Avec mes sabots,
Je l'ai planté dans la plaine,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

8.
Je l'ai planté dans la plaine,
Avec mes sabots,
S'il fleurit je serai reine,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!

9.
S'il fleurit je serai reine,
Avec mes sabots,
Et s'il meurt je perds ma peine,
Avec mes sabots dondaine,
Oh, oh, oh ! avec mes sabots!"

Some say that this chanson has its origins in the thirteenth century, others that it a Second Empire reworking of an old folk song, and yet others that it is completely new. Ah well, who cares? It is us, and that is all that matters - that, and, of course, Leon VI's promulgation of Saint Nicolas.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at December 31, 2006 11:58 PM

Hugh/

To extend your reference further, if I may, islam is our 'bogeyman', isn't it? The devil subjugated to Saint Nicolas, the Croque-Mitaine or Hans Trapp - the evil which we have to overcome, generation after generation.

And there was I thinking that it was about 'internal struggle' (a sort of Christian jihad, perhaps). I've never laughed so much! Thank-you, Hugh, for the best joke I've ever heard at New Year.

Grief man, you're deep and complicated - thank the good Lord!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 1, 2007 12:08 AM

Your commentary touches on two questions that have bothered me for some time. The first, dealing with the claims of Muslim apologists that Islam is "the religion of Peace": if so, why are nearly all the hotspots in the entire world created by Islamic aggression? It seems that if there aren't any "crusaders" or "Zionists" close at hand, then rather than living in peace they go after each other. My second question has to do with one of our own delusions, probably brought on by a PC-overload of some kind. Why do we think we can "export" democracy (even though strictly speaking this is a misnomer for our federalist model of government)? Do we really think that primitive tribes, steeped for generations in barbaric customs in war, marriage, etc. that are almost precisely opposite our Western mores, will suddenly engage in civilized and rational discourse to resolve disputes? For one thing, as you have commented, we grossly underestimate the uniqueness of the conditions -- including the heroes of thought and action -- that made it possible to establish our system of government. Let me be completely un-PC: I don't think our system would have gotten started or would have prevailed as long as it has without direct Providential intervention. I don't think it's possible to establish a similar system in a culture that does not cry out to Providence for the same blessings. There will never be a stable, truly representative government in Islamic society.

Posted by: MLMOON at January 1, 2007 12:20 AM

"The re-primitivization of the world"

The way things are going, that looms as a distinct possibility. Although, if that were actually to occur, I suppose the "re-civilization of the world" would inevitably follow eventually, even though it could take a long time indeed. What is so depressing is to contemplate how long that could take and how much human blood would likely be shed merely to wind up once again where we started from. When I contemplate the fact that we now have modern feminists – the daughters of suffragettes no less – embracing the burkha as “liberating”, I am inclined to feel that the human race as a whole is condemned to the fate of the mythical Sisyphus. On the other hand, if that is indeed our fate, then it would seem we have little choice but to keep on pushing.

Posted by: Caroline at January 1, 2007 12:45 AM

Not to mention the potential for an independent Kurdistan to stir the pot with Kurds in Iran, Syria, and Turkey.

Posted by: No Islam Know Peace at January 1, 2007 12:49 AM

By-the way, the reference to the sabots is about the Alsace-Lorraine tradition of parents buying small sweets, biscuits and craftwork and putting them in the shoes of their sleeping children on Christmas Eve.

The undecorated Christmas tree (always, in Northern European tradition, a fir tree - an evergreen tree) is about the feast of Adam and Eve (the twenty-fourth of December) and the tree is usually decorated with red apples.

The legend of Hans Trapp and his band of robbers is that they go skulking through towns where they are believed to punish cruel or disobedient children or even take them away in Trapp’s sack. As a symbol of this, and as a reminder to today’s children, red apples are left with the children’s gifts. Hans Trapp is traditionally followed through the towns by the Christkindel and St. Nicolas and the demons that he has subjugated - the bogeyman, the Croque-Mitaine and, in some places (confusingly) Hans Trapp. They reward the good children with oranges, gingerbread and spicy cakes. This all supposed to take place on December 6th. - the Feast of Saint Nicolas.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 1, 2007 12:58 AM

I’m not sure that it is possible to come up with an ideology so in contradiction with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the koran. If any out there can think of one, just one, that is even 50% less in contradiction, I am waiting to know what that might be.

Posted by: tgusa at January 1, 2007 1:07 AM

Kill Sadr now.

Next, assign dominance to someone (perhaps the elected government) - and then leave via Kurdistan and/or Kuwait.

Thanks, see-ya.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at January 1, 2007 1:15 AM

tgusa/

Sure. But why stop at your Constitution and your Bill of Rights. The koran is antithetical to all free societies - to mine (the UK), to France (La Republique), to ... oh, on and on - do I have to list them all. Mohammedanism abrogates to itself, and, by extension, to all the the so-called faithful, the ultimate right - that we who do not believe are wrong and that they can kill us, with impunity, for this crime against their tribal god and for the crime of being unbelievers and, therefore, wrong.

This is a position which the civilised west gave up two thousand years ago. These damned (quite literally) moslems have yet to see it - more fool them. Killing, in the name of religion, is outlawed. Those who do this are damned. Moslems kill for this reason. Therefore they are damned - hors la loi - so kill them wherever you may find them.

Ah. That doesn't sit well, does it? That's not what we do! So, does one follow Christ or does one defend a vision of faith. Who is the soldier and who the monk? What is right and what is wrong?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 1, 2007 1:34 AM

Dominic,
Make no mistake, I have never met you but I do like you.
Look, I will tell you right up front where I stand. My ancestors came to the new world to start anew. I do have sympathy for you and yours as I am a decendant of the uk , however I have Welsh, Irish and Scotch in me so you really can't call me English. That said, change what you are doing to more reflect what we are doing( yes I know its hard to swallow that we did indeed have a better idea) get past your English pride or I won't care what happens to you.
Luv tgusa

Posted by: tgusa at January 1, 2007 2:10 AM

Dominic: "Ah. That doesn't sit well, does it? That's not what we do! So, does one follow Christ or does one defend a vision of faith."

Good lord! One follows common sense! Islam has been the enemy of the west for over a thousand years. All we had to do to prevail was to keep Islam within in its own hostile borders! But all of a sudden everyone has got their panties in a wad trying to figure out what to do about Muslims. Duh! Start by looking at history and how westerners successfully dealt with Islam for over a thousand years. One doesn't need to invoke Jesus Christ even. One merely needs to see reality! But evidently westerners have gotten a bit bored with their affluent lives. Well, nothing like a bit of house to house rape of your women, kidnapping of your children, beheading and torture of your men and a general climate of fear as to who is next in your own neighborhood to put that "joie de vivre" back into life. Apparently the local shopping mall was getting a bit dull.

Posted by: Caroline at January 1, 2007 2:15 AM

Moslems kill for this reason. Therefore they are damned - hors la loi - so kill them wherever you may find them.

Ah. That doesn't sit well, does it? That's not what we do! So, does one follow Christ or does one defend a vision of faith. Who is the soldier and who the monk? What is right and what is wrong?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem

And therin lies the problem, are we to simply "watch" the jihad come and go?

We know what is left in the wake of the jihad!
Rape, torture, slavery and slaughter.
JW is all well and fine and is awesome at getting information about jihad to those who dont have a clue.
But what is needed is a JF!
where are those calling to fight the jihad, to preserve from destruction the rights and freedoms our fathers and grand fathers fought and died to leave to their decendents!
I dont need to tell you while we teach our children to love honor and respect other people regardless of the race or religious beliefs, the muslims are teaching their children to slaughter our children!
So now its not a matter of when we fight islam, its a matter of how we fight islam!
Too many claim there is no way to defeat islam and if that is the case then we had may as well submit!
There is indeed a way to defeat islam, but it entails the total destruction of islam. Not the genocide of 1.2 billion muslims!, But the total destruction of islam and there is but one way to do it!!!!
The total destruction of islam takes less than a 24 hour day!
But that wont and cant happen until the civilized world accepts the fact that islam is nothing more than a satanic cult deserving of total destruction, Islam has no business exsisting in a civilized world!
While you teach your children to love ,honor and respect all peoples, muslims are teaching their children to slaughter your children!!!!
Its one thing to sacrifice your own life, your rights and your freedom for your political correct way of thinking. But our children deserve the rights and freedoms our fathers and grand fathers fought and died to leave us as an inheritance. We dont have the right to strip our children of these rights!
The jihad has come.now how do "we" fight this jihad?

Posted by: thndrbang1 at January 1, 2007 2:24 AM

“These damned (quite literally) moslems have yet to see it - more fool them. Killing, in the name of religion, is outlawed. Those who do this are damned. Moslems kill for this reason. Therefore they are damned - hors la loi - so kill them wherever you may find them.”

How many times do I have to say…Never become what you are fighting against. Of course that only applies to us Americans; we are the best at killing with Honor. That is what makes us great! I would pit the lowliest moraless American fighter against any other comer from any other country, the American, in killing and compassion is unmatched! God bless and keep every American and friend of America in 2007 and happy new year to0 all!

Posted by: tgusa at January 1, 2007 2:35 AM

Dear Hugh,

Thanks for another superb essay. I'd like to humbly differ on just one point. I think that it is not a good thing for us to look forward with pleasure to intra-Islamic fratricide, to take satisfaction in the suffering that the Muslim world will inflict on itself if it turns its hostilities away from us infidels and instead tears itself to shreds.

You know better than I that Muslims are in bondage to a dreadful system. As a matter of policy, it is desirable from the standpoint of our own continued freedom that the Muslim world turn on itself, and from that perspective we can welcome intra-Islamic violence. But we should (I think) welcome it not with pleasure but with regret, as the "least bad" alternative.

The sentiment you expressed at the end, that it would be pleasant rather than disturbing to read the dispatches from Iraq if only it were Muslims rather than our people who were being killed, strikes me as too harsh. In a notional better world, Islam would not be what it is, and would not be a threat either to us or to Muslims. That would be pleasant. Muslims who are true to the historical teaching have minimal regard or compassion for Infidels. I think that we ought to be better than that in our reciprocal attitudes, while still firmly and unapologetically resisting them, and employing necessary measures to defeat them.

Again, thanks for another excellent essay,

Sincerely yours,

Sam Conner

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at January 1, 2007 2:37 AM

Dhimmisoftheworldunite,
Why do you ignore the murder of all non muslims in the name of saving the so called oppressed. You should think about what type of monster you are. You are the most arrogant fool I have encountered. If Hugh responds to your idiocy I will no longer read his posts.
Sincerely,
Rodock

Posted by: tgusa at January 1, 2007 2:45 AM

Well, nothing like a bit of house to house rape of your women, kidnapping of your children, beheading and torture of your men and a general climate of fear as to who is next in your own neighborhood to put that "joie de vivre" back into life. Apparently the local shopping mall was getting a bit dull.

Posted by: Caroline at January 1, 2007 02:15 AM

.. all this while State Department throwa Iftaar dinners, approves more atudents visas to Saudi Arabia and White House approves more tax-dollars and arms to Pakistan, the two countries involved in 9/11 attacks. Not to mention dubya parroting: 'Izlum is religion of peace'. Ofcourse, he would eliminate USofA, if he had it his way. So much for an American president/commander-in-chief.

Posted by: Alert at January 1, 2007 2:46 AM

Plato studied government. His theory was that there were five possible government structures; leadership from intellectuals, leadership by the military, leadership by the rich (oligarchy), leadership by the masses (democracy), and totalitarianism. He favored these in descending order.

I can't figure out if Islam is leadership from intellectuals, leadership by the military, or is simply a tool used by totalitarians. I'd lean towards the third choice, but Ahmedinejad really seems to believe in what he's doing. Maybe it's something completely different.

Posted by: pez at January 1, 2007 3:15 AM

Please help me to understand why a Muslim resident in the US would post the most vile pro-Jihad reviews of books about Islam on Amazon and ALSO discuss in great detail works on topics in advanced computer programming.

He, apparently, finds no contradiction between his dreams of a caliphate and the Western Civilization which made of him an expert in highly complex scientific discipline.

I do not believe his attitude to be unique, as the Islamist may be found among those expert medicine, biotechnology, engineering, physics, and so on.

Posted by: sonomaca at January 1, 2007 3:23 AM

I love hugh! thanks for your illuminations. some, even many of us have sensitivity to the light. often we need to trick ourselves to do what we need to do. such as cleaning up the mess in our house or writing that project etc. someone needs to develop a gag pair of glasses which allows people to see the truth about islam. the way out is the way in is one of my favorite mottoes. regarding your line-re-primativization of the world, i would love to add a more catchy partner -shrivilization. the contest, the match, the struggle pits civilization vs shrivilization. i recommend you enlist the assistance of the world's greatest cartoonists to assist in this struggle beginning with the danish cartoonists in hiding from hideous muslims who have called for their deaths for simply holding up their daddy/mommy (mighty mo) up to ridicule. lets make ridicule of mighty mo 'ridicooool!'

Posted by: crumbinalfighter at January 1, 2007 4:02 AM

Dominic: Does one follow or one defend?
The follower of Jesus does both. The Spirit filled Christian hears the Still Small Voice of the Lord AND IS LED BY HIM TO DEFEND THE VISION!!
Truly the soldier and the monk!

Mother: Good planning!
Our Generals now say the Army is "broke", both men and equipment, and in worse shape than after Vietnam. They say it will take 10 years to rebuild and also say that we need many more thousands of men and women to serve. The Holy Spirit has been telling me this same thing for many years now. According to God's economy, the highest authority in an army or a prison is that units Chaplain. The soldier and the monk!!

O.T question: Has anyone pondered the poignant and ironic poetic justice of the recent passing of the two former heads of state. One passing in in peace at age 93 and then given great Honor by the whole Nation and then to be buried with much ceremony.
The other: Found cowardly hiding in a hole, hung in disgrace for crimes against Humanity, and then dumped back in an unmarked hole with no ceremony.

Posted by: guide inside at January 1, 2007 4:23 AM

New Year , same old crap>>>>>

The barbaric march of islam continues. Credible stats show islam to be the fastest growing religion on the planet.

Really?,prove it!
Seriously i doubt it given the carnage in Iraq,
Sudan and Somalia and the odd earthquake and
tsunami.

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at January 1, 2007 5:39 AM

"hideous Iraq and its largely hideous people"

Generalizing...what is the point and is it fair?
The fact remains that most people in the world are good people and prefer peace over war.
The same holds true in Iraq.
For Hugh to callously dismiss the truth with such sweeping generalizations seems contrary to the principles of this blog, and doesn't help advance his position.
I am no great fan of our foreign policies, but to seemingly condone the death of innocents is as wrong as abandoning our efforts in Iraq would be.
The peaceful majority there deserve nothing less than our support.

Posted by: HawkWatcher at January 1, 2007 7:18 AM

From Pez above

"Plato studied government. His theory was that there were five possible government structures; leadership from intellectuals, leadership by the military, leadership by the rich (oligarchy), leadership by the masses (democracy), and totalitarianism. He favored these in descending order...."

Also Kakistocracy (Lee Rodgers KSFO TS host recently surfaced this word from the depths of whatever): government by the most stupid or most unprincipled citizens. We seem to get this a lot in the Beltway, as well as in most Euro capitals.

Islam seems to be a collection of dictators leading cults which are caught up in a Koran-induced trance. When you are in a trance, you no longer have human traits of self-command and control.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at January 1, 2007 7:47 AM

The peaceful majority there deserve nothing less than our support.
Posted by: HawkWatcher

the peaceful majority needs to get off their asses and go after their own killers. l do agree that those in the room when saddam was killed are no better than saddam and all have the same mindset of
what islam preaches. al sadr is no better than saddam and given his power would do the same as he does to the sunni minority. so they are all cut from the same cloth and that needs to be recognized by our governments.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at January 1, 2007 8:10 AM

"The fact remains that most people in the world are good people and prefer peace over war.
The same holds true in Iraq.
For Hugh to callously dismiss the truth with such sweeping generalizations..."
-- from a posting above

On what basis do you assert that "most people in the world are good people" and further assert that the sole test of this is that, you claim, they "prefer peace over war"? Because it feels good to think so? Because it is comforting? Many people, raised up in a complete belief-system -- see the Nazis, see the goose-steppers of North Korea or any number of places -- are prepared to make war, are taught that war is a good thing. Some of these people, so taught, may ignore those teachings with which their society is suffused, but most will not.

And in wartime, one does not have the luxury of making delicate individual judgments one can afford to make in peacetime. Is this peacetime, or is this wartime? I claim it is wartime. I claim that Western Europe is already in a war, a war declared upon it that it so far does not recognize, but a war which when recognized will be seen as one to preserve its own legal, political, and social institutions, to preserve its habit of free inquiry and its achievement of free speech and the other rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You can stick with pious Rodney-King like bomfoggery if you wish. I don't think, however, that such sentiments or such a mental set help to ensure the physical and moral survival of things which are threatened and deserve to be protected. And I would have had no difficulty in writing, in 1944 or 1945, about "hideous Germany and its largely hideous people" but would not have written about "hideous Italy and its largely hideous people." Why the difference? Because in the first case most Germans marched off happily for Der Fuehrer. There was hardly any opposition, and the odd White Rose movement does not allow us to pretend otherwise. There was the mas-murder of the Jews, in which a great many were complicit, including regular soldiers of the Wehrmacht.

Italy was a completely different matter, as shown by the uprising of Italian troops against their German masters in Albania, Greece, Yugoslavia, and in the widespread opposition to Mussolini, and in the overturning of the Italian government, and much else, including the widespread movement of partigiani.

In observing the behavior of Muslims today, do you find that many of them "want peace" in the sense in which you mean it? Do they truly deplore terrorism? Do they deplore in sincere and heartfelt fashion, or in some other way, the behavior of other Muslims when they persecute or kill non-Muslims in the countries they control? Tell me all about the Muslim opposition to the behavior of the Muslim Arabs in Sudan? Or to the treatment of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh? What Muslims have expressed soorrow at the expulsion of 400,000 Kashmiri pandits? What meeting of the Organization of Islamic States has expressed the need to cease the persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim lands, and even, possibly, to accord them full legal equality?

And what Muslim group has deplored the incessant demands made for changes in the legal and political institutions of the Infidel lands among which Muslims have been allowed to settle? Can you think of a single Muslim group that has publicly deplored the threats made against the people and government of Denmark, not least by Muslims living in Denmark? What Muslim group has ever denounced other Muslims for behavior that is clearly contrary to the laws and customs of the peoples and polities of Western Europe? Any? Ever? What Muslim group has expressed its full support for the security measures -- modest measures -- undertaken so far, and denounced all those other Muslim groups that are trying at every step to tie the security services of the Western world in knots, and to make their task more difficult at every step?

Do you, taking in the world, find that Muslims "want peace" in the sense in which most of us mean that, or do they "want peace" as in the peace that will come when Infidels cease to block the spread of Islam, and accept their foreordained fate, the final triumph of Islam, not necessarily through military means, to accept the "peace" that will come when Islam rules, and those who continue not to accept it will be allowed to keep their lives, and even in a humble way to practice one of the two other monotheisms, but as the price for that will have to accept a permanent status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, as dhimmis, that was imposed on non-Muslims over 1350 years, and which as a doctrine merely refelcts the immutable texts of Islam.

One can simply assume that "everyone wants peace." One can assume -- dispensers of comforting pieties do it all the time -- that People Are the Same the Whole World Over. But the rest of us will look at the canonical texts of Islam, to see what they contain, will study how they are received (is Sura 9 important? Do certain Qur'anic passages "abrogate" certain others and if so, which are which, and what is the overall effect?), and then study how Muslims themselves appear to derive meaning, and what that meaning is, from Qur'an and Hadith (the winnowed, and ranked-by-authenticity stories, about Muhammad's sayings and deeds), and the Sira, the life of Muhammad. Is the Qur'an still regarded as the immutable Word of God, or is there a posssibility of interpreting much of it away? Can the Qur'an be placed into a historical context, that is into history, so as to deprive it of its uncreated, beyond-history status that makes it so hard for Muslims to accept any changes to its accepted meaning?

And what about the long history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslim peoples and lands, and the subsequent subjugation of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others? Can we see a great variety of treatments meted out to these non-Muslims, or is the treatment remarkably similar, whatever time and wherever the space?

Neither the texts, nor the observable past or present behavior of Muslim peoples, suggests that we should be comforted by the belief, offreed without the slightest evidence, that "most people in the world are good people and prefer peace over war." There have been people, usually but not always limited in time and space, who have lived by war, who have wanted war. The modern peaceful liberal democracies are an achievement, a delicate achievement that can be undone. They were almost undone in World War II, and it took both the damage inflicted on the Germans by the Red Army (of a distinctly illiberal Soviet Union), and the most illiberal development of atomic weapons, and the willingness to use them, to hasten the end of the war against Japan, a country whose population was, like that of Germany, in thrall to a belief-system (Kodo) that prevented its rulers from surrendering until two atomic bombs forced its necessity upon them.

I don't accept your claim that all people "want peace." I am not prepared to trust the fate of this country or everything that I deem worth saving to such Rodney-King expressions. That in some places the world became, over time, less Hobbesian is a tribute to the slow development of institutions and to the cultivation of attitudes that are not universal, and were largely the creation of the Western world, a Western world in which Christianity (or the Judeo-Christian tradition), and Hellenic philosophy, and Roman law-making, and two thousand years of slow and not always steady or straight-line development, led to such things as the American Constitution, and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to many other things, not readily transplanted, and to an intelligently tolerant way of life that is becoming, here and there, unintelligently tolerant, supported as it is by the kind of bromides you offer.

I don't like bromides.

Posted by: Hugh at January 1, 2007 8:53 AM

Sweeping generalities. From a posting above.

Like the posting it came from wasn't one in itself.

To think everyone wants peace is to deny everything in the papers, TV, the radio, Even good old fashion Comic books.

Planting ones Head in the sand can cause the growth of roots to hold it there. Leaving ones backside in a well exposed position to get a good swift kick in the...

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 1, 2007 10:05 AM

re: "The uncivilized are inheriting that civilization, because the civilized themselves are insufficiently grateful their own legacy, and indifferent or ignorant of the conditions that were necessary for its achievement over time. And the uncivilized, seizing control of that very civilization they had so little a hand in creating, will determinedly undo it. They already are."

And didn't this all happen before? Islam's first conquests were rather advanced sociities: Egypt, Persia, the Levant, Asia Minor. Islam thereby claimed its "Golden Age", although it had nothing to do with Islam. It essentially took over societies by brute force and then claimed its own Golden Age as a result of the spoils.

Besides which, it's rather embarrassing to claim a Golden Age that took place a thousand years ago and having nothing to show for it since.

Posted by: Tancred1099 at January 1, 2007 10:11 AM

Hugh!
Well and thoughtfully spoken(or written)!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at January 1, 2007 10:19 AM

I am no great fan of our foreign policies, but to seemingly condone the death of innocents is as wrong as abandoning our efforts in Iraq would be.
The peaceful majority there deserve nothing less than our support., Posted by HawkWatcher

I do not condone abandoning Iraq, but focusing our efforts on those people who just might really appreciate it and help us is what we must do. Of all people Moqtada al-Sadr should be grateful and appreciative. We have given the Iraqi Shiites control. Al-Sadr's religion does not allow that. He must destroy his benefactor because Allah commands it.

HawkWatcher, get some backbone; get some nerve, let them kill one another before they kill you.

Posted by: Pelayo at January 1, 2007 10:20 AM

I do not condone abandoning Iraq, but focusing our efforts on those people who just might really appreciate it and help us is what we must do. Of all people Moqtada al-Sadr should be grateful and appreciative. We have given the Iraqi Shiites control. Al-Sadr's religion does not allow that. He must destroy his benefactor because Allah commands it.

HawkWatcher, get some backbone; get some nerve, let them kill one another before they kill you.

Posted by: Pelayo

I absolutely agree Pelayo. but to understand the cause and effect one must understand the laws and obligations of jihad!

The "worst" muslim is better than the best kufar!
Sadaam is better than 100 Mother Teresas and better than even 1000 kufar Jesus'
Here is what allah commands of the muslims for infidel invading muslim lands!

þ*** Found in: BOOK O: JUSTICE.
Chapter O-9.0: Jihad.O-9.4:
Who is Obligated to Fight in Jihad
Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.þ Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.''The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b-7) is such Koranic verses as:
1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);
2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);
3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';

þ*** Found in: BOOK O: JUSTICE.
Chapter O-9.0: Jihad. 0-9.3
Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.

Posted by: thndrbang1 at January 1, 2007 11:18 AM

Dhimmisoftheworldunite,
Why do you ignore the murder of all non muslims in the name of saving the so called oppressed.
Posted by: tgusa

Thats a damn good question Tqusa:
Let me show you what allah says of muslims who permit themselves to be oppressed in the earth!

SURAH 4-97,,When the angels of death cause those people to die who have wronged their souls, they ask: "What was your condition?" They reply: "We were oppressed in the earth." The angels say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate and go somewhere else?" Hell will be their abode and it is a very evil refuge![97]

Muslims are such hypocrits, they want the kufar to accept and believe their ungodly unholy book but they refuse to believe it and accept it themselves!
According to the above ayah muslims, no matter where they are who who they are, be they palistinians, iraqs, somalis, americans, brits. etc.etc. if they are being oppressed allah commands they migrate to a place where they are free to live under sharia law and worship their satanic diety allah and his demon possessed messenger anyway they desire!
If they refuse to migrate and die while being oppressed allah states they will go to hell,
Should we tell ibrihim hooper and the palis?

Posted by: thndrbang1 at January 1, 2007 11:32 AM

In today's New Duranty Times there are photographs of 3,000 American war dead. Do those photographs affect you as would the photographs of Iraqi war dead? No. And you know why. And even among those 3,000, some affect you more than others, and you know why. And you know why you care, or should, not indiscriminately and equally about the whole wide world, but rather, feel loyalties, or joy and grief, based on a series of concentric circles, extending out from one's relatives to friends, and then on, to those to whom one feels ties of special sympathy or can identify with.

Those who claim that we should care about "all of the dead" are ignoring a reality that makes sense. How many of us, in 1944 or 1945, cared about the fire-bombing of Dresden or Hamburg? Or about the similar treatment meted out to Japanese cities? Before answering this question, make sure you put yourself back in time, and keep carefully in mind what the menace was, and how the Germans and the Japanese were behaving, and only then answer that question.

When you see the Sunni Arabs in Tikrit, around the grave of Saddam Hussein, or the Shi'a Arabs at one of their mass gatherings (in Iraq, or to salute Nasrallah), what is your feeling? Whjat about the hyseteria and hate of those car-swarming "Palestinians" marching in Gaza, declaring that "with our blood" we will destroy the Jews of Israel, etc.? What's your feeling? Tenderness? Empathy? A deep human sympathy, based on some insistence that if "only" they had been raised properly, if only they had this or that (jobs, prosperity, a lifetime health-club membership to work off all that aggression), things would be different.

There's quite enough of this identification and sympathy for the enemy going around the Western world. No one, out of moral preening or sheer silliness, should succumb to the temptation to add to it.

Posted by: Hugh at January 1, 2007 11:37 AM

here is the tasfir to the above ayah, notice even with muhammad the muslims didnt care who it was they killed, even then with muhammad at their side they slaughtered other muslims, so muhammad blamed those muslims he slaughtered for their own deaths. its that old "blame the victim" rule the muslims still practice today!

Tafsir al-Jalalayn: surah 4}_97
The following was revealed regarding a group of people who submitted to Islam but did not emigrate and were then slain in the battle of Badr alongside the disbelievers: And those whom the angels take [in death], while they are wronging their souls, having remained among the disbelievers and neglected to emigrate, the angels will say, to them in rebuke: 'What was your predicament?', in other words, 'in what circumstances were you with regard to your religion'. They will say, giving excuses, 'We were oppressed, unable to establish religion, in the land', the land of Mecca. The angels will say, to them in rebuke: 'But was not God's earth spacious that you might have emigrated therein?', from the land of unbelief to another land, as others did? God, exalted be He, says: as for such, their abode shall be Hell - an evil journey's end, it is!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at January 1, 2007 11:39 AM

Hugh,
The ONLY dead Muslims in the M.E. that i genuinely have sorrow for are the children ( the only true INNOCENT muslim/victims)

The rest? i truly do not have any pity for those who side with Evil . Islam would put the world to the sword and burn it if it could ,and it aims to . I am no believer in the moderate myth either,( they had their opportunity to show their colors, and they have ) the world stands on the brink of an all out Battle between the Good , Freedom loving tolerant peoples, and the Evil, freedom hating Thugs of the violent destructive Blood cult know as ISLAM!. The time for ALL to choose their side is NOW. how on earth could i have pity for a Culture or people that strap Bombs on themselves and their Babies, and a religion that has such a Zest/joy for DESTROYING all life, and destroying all Ideologies that do not jive with those Barbaric, hateful teachings of the Qu'ran?

I don't. i can't

Happy new year ISLAM!
Keep up the good work!!, your efforts are making it easier for the West to see your true Evil intentions and to very soon come to the consensus that your days have to be numbered.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at January 1, 2007 12:28 PM

The infamous marxist cynic and bon motter Marshall McLuhan once quipped that "the medium is the message".

Is the world really in a flux of "re-primitivisation"?

Isn't it more accurate to say that third world primitives now own first world megaphones to spread their heinous lies and propaganda as never before? And that they've simply gotten their hands on such fantastic piles of loot that they now have the ability to spread their lies and propaganda via the new Roman thoroughfares of capitalism? The exports of the Muslims, the Marxists, and the Socialists join today with all the other free flowing capital, goods, and services throughout the planet.

Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference, but one can just easily argue that the world is as primitive as it's ever been, and he/she would be correct.

Reciprocally, one can easily argue that the world is less primitive than it's ever been, and he/she would also be correct.

So what is the nature of the world today?

A foolish guard in Abu Ghraib photographs a terrorist in a hood with wires attached, and the image is so perfectly tailored to fit the yearnings of the world to depict theU.S. military machine as an atrocious one that that becomes the reality for the U.S. Military in the minds of the world despite the unreality of the extrapolation. The mechanism to spread the slander most widely, ironically, was the internet.

We see how a series of mere photos can harm and severely subvert the half $trillion/year U.S. Military and all of America's good intentions when the world is eager to consume such distortions and propaganda. The $500 billion spent in Iraq and the 3,000 deaths of our troops count for very little against these lies and the insatiable hunger that generates them. As arbiters, bailiffs, judge and jury in that so-called "Court of Public Opinion", the world press, along with all the retrograde forces on earth define reality as it suits itself. They serve the inndictments, preside, and convict with great eagerness. That self-same Orwellian kangaroo court then deplores with great umbrage the "kangaroo court" which sentenced Hussein to his well deserved death. It's a strange world indeed -- a world gone crazy.

Elsewhere on 9/11, we saw how, with about $2 million in funding, and a small network of Muslims which numbered probably under 200 or 300 individuals, several TRILLION dollars in damages and thousands of deaths were caused among the infidels.

Force multiplication seems to be the name of the game for our enemy. And in most cases, he's deftly using our own inventions and our own capital, much in the same way he used our planes, our fuel, and the weight of our buildings to wreak havoc.

How do we win, when, with very little expenditure and very few operatives Muslims are able to harm, subvert, and destory trillions of $$$ and all good will from the various infidel treasuries??? There isn't enough money in our treasuries to fight them on the current playing field -- so somehow we must change the playing field. But how?

This is a hot and cold war at once. It is a war of traditional killing, but it's also an information war.

Our Muslim enemy is addicted to, and requires the steady application of lies and distortions to perpetuate his reality. So do the Socialists, and the Communists who are increasingly coalescing with the Muslim parasites in a simulacrum of shared agendas. We have entered a binary world -- one in which two polar world views are competing for dominance: The Individual vs. The Collective.

The match between the various collectivisms; world Islam, world Communism, world Socialism, are gradually merging into a somewhat singular agenda to annihilate the individual utterly. PC in Europe has stifled the debate about Islam, and the Socialist Boondoggles which underpin Political Correctness itself. It has also infected Europe, and to a lesser degree, America, with the disease of "multi-culturalism" -- which is the death of morality and the death of spirituality.

And this merging needn't become a monoculture, and it needn't work out all the myriad bugs, kinks, and differences therein in order to become devastatingly effective against us as individuals. Despite all the promises of utopia each collectivist ideology proffers, each is really a destructive retrograde and deadly force against the individual. Each requires the annihilation of the individual, and strives to place the collective above him in every way. In the end there's little difference between them. All are dark religions.

Posted by: jsla at January 1, 2007 1:18 PM

Hello tgusa (and perhaps Hugh),

I think that you have not understood my post. I was expressing concern about the kind of people that we may become as we seek to defeat our enemies.

We have to fight those who seek to enslave or destroy us, and we should do so with all necessary means. I don't contest this.

At the same time, I hope that we do not ourselves become disfigured in the process. That's why it seems best to me to regret, rather than to take pleasure in, the necessity to destroy people in the thrall of a monstrous system as we seek to destroy the system itself.

Lack of compassion for the 'other' is one of the hallmarks of the Islamic mindset. Should we be like that too?

I wish you well.

Sincerely yours,

Sam Conner

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at January 1, 2007 1:42 PM

Actually, Islam meant progress -- 1300 years ago. Still today, except for its two flavors, the majority of Iraqis (along with the majority of the rest of the Muslim world) have never developed loyalties beyond the level of the family/clan/tribe. The Western model -- of individual liberty accompanied by individual loyalty to a nation/state that more-or-less guarantees those liberties -- is almost wholly unknown there.

IMHO, people generally get the government they deserve. Strongmen, such as Sadaam, arise because they are able -- by whatever expedient/neccessary means -- to keep enough of a lid on revenge killings and inter-tribal feuds so that some semblance of commerce may occur. (We all gotta eat, don't ya know.) The violence that ensued, after the US kicked over the whole pot, was no wonder. In fact, it was a no-brainer. (Note to George W. Bush: "Duh....")

If the West wants to strengthen individual-liberty/individual-loyalty in Iraq, it might be a good idea to underwrite it. Or more to the point, jawbone the nominal Iraqi government into underwriting it. How? By establishing a fund, on the model of the Alaska Permanent Fund (Check: http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/), which would pay royalties from the country's oil revenues to each-and-every individual Iraqi (at the same time taking those revenues out of the hands of the sectarians, with whom the nominal government is rife).

U.S. News and World Report columnist Michael Barone has advocated this course for years. (Check: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22alaska+permanent+fund%22+AND+%22michael+barone%22&btnG=Search). Steve Forbes, as recently as last Fall if not earlier, has also come out for such a fund. (Check: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/26/business/NA_FIN_US_Forbes_Iraq.php).

Commentary, here as elsewhere, that the US can blithely mount an invasion, then after three or four years say, "Oops! That didn't work out so well" and withdraw, is naïve in the extreme. George H.W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, when after the Gulf War he signalled the Shia that he'd back them against Sadaam, then left them high-and-dry. America ought to consider how much more blood it wants on its hands -- and this time the victims will be singled out from among the West's "friends," namely that significant minority of Iraqis who have risen up to fight for "liberal democracy." And that's not to mention the strategic stupidity of allowing Iraq to become a terroist haven (just like Afganistan under the Taliban, only a lot bigger and a lot meaner) -- which is exactly what will happen should the US turn tail and run, which nevertheless at this point is its most likely course.

Sheesh.

Historically, the way societies "get to know" one another is via war. For instance, it took WW-I and WW-II for the Germans to suffer the French and English visa versa. I say: Take a page from Radio Free Europe during the Cold War, but conglomerate the program with other media and put it on steroids. Flood the joint with Bibles, beer, talkshows and porn.

Posted by: Steamer at January 1, 2007 2:34 PM

Islam is a religion of conflict. Its inconsistencies are deliberate. They allow Islam to be portrayed as a religion content to be one of many in peaceful coexistence, whereas the actuality is the aim of world domination and the death or forced conversion of all Infidels. Does expessing this truth make one liable for prosecution as a racist hate-preacher? That is a question for us all.

Posted by: meekee at January 1, 2007 3:09 PM

George H.W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, when after the Gulf War he signalled the Shia that he'd back them against Sadaam, then left them high-and-dry. America ought to consider how much more blood it wants on its hands -- and this time the victims will be singled out from among the West's "friends," namely that significant minority of Iraqis who have risen up to fight for "liberal democracy."

Steamer,
Okay. Bush 41 made a mistake after the first Gulf War when he encouraged Iraqis to rise up. How long will that be held over our heads? We paid for it with twelve-plus years of monitoring the no-fly zones and protecting the Shia from Saddam. A lot of good it did. Why weren't they able to follow the same course as the Kurds? It took years, but the Kurds took advantage of the US presence to build a more peaceful society, not based on competing clans.
We finally got rid of Saddam and what did Shiites do with the opportunity that was presented to them? They SPAT on it, and on all coaltion members who fought and died for them.
At what point do we say: we tried to give you an opportunity to build a peaceful society. You weren't interested. We're going home now and we won't be coming back.
There may be a significant minority of Iraqis who want a peaceful democracy, but they're the ones who will have to decide whether that is a future worth fighting for. Al-Maliki is not willing to go against Moqtada al-Sadr because he needs his support to stay in office. That doesn't qualify him as a supporter of democracy, in my book anyway.
We stay there in support of a minority and we'll hear the same tired refrain we've heard for the last fifty years: we support governments that don't represent the majority of the people. When the Shiite regime becomes violent, as it is bound to do, we'll hear that we support dictators. The Iraqi people are grownups. They need to make their own choices. Choices have consequences. They need to accept those consequences. It's time we stopped accepting the blame for their failures.
Of all the world's religions, Islam has to be the biggest baby. How is it that most Islamic societies never evolved beyond tribalism? The "re-primitivization" of the world began with the spread of Islam, over thirteen hundred years ago. It did away with the medieval societies that were on their way to modernity and replaced them with primitive clans. The process was halted by the rise of the West but, as we can see now, that appears to have been temporary.

Posted by: PMK at January 1, 2007 3:18 PM

"Commentary, here as elsewhere, that the US can blithely mount an invasion, then after three or four years say, "Oops! That didn't work out so well" and withdraw, is naïve in the extreme."
-- from a poster above

"Flood the joint with Bibles, beer, talkshows and porn."
-- from the same poster

Neither part makes sense. Let's take #1 first. "Beer, talkshows, and porn" are not exports to be inflicted on others, but rather are something to try to cut down on in this country, and the notion that "exporting" these to a Muslim country would cause intelligent people in those countries to become less fervently Muslim is crazy. Infidels should intervene as little as possible, avoid the busybody temptation of attempting, vainly, to transplant this or that without a consideration of whether this or that can be transplanted given the tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam. Instead, force others to recognize the link between those tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics, to the failures, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, of the peoples and polities of Dar al-Islam. But in your series "Bibles, beer, talkshows, and porn" only the first is of value, and missionaries in Muslim lands have not been very successful, and in any case, the threat to those distributing or reading those Bibles is now great.

As to the other notion, a false one, that having lost 3,000 men and with 23,000 wounded, having spent or committed nearly $500 billion to people in Iraq -- not the non-existent "Iraqi" people -to free them from Saddam Hussein, who had ruled for thirty-five years and whose regime was prepared to rule for at least another thirty-five, at least 80% of those in Iraq, the Shi'a Arabs and the Kurds, are glad to have been freed. The Sunnis are not so glad, because even though Saddam Hussein favored Sunnis, he was still mercurial and murderous, and began to favor a smaller and smaller group, based in Tikrit, often related to him, and could at the end not be said to represent "the Sunnis" even if now, with the Shi'a dominance being so obvious and so menacing, many Sunnis have forgotten that and become wistful about the ending of Saddam Hussein's rule. The United States owes the "Iraqis" nothing. It is not "naive in the extreme" to say it is time to leave, or rather was time to leave three years ago. Your comment is the kind of thing one expects from Sunni Arab propagandists, and those who in the West, while they until yesterday were agitating for America to withdraw from Iraq, have suddenly discovered that we "owe" the Iraqis a continued presence in order to "prevent" that sectarian strife which was inevitable, and that has its roots not only in the entire reign of Saddam Hussein, not only in the history of modern Iraq, but in 1300 years of Sunni persecution of the Shi'a, which persecution can be observed today in Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and everywhere that a Shi'a minority has endured Sunni Arab rule.

It is "naive" rather to attribute the sectarian strife, which the Americans have been trying unsuccessfully to dampen, and trying by sacrifcing American lives in this impossible task, this fool's errand, to something the Americans have done -- unless of course you mean it would have been preferable to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Preferable, perhaps, for the Sunni Arabs who constitute 19% of the population, but not for the Kurds and Shi'a Arabs who cosntitute about 80% of the population.

Posted by: Hugh at January 1, 2007 3:36 PM

I beg your pardon, O Great and fearless leader, peace be unto you and all that rot, but your humble servant has not had her nose to the gridstone (o evil daughter of Eve, you know!)

Please, what is the meaning of this:

Amurath an Amurath succeeds.

----

Thank you ahead of time from your uncovered meat friend.

Posted by: Kay at January 1, 2007 3:41 PM

Isn't there a Sunni King available to turn into a "strongman"? It seems to me that clinging to the majority Shi'ite in Iraq is coddling the Iranian puppet. Why are we doing so? The next in line is Sharif Talal, I believe, and is a Hashemite, a direct descendant of Mohammed, which many would accept in Iraq. That would make him an ally along the line of the moderates in Jordan, and he is in fact, a cousin of the present King of Jordan. Sunnis in Iraq are tolerant, even of the Christians, didn't Saddam have a Christian sidekick? The Constitutional Monarchy is still valid I believe. You hear nothing of this, and I wonder why. It seems a cleaner exit strategy and long term solution. Much better than hacking the place up. Can any answer this?

Posted by: Kay at January 1, 2007 4:04 PM

Henry IV, Part II, scene 2:

Warwick
Here comes the prince.

Enter King Henry V, attended

Lord Chief-justice
Good morrow; and God save your majesty!

King Henry V
This new and gorgeous garment, majesty,
Sits not so easy on me as you think.
Brothers, you mix your sadness with some fear:
This is the English, not the Turkish court;
Not Amurath an Amurath succeeds,
But Harry Harry.

Posted by: Hugh at January 1, 2007 4:09 PM

And we've had to make do with the fact that (stepping over the puddle made by Bill) George George.

Posted by: remote_control at January 1, 2007 4:30 PM

"Not Amurath an Amurath succeeds, but Harry Harry."

In other words, in England the English are blessed by having one good English king Harry followed by another, the kind of kingly fellow who in Henry V will visit the troops in disguise the night before they will do battle -- "a little touch of Harry in the night" -- with the French, on St. Crispin's Day. But the Turk, with his despot, his Amurath succeeded only by another Amurath after some bloody warfare among half-brothers, until one of them finally kills enough of the threatening others to take power,and then his mother becomes the valide Sultan, and he’s a new Amurath.

And that was my point: those who executed Saddam Hussein are not those “ordinary mobs and dads in the Middl East” that Bush prates about, and may even believe exist. He knows nothing about Islam and refuses to try to learn, and to learn not only be reading once or twice, but by reading and studying and living with the material until he has made it is, has managed to assimilate it, has managed finally to understand. He can’t. He’s not smart enough, and he hasn’t enough time, and no one around him apparently will force him to do it or at least tell him, forcefully, what to think. And others – all of us, beginning with our hapless soldiers – are paying for this inability to learn, and failure to recognize that learning about Islam is no longer a choice our rulers can make, but a duty they must fulfill.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, that Amurath, will in the end be succeeded by another Amurath. That next Amurath may be a bemedalled general, or a street leader of brigades of Kalashnikov-toting black-balaclava-ed bezonians, goose-stepping along the boulevards of Baghdad. In Egypt, the Amuraths are the military men, vainglorious King-of-the-Arabs Nasser replaced by vainglorious King-of-Egypt Sadat, being replaced by merely exceedingly corrupt Friends-and-Family-Plan Mubarak. In Saudi Arabia, the Al-Saud family cannot be dislodged, but one line of succession can be replaced, in a war of succession, by another. And elsewhere it is the same thing. In Algeria assorted corrupt generals in the FLN line. In Syria, Assad and baby Assad, perhaps to be replaced a disaffected Alawite Air Force general waiting in the wings. Even in Jordan, there was a brief moment, when King Hussein died, over whom he had chosen, what baby amurath, to succeed him as uneasy-lies-the-head ruler of that baby kingdom, and ultimately plummy-voiced Prince Hassan, Hussein's brother, was passed over for the thick-necked Abdullah. Still, by Western standards of parliamentary democracy, Amuraths all.

That's what "Amurath" is all about.

And the motto here, from a song in a celebrated Shakespeare-based musical the title of which I suddenly cannot recall -- but I think it’s something like “Kiss Me, Kay” – is: Brush up your Shakespeare.

Posted by: Hugh at January 1, 2007 4:37 PM

"Isn't there a Sunni King available to turn into a "strongman"? It seems to me that clinging to the majority Shi'ite in Iraq is coddling the Iranian puppet. Why are we doing so? The next in line is Sharif Talal, I believe, and is a Hashemite, a direct descendant of Mohammed, which many would accept in Iraq. That would make him an ally along the line of the moderates in Jordan, and he is in fact, a cousin of the present King of Jordan. Sunnis in Iraq are tolerant, even of the Christians, didn't Saddam have a Christian sidekick?"
-- from a posting by Kay above

No and no.

The transfer of power to the Shi'a Arabs cannot be undone. The notion of setting on some throne of Iraq a Hashemite king was unrealistic when Bernard Lewis allowed himself to co-sign (with James Woolsey) an article for The Wall Street Journal suggesting just that. In Lewis's case it was merely a political advertisement for his friend, patron,and Ammann host, Prince Hassan (who has helped prevent Lewis from seeing many things clearly, or seeing them clearly when it is very late), the very candidate whom you offer up. And the suggestion is even more unrealistic today. The Shi'a are not going to sit still for a Sunni ruler, a king or, for that matter, a Sunni "strongman" (one commentator on Islam seriously suggested a Sunni member of the Al-Dulaimi tribe might be acceptable to the Shi'a. There was and is no evidence for this.) What makes you think the Americans, who cannot stop the Shi'a militias, cannot stop Moqtada al-Sadr, cannot get the Najaf ayatollahs to support them when they wanted to hold off on the execution of Saddam Hussein, can now call the tune?

The Americans are in trouble in Iraq. They are going to have a very difficult time withdrawing, without suffering all kinds of attacks, from Sunni and Shi'a Arabs allike, and the only locals they can count on are the Kurdish pesh merga, and the pesh merga cannot come down to guard or escort the Americans as they leave in the south -- so it is unclear what the routes of withdrawal will be. America has far less power with the Shi'a than you think, and just possibly it has dawned on the generals, if not yet on the nearly-hopeless Bush, that the American troops will not have it easy, removing the equipment and men -- it is in fact a very dangerous situation from them, which is one more reason for them to get out now, before complete chaos reigns.

As for this business of the Sunnis being nice to the Christians, it isn't true. The Christians of Iraq, if they are quite sincere ( some like to gloss over all the unpleasantness, as do some of the Baghdadi Jews whose memories of pre-1948 childhoods dim, and they never did know the full extent of the precariousness of their existence), know that they were tolerated by Saddam Hussein but only just, and Tariq Aziz (that is his islamized nom-de-cabinet) was simply a single tame Christian, useful in his post (foreign affairs) for meeting, wooing, and winning over foreigners -- a symbol of a hollow tolerance of which he was the misleading facade.

Posted by: Hugh at January 1, 2007 4:49 PM

Concerned Canadian,

I think you said it very nicely. It all comes under the heading of "relativism": No one civilization is greater than another, no religion has a better message than another. They are all equal; it's all in the eyes of the beholder, and non can justly be described as backward or primative.
In many American schools, 3rd and 4th rate tribes in Africa are studied as "Great civilizations", equavalent to the civilization of Athens and Rome, despite the fact that the people couldn' read or write, nor contributed a thing to world civilization.
In some schools, children are taught that America was founded on Judeo-Christian-Islamic moral principles, despite the fact that everything we stand for is anathema to Muslim beliefs.
God forbid that anyone should call the Hoten Tots a primative tribe, or Islam an immoral and violent belief system, or Western civilization an advanced and creative civilization, far superior to other civilizations, or that Judeo-Christian moral principles are the last beat hope for mankind.
We are are own worst enemy.

Posted by: rational at January 1, 2007 4:56 PM

"And that's not to mention the strategic stupidity of allowing Iraq to become a terroist haven (just like Afganistan under the Taliban, only a lot bigger and a lot meaner) -- which is exactly what will happen should the US turn tail and run, which nevertheless at this point is its most likely course."

-- From earlier poster

Saddam's Iraq was a terrorist haven. Stephen F. Hayes documents this clearly in the December 2006 Imprimis article, "Saddam's Iraq and Islamic Terrorism: What We Now Know".

Link: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/

I would propose that the strategic stupidity is not exploiting the intelligence gathered in Iraq to harden everyone's will in this fight and eliminate the enemies of civilization.

Posted by: No Islam Know Peace at January 1, 2007 6:07 PM

"Isn't there a Sunni King available to turn into a "strongman"?"

Been there, done that.
The Brits did it back in 1919 or 1920. Two brothers who had led the Arab revolt were each given their own kingdom: Iraq and Transjordan.
Brits thought both would be controllable on the throne, where they would make problems if left to roam and instigate revolts.
The guy who was given Iraq was later assassinated. Unlike Spain, no one in Iraq seems ready to accept the return of a monarch.

It would be the same story all over again, anyway. All we'll hear is how the US "installed" a puppet leader to dominate Iraq and steal its oil.

Posted by: PMK at January 1, 2007 6:23 PM

Thank you very much, Hugh. That was very informative, however grim. I fear that we cannot look to our European friends for any support. Their latest fad appears to be the glorification of "secularism" and throw Judeo Christian values and Islam into the same "extremist" pot, demonizing both.

I'm not sure how Western civilization can find the will to fight without believing in liberty that is unassailable because it is endowed by a "Creator" instead of a police state. Who then, if there is no God, has the right to take right to liberty away from the people? All too easy it would be. I'll stick to God, thank you very much!

I'm afraid the Europeans take it as a priori knowledge that liberty is a universal virtue and everyone knows it is beneficial to civilization. I get these opinions from discussing issues on forums like this one.

I am considered very bigoted, racist, Islamophobic, paranoid, and an extremist Christian fanatic, who is more dangerous than the most extreme Muslim. "Get rid of the Christians, and there will be peace. They stir it all up, you know" is the typical attitude. "Secularism will cure everything. The Islamists will come here and see how superior we are and will secularize too. Now shut up and stop being a hateful bigot!" It is quite depressing.

Anyhow, I will brush up on my Shakespeare, and next time, I will be more careful not to raise ire for my lack of intelligent questions! Thanks for the answers.

Posted by: Kay at January 1, 2007 8:20 PM

So what about that kiss?

Posted by: Hugh at January 1, 2007 8:37 PM

When I enter these forums I feel a number of emotions. One is my ignorance in the company of such articulate and learned people. A second is that the views expressed here are accessed only by the interested, indeed one might say, the converted. A third is the futility of what we do ... we need to reach a greater audience, but how? That is our problem and one that is made ever more difficult in the face of legal restrictions on freedom of speech and the multi-cultural nonsense predominant in Western societies. We are losing the battles and the war.

Posted by: meekee at January 1, 2007 9:13 PM

Esteemed Hugh: you've said it all.

" Neither the texts, nor the observable past or present behavior of Muslim peoples, suggests that we should be comforted by the belief, offreed without the slightest evidence, that "most people in the world are good people and prefer peace over war." I don't accept your claim that all people "want peace."
----------

"as to peace on Earth"

I know you're right, I always laugh at the song "Let There Be Peace on Earth." And ask myself, just what kind of peace is that? It's a dangerous song and a wish, I never sing it.

Posted by: allat at January 1, 2007 9:17 PM

Heavens, no.

No kisses without Awschylus or Euripides, Homer or Sophocles, Sappho-ho or the Bard on Avon.

No taming for this shrew!

Posted by: Kay at January 1, 2007 10:14 PM

Thanks for another superb essay. I'd like to humbly differ on just one point. I think that it is not a good thing for us to look forward with pleasure to intra-Islamic fratricide, to take satisfaction in the suffering that the Muslim world will inflict on itself if it turns its hostilities away from us infidels and instead tears itself to shreds.

-from a poster

Well perhaps the suffering is the only way that the "rational" amongst them will see the light that the religious Islamic thugs that rule them must be killed, jailed and toatally eliminated. If corrupt. Koranic dogma is inspiration to kill each other, then better for them to do the killing to each other than to an "enlightened human being."

It seems that even so called Muslim Somalis and Sudanese have seen the light. May they further be enlightened by Christian missionary compassion to reject the Jiahdist Dogma of Death and violence. The Palistinians don't seem to get the message as they too seek to extinguish themselves as they try to decide what is the best way to carry out Evil against the Jews.

The more Inter-Islamic fratricide, the better.

Posted by: Briars at January 1, 2007 10:38 PM

Meekee:

The battle is is in its infant stages regarding the Defenders of Freedom. The Jiahdists have a big head start but the covers of their crime are slowly being exposed.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Think of the conviction that stands behind that message. It upholds the goodness of all mankind. The Jiahdists have lies, oppression and an idealogy based on submission and not Freedom.
Like Hitler, it will not withstand them.

Take faith. Through a good friend and sites like these I have only been aware for a little over a year about the Jiahdist plague, yet it seems like a lifetime. I will devote the rest of my lifetime and use all the God given talents I have at my disposal to defeat them.

You are not alone. Your spirit is meshed with those who believe in the positive advancement of the destiny of our human race and the souls who gave their lives so that advancement would continue.

Posted by: Briars at January 1, 2007 10:58 PM

Mother Ecclesiastica/

As requested, but it is bad translation.

Whilst passing by Lorraine

While passing by Lorraine,
With my shoes,
Met three captains
With my ringing gifted shoes,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

2.
Met three captains,
With my shoes,
They called me unpleasant,
With my shiny gifted shoes,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

3.
They called me unpleasant,
With my shoes,
I am not so unpleasant,
With my honest gifted shoes,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

4.
I am not so unpleasant,
With my shoes,
Since the son of the king likes me,
With my scuffed and gifted shoes,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

5.
Since the son of the king likes me,
With my shoes,
He gave me for a New Year's gift,
With my shoes of honest toil,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

6.
He gave me for a New Year's gift,
With my shoes,
A pretty foot of verbena,
With my scented, gifted shoes,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

7.
A pretty foot of verbena,
With my shoes,
I planted it in the plain,
With my honest shoes of toil,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

8.
I planted it in the plain,
With my shoes,
If it flowers I will be queen,
With my shiny gifted shoes,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

9.
If it flowers I will be queen,
With my shoes,
And if he dies I lose my sorrow,
With my ringing gifted shoes,
Oh, oh, oh! with my shoes!

This song dates from, in some form or another, the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It was originally about Rennes not about Lorraine but it was changed in the second empire times and the new version was sung in order to remind everybody of the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to the Germans.

The word 'dondaine' is not really translatable, I am not very sure that it has any real meaning to anybody other than a native speaker of French well acquainted with the construction of French folk songs, as it appears to be, to me, nothing more than a rhyming filler word, so I have drawn all the various changes on it in each verse from the original song about Rennes - and other similar rhymes and songs - (which, some suggest, was originally a very bad French pun on 'reine' (who knows?). What is obvious is that this song is deeply embedded in the French folk consciousness and probably re-interprets its symbolism and meaning from generation to generation, as all good things of this type do.

Incidentally, some reckon that this song started out life as referring to a prostitute who caught the eye of a nobleman and hopes for better times. 'Reine' (Rennes) seems to have meant, in common argot (in the twelve and thirteen hundreds), a lady of the night - but a good and honest one who deserves better and verbena seems to have been slang for conception of a child - it usually symbolises the loss of innocence, the goddess mature, bedded and knowing at midsummer. Again, who knows?

Hope this helps.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 1, 2007 11:48 PM

"No kisses without Awschylus..."
-- from a posting above

Sometimes a typo is more than a typo. Sometimes it is a Greco-Freudian slip. No one writes "Awschylus" for "Aeschylus" unless that someone is actually thinking of the homophonic (in its two initial syllables) "osculation," which means "the act of kissing, a kiss," a word not to be confused with "occultation" which is what Hidden Imams like to do, and we should be happy to let them, because it keeps those Hidden Imams off the street.

You know the line from that old song: "Her mouth said "no, no" but her eyes said "yes,yes." You may think you have been insisting "no, no" but that typo says "yes, yes."

I rest my case.

Posted by: Hugh at January 1, 2007 11:59 PM

Try to imagine a Muslim Washington, a Muslim Jefferson, a Muslim Adams, a Muslim Madison, James Wilson, Clay or Webster or Calhoun or John Randolph of Roanoke, a Muslim Lincoln, or for that matter a Muslim John Marshall, a Muslim Louis Brandeis, a Muslim Oliver Wendell Holmes. You can't. And you know why.

And try to imagine a Muslim Condorcet, a Muslim Rousseau, a Muslim Voltaire, a Muslim Whitman, a Muslim Marx, a Muslim Nietzsche, a Muslim Popper, a Muslim Sartre, a Muslim Allen Ginsberg, a Muslim Woody Allen, a Muslim Pollock, a Muslim Howard Stern... i.e., even in our disease, the West is light years beyond Islam.

Posted by: remote_control at January 2, 2007 12:05 AM

Mother Ecclesiastica/

And I have just been informed that the Three Captains could refer to the pillars of the state; and that 'sabot' could have had many different meanings over the centuries - muffled bell, contraception, something carved from the tree of life, the Holy Rood, etc, etc; and that the son of the king phrase could refer to Jesus.

Heavens - it seems that one could write a doctoral thesis on this one song alone!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 2, 2007 12:17 AM

I don't think "Sappho-ho" was a typo, either (seeing how she was a great Lesbian poetess).

anyway, someone had posted something about a poster being a "racist" for having the audacity to mention (i guess in the same sentence) "camels and tents" in association with Arabs (and went on to accuse everyone of being "morons"). I think political correctness has reached the ultimate in absurdities if one cannot mention "camels and tents" with respect to Arabs. What's next? Dare anyone to mention haggis, kilts and bagpipes -- or will such a scandalous reference amount to "racism"? Such idiocy!

Oh, might add, that it's Arabs who reference camels (and female ones at that) with "the intifada." Yeah, I ROTFL...

Posted by: J.S. at January 2, 2007 12:26 AM

Forgot to add -- I do think it is unseemly that someone would gloat over the savages going after one another (say, Shiite vs Sunni). I balk at that. (Just as those Shiite at Saddam's execution, taunting him as he was about to die -- that's NOT good, that's not decent, that's being less than civilized...) We must refrain from such barbarism (we cannot afford to condone it, or encourage it -- we should denounce it when we see it.)

Also, I don't think Muslims will ever become Christians -- everyone can just forget that prospect -- but perhaps Muslims can become secular -- that's a hope. Hence, I think increased secularisation is a good thing.

Posted by: J.S. at January 2, 2007 12:39 AM

Hugh/

'Occultation'? As in the West being eclipsed, or obscured, or lost forever, behind islam rising?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at January 2, 2007 12:50 AM

"Occultation" is a reference to the Mahdi -- the slime ball -- climbing up out of da well...that's what the Twelvers (as in the Prez of iran) believe, anyway.

Posted by: J.S. at January 2, 2007 1:10 AM

Oh, help! I am undone!

Posted by: Kay at January 2, 2007 1:16 AM

"undone" as in insufficiently cooked?

Posted by: J.S. at January 2, 2007 1:38 AM

We eat Arabs at this site (always good for breakfast). Personally, though, I prefer the self-basting varieties...

Posted by: J.S. at January 2, 2007 2:01 AM

Ask everyone you meet/see/know if they PREFER war over peace.
Ask them which one they think is better for the world.
I can't deny the warlike nature of this world, but I can hear the answers of the individuals.
The promotion of the death of innocents is wrong.
The promotion of the death of those who would kill me are correct.

"The fact remains that most people in the world are good people and prefer peace over war."
I stick by it.My glass is always half-full.

Posted by: HawkWatcher at January 2, 2007 7:09 AM

do not forget Al-Sistani is Al-Sadrs boss.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 2, 2007 8:04 AM

Don't concern yourself that Bush doesn't know what he's doing. So far he is strategically doing everything right. In order to solve this problem we need to use SCIENCE. In particular we need to see what Iraqis do in an environment of freedom. To see what impact freedom of speech will have on their culture/ideology.

At the same time we also need to establish a new military doctrine of wars of liberation vs wars of conquest.

America has leveraged into the world's resources as best she can. We need feedback from a couple of dozen more liberations before we can get a better handle on the opposing forces and how best to deal with them. I expect Iran will look very different from both Afghanistan and Iraq, but at the moment we're still guessing. We desperately need that feedback. While still making sure that no-one takes away freedom of speech in Afghanistan and Iraq. Note that Afghanistan, supposedly unconquerable, is tying down very few troops. Everything is going fine. Just make sure the Republicans are reelected.

Posted by: Paul Edwards at January 2, 2007 9:12 AM

"Don't concern yourself that Bush doesn't know what he's doing. So far he is strategically doing everything right."
-- from a posting above

Utter nonsense.

Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do.

No, on second thought, don't forgive them. They have managed to squander and are continuing to squader, quite unnecessarily, out of their own ignorance, American lives, American mooney, American war materiel, and the morale of soldiers and civilians alike.

Don't forgive them. Mock them up and down, expose their obstinate ignorance, and demand that any candidate for President or anything else oppose the continuation of this wasteful presence in Iraq, but for the right reasons -- to more effectively counter the instruments of Jihad, and especially Da'wa and demographic conquest in Western Europe.

Posted by: Hugh at January 2, 2007 10:44 AM

Unless of course it was all meant as a joke, an extreme statement of the Bush loyalists, who see brilliance where there is only confusion and ignorance and obstinacy.

If meant as a joke, perfectly fine.

If meant seriously, then my reply stands, and in spades.

Posted by: Hugh at January 2, 2007 10:45 AM

Posted by: Paul Edwards:

"In order to solve this problem we need to use SCIENCE. In particular we need to see what Iraqis do in an environment of freedom. To see what impact freedom of speech will have on their culture/ideology."

The results of the experiment are in: Democracy and Islam are incompatible.

Hugh told you so!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at January 2, 2007 12:52 PM

'Forgive them Lord ..' posted by Hugh

O.K. Say we agree that you know all there is to know about Islam, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan .. say we all agree to that.
But do you know anything about the USA? Like how half (or more) of the electorate do not care about Islam, have no knowledge of Islam, have no understanding of the outside world. These are decent, God-fearing people who cannot comprehend that creatures of evil are bent on destroying western christian democracy whilst at the same time such creatures are promulgating that the Islamic creed seeks only peaceful co-existence. All over the United States Islamists are being allowed to flourish, mosques are being constructed on state grants, politicians are claiming the right to swear allegiance on the Koran. Only a small minority appreciate the inherent dangers of Islam and its desire for the absolute supremacy of its teachings and legal system.
Dubya knows what is going on, knows how difficult it is to educate the American people, knows he is lampooned by brainless talkshow hosts, knows the west should settle in for the long haul, knows his popularity would soar again if he began a troop withdrawal ...
So, Hugh, genius that you probably imagine yourself to be, and possibly are, what would you do if you were in George Walker Bush's place now, and to pre-empt one obvious escape route, before the Iraq invasion?

Posted by: meekee at January 2, 2007 2:59 PM

I would just like to say to Genevieve that it was not until Christianity began to lose its hold on humans in the west that society and science began to thrive. In fact, it was Christianity (or its adherents' interpretation of Christianity) that held back progress in those areas up until the Enlightenment at the very earliest.

Fundamentalism is the problem, of whatever stripe. We see it here in the USA (peace be upon US) where fundamentalists are trying to retard or eliminate science in our schools.

I want to add, though, that there are striking differences between Christianity and Islam that even for me indicate the superiority of the Christian view. For example, during the furor over the famous "piss Christ" "art piece" and the NEA, we did not see Chrsitians rioting and burning and murdering in protest. They sought change through legal, established means, and that alone marks the superiority of the Western way of doing things.

Posted by: ProofPlease at January 2, 2007 3:30 PM

Proofplease, you are citing the Old Testament as a source of conceptualization of Christian principles. Since the New Testament calls the Old 'obsolete', this is an error. You must use the New Testament for principles to compare religions. Christians favor forgiveness over vengeance, which give us the concept of forget about it and move on, as opposed to the concept of honor vengeance that holds much of the world in thrall. It is very compatible with social order and stable economies. Christianity is unique in this concept and this is what makes western civilization 'superior'. It is an extreme view to believe that fundamental Christianity wants to "eliminate" anything, to say so is nonsense. Perhaps you might want to google Dr. Frances Collins as an example of scientists who hold to fundamentalist Christianity. As I said earlier, it is exactly this mentality, held by proofplease, that drags Christianity into the same mold as Islam, and enthrones secularism as a new motto. Secularism has no personal devotion, no positive idea so necessary for confronting an enemy. Humans are only willing to fight for an ideal they can cherish, and secularism is the tossing away of those ideals, replacing them with relativism which has no right and wrong to fight for. This is why the West is dying, especially in Europe.

Posted by: Kay at January 2, 2007 6:13 PM

"what would you do if you were in George Walker Bush's place now, and to pre-empt one obvious escape route, before the Iraq invasion?"
-- from a posting above

I would never be in Bush's place, because I would have undertaken, as a duty, the study of Islam, beginning on September 12, 2001. I would have read, and re-read, Qur'an and Hadith and the life of Muhammad. I would have asked for texts describing the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam. I would not have gone to the ranch to chop wood, ever. I would have read Camus's "The Stranger" or any other book on baseball or some biography of someone. I would have spent the last five years doing nothing but coming to understand the texts, the tenets, the attitudes of Islam, and exactly what forces within the Camp of Islam could be exploited to weaken that camp, and finally, I would have asked for as much information as possible on the various instruments of Jihad, and would have realized soon enough that neither "terror" nor open warfare of a more conventional sort is the main problem now facing Infidels.

But Bush did none of that. And furthermore, he failed to understand the sectarian split in Iraq between Shi'a and Sunni, and failed to understand the depth and duration of that split. He failed, furthermore, to understand that "democracy" itself is not a panacea, that is also unlikely to appeal to Muslims whose belief-system teaches the men are the slaves of Allah, and that their opinions should not matter in deciding on the legitimacy of a regime, but only that regime's adherence to Islam, that is whether or not it is in accordance with the teachings and rules of Islam, and whether the ruler himself is a true Muslim. That, and not "democracy," is what most Muslims understand and wish for.

What would I do now? Announce right away that we will be pulling out, beginning within a few weeks, that the pullout will take 4-6 months, that arrangements will be made with local forces for security (that probably means the Pesh Merga, the only local force that can be trusted), and that this was being done becuase of all the wonderful things that the Americans had accomplished had been accomplished:

1) the Removal of a ruthless dictator, and his sons, and his entire ruling class. (Don't bother announcing that his likely successors, all of them, are despots too - but this time Shi'a despots.

2) the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, power stations and so on had been accmplished (don't bother to say that billions of dollars were stolen by Iraqis, that many Iraqi contractors were never monitored and never did the work they promised, or did shoddy work).

3) the Iraqis now have a wriitten Constitution (Don't bother explaining that that Constitution says that no law may contradict the Shari'a).

4) the "Iraqi people" must now prove to the world, but most of all to themselves, that they are ready, willing, and able to extend the hand of friendship and necessary comrommise to each other (Don't bother mentioning that there is no "Iraqi people" but rather Sunni Arabs, who will never acquiesce in their loss of power, and Shi'a Arabs, who will never compromise with the Sunnis or give up the power they now hold in their hands, acquired both through that purple-thumbed election and also through sheer numbers and through their own terrifying militias.

5) we wish "the Iraqi people" well and if they can exhibit that "true spirit of compromise" we will "be there fore them" (don't bother to mention that there is no chance of this, because Islam is a belief-system in which "compromise" with one's enemy is unknown, for there is only victor and vanquished). Also don't bother to note that you are simply lying. Lying -- it's allowed when you are dealing with an enemy. Got that, Americans "taking aleadership role"? You can offer reassurances to Muslims that you have no intention of honoring. That's right. It's called war.

6) Get out, and immediately, without further ado, start a whole series of measures -- even as the crowing about an "American defeat" will be heard, but heard less and less as the Sunni Arabs everywhere realize that the Americans have now withdrawn their protection from the Sunni Arabs of Iraq, and that unless they, the Sunni Arab neighbors, do something, Iraq will indeed fall to the "Rafidite dogs," those Shi'a, those "Persians."

7) Send a few thousand troops to Darfur -- or if necesary, do it with those Ethiopian troops right on the Sudan's southern border. Seize the southern Sudan and Darfur, shooting down any plane or helicopter sent by the Sudanese government, and do so announcing, as those grateful faces of black Africans surround the American forces, that the Sudanese government has betrayed every promise it has made, and that these areas will be held until an international referendum registering the desires of the southern Sudanese, Christians and animists, and the people of Darfur, black African Muslims murdered by the Arab Muslims, have had a chance to declare their views on independence, an independence that would be supported by the oil wealth already in the southern Sudan, and potentially in Darfur.

Let the Arab League scream about the divine right of Arabs to lord it over black Africans. Let's see how that goes over.

8) Declare an end to Muslim immigration to the United States until there is greater clarity, at all levels of government, about what the belief-system of Islam actually teaches. Call in not the espositos and armstrongs, but Hans Jansen, and Bernard Lewis, and others, including some perhaps associated with this website, to discuss what exactly is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira.

9) Read Saudi Arabia the riot act about the continued funding of mosques and madrasas and Muslim groups that are regarded as instruments furthering Jihad. Tell the Al-Saud that in World War II the assets of enemy aliens were seized, and that can happen again.

10) Announce that a sizable tax, increasing every six months, will be placed on gasoline, and that the proceeds of that tax will be used only for energy-related projects, including the building of nuclear plants, solar and wind energy projects, cleaner methods of coal-burning, and subsidies for mass transit.

11) Set up a department of war propaganda that will identify themes to exploit in attempting to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam.

All of these things, and many others I won't bother to list here at the moment (many have been posted over the past few years, and repeatedly) should be done quickly so that the American public is reassured that the withdrawal is being done not in order to appease, or to give up on attempts to check the various instruments of Jhad, but rather to do so with less squandering of men, money, materiel, and morale.

That's what I'd do were I the President. And I'd begin to frame things correctly, too -- no more "war on terror." No more sentimental crap about "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East." No more stupidity as a way of life.

Posted by: Hugh at January 2, 2007 7:16 PM

Hugh:
Not too impressed with your response to part two of my query ... GWB is a politician who like most United States politicians knew very little about foreign affairs. 7/11 forced some sort of response, and as a free world liberal sort of guy he, and his advisers, thought up the idea of a war on terror from which democratic institutions would emerge and spread through the Middle East. It is obviously a long haul policy at a great expense for the American people and everyone is learning as they go along. In a weird sort of way you seem to be advocating long term study of Islam as a criterion for election to the United States Presidency. US politics does not work like that, and if Hilary gets in next time the buzz word will be capitulation not confrontation.
On the other hand, I think that a huge amount of what you suggest in part one as measures for immediate implementation is truly brilliant. I love the ironic proposal to imitate the Islamic creed of lying and denying. I love your ideas and I do admire your dedication to the cause.
Is there any way that you can get these proposals shown to George Walker Bush? Have you any friends in high places? Or have you alienated the Bush government too much in the past? If you indeed have, God help you if the Clintonian Democrats form the next government of the United States of America.
Thanks for your reply. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Posted by: meekee at January 2, 2007 8:00 PM

Islam has ALWAYS been as primitive as it gets.

Islam truly IS a religion' of Cro-magnon relicts, FOR Cro-magnon relicts, and BY Cro-Magnon relicts.

So, Now the world is going Cro-Magnon!!! Courtesy of Islam!!!!!!!

AND...

The Communist-bloc nations get an honorable mention here for making this possible!!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at January 2, 2007 10:18 PM

with respect to point 11 -- i happened the other day to read some material written by a Professor whose specialty is Islam and the Medieval mind...that's how they think differently from "the moderns." I believe such knowledge is also essential (along with a deep understanding of aberrant, psycho-pathologies or "how to deal with psychopaths.")

Posted by: J.S. at January 2, 2007 11:25 PM

hmm..shortly after 9/11, I signed up for e-mail from this group of Muslims who claimed to be opposed to terrorism. the leader sent out little missives, including such things as "prayers." I have rarely been so shocked -- so utterly stunned -- it was like confronting a "mind" in the midst of the Inquisition or the Dark Ages (complete and utter darkness...) Any "modern" reading such things would HAVE to swear off any religion (primitive, barbarous, superstitions -- of no redeeming value)

Posted by: J.S. at January 2, 2007 11:29 PM

The Muslim "prayer" sounded as if it had been written by a psychotic -- i guess that's what I found it so horrid and frightening -- it went on about "the evil one" and the "evil one who whispers" (like some psychotically delusional imaginings of a paranoid). It was sooo creepy (when you encounter this 7th century "mind-set" then I think you have a better understanding of how they can commit murder in the name of their religion -- it's like a psychosis. It also makes you much more secular (and anti-religious).

Posted by: J.S. at January 2, 2007 11:41 PM

Well, what are you waiting for, J.S. give us a couple of examples we can use on liberal forums! We could use the ammunition!

Posted by: Kay at January 3, 2007 12:03 AM

"In a weird sort of way you seem to be advocating long term study of Islam as a criterion for election to the United States Presidency."
--- from a posting above

Yes.

And why "in a weird sort of say"? Shouldn't our leaders be expected to know about Islam? "Long-term study" does not mean they have to spend every day and every night, but for god's sake, they have to learn enough to find out what is in, for example, the hadith, and what Muhammad was all about (they should be able, for example, to know that he is regarded as the Perfect Man, and then should also know about the Khaybar Oasis attack, the Banu Qurayza decapitation, the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, little Aisha -- and the effects of this example on the behavior of Muslims in the 1350 years since). They should know how the Qur'an's contradictions are resolved, through the interpretive doctrine of abrogation, or "naskh"), and know not only Sura 9 but all the verses about Jihad or about the division between Believer and Infidel. They should ahve some acquiantance with what the jursiconsults and other major figures wrote subsequently about Jihad -- Al-Ghazali, for example, or Ibn Khaldun.

It could be done in a week's solid tutorial, round the clock. And should be done by all those who now run for office -- it is the absolute minimum one can and should ask of them.

Otherwise we will get the folly of a half-trillion dollars spent on a fool's errand in Iraq.

They can spare the time, goddam it. A little less glad-handing, a little less watching of football games or other ways in which they supposedly relax. They need to know just a bit more, need to have a few real mental demands put on them.

I hope that in any Presidential debate they are asked questions about Islam. If someone says he doesn't know why the Sunni and Shi'a have been at each other's throats for 1300 years, or doesn't know why Khomeini reduced the marrriageable age of girls to nine years, or doesn't know why the Qur'an says "do not take Christians or Jews as friends" or is unable to correctly define "Jihad" then I want to know now, and I want to vote against that candidate.

Don't you?

Posted by: Hugh at January 3, 2007 9:11 AM

Kay,

I'll try to get you that prayer -- I think I have it on another computer, but I'll have to search for it. Also -- the prayer reminded me of Carl Sagan's book "The Demon haunted World" -- that nightmarish world of the Dark Ages in which dark things go crawling about in the night (prior to modern-day science which is able to banish these things), and everything is steeped in superstitions. (It's also why I believe Islam is so susceptible to antisemitic Conspiracy Theories -- in a way, understanding a Medieval mind-set solves a number of problems or at least explains on another level just what's occurring in the Muslim world.

Posted by: J.S. at January 3, 2007 11:41 AM

Hugh:
'Don't you?'
Yes indeed I do, but somehow I cannot see any of it happening:
not the future Presidential candidates engaging in a deep study of Islamic ideas, beliefs, traditions and history -
not the American people bothering about anything to do with Islam other than 'troops home' and 'the war on terror' -
not a concerted effort by left-leaning-Hillaryans and Pelosians to create anything other than more and more multi-cultural welfarism.
The prospects are grim and I worry that until the United States suffers more and more vicious assaults on its citizens and superstructure, and a more educated and aware electorate emerge from the ruins, nothing will be done to regain the initiative.
Sorry to be a pessimistic realist. Hope I don't depress you as well.

Posted by: meekee at January 3, 2007 1:14 PM

..
absurd thought -
God of the Universe wept
when Saddam was killed

he wanted him pissed on
being dragged through Baghdad
..

Posted by: USpace at January 3, 2007 5:35 PM