@ Eagerbeaver

Have you ever question Islamic Imperialism that began when Islam was spawned?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 8:47 AM

"God loves Islam?"

Surely, you are not suggesting that God loves beheading those who convert to Christianity? Or loves cartoon riots? Or loves raping women with impunity, because there are not for male witnesses? Or loves those who commit suicide to kill innocent people who are not Muslims?

Personally, I doubt it.

Posted by: Conservatarian at March 23, 2007 8:51 AM

Are you saying God loves a religion started by a pedophile and a liar? Islam is barbaric and has brought nothing to the table of human enlightenment. If you want America to return to greatness you should hope that we return to our Christian roots. Also, in the future please don't lie about your religious beliefs even though your prophet showed it is okay to lie to us kafir's.

Posted by: gypea at March 23, 2007 8:58 AM

And then there is the Permanently Primitive Pakistan, the Pakistan of the masses. The masses make up 95% of the population, and it is those masses that will decide the fate of Pakistan.

And they've already made their decision. I wonder if these people consciously restrain themselves in hopes of keeping the aid spigot flowing? Doutful, cuz it'd be difficult to reconcile such craven beggary with their inate sense of supremacism.

What is to be done? Stop supporting Pakistan.

We have several steps to go through here before such a thing could even be considered. And, malheuresement, it's gonna take a nuke to get to that level of political will.

The worst vestige of the Cold War is our alliance with Pak instead of India, a civilized nation despite its nasty Moslem infection rate.

Tragic.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 23, 2007 9:08 AM

Hugh is spot on, as usual, in his synopsis of one of the aspects of the dire situation that threatens the West.

Islam is indeed, a failed belief system, and one that fails on so many levels. The folly of attempting to sway the entire region, starting with but certainly not limited to Iraq, in an attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the Islamists, is just that...folly. There are those who recently labeled this endeavor as a useful and achievable experiment. Only the sane does not agree.

Islam, not "moderate" or "radical" Islam, for there is no definable distinction between the two, is being indoctrinated into generation after generation. The islamic ranks are being filled much faster than can be removed. It is reminiscient of the classic "I Love Lucy" episode where she gets a job on the packaging line at the chocolate factory. It starts out OK, but bfore too long the chocolate comes by much too fast to be dealt with properly. And then, there is Lucy, with a mouth and a blouse full of bon-bons, looking exasperated, all while the line continues to roll on. Only stopping the line itself is an effective counter-measure.

We are inexcusably wasting military, and more prominently, economic resources in regions dominated by the ideology of Islam. We win a battle, but continue to lose the war by not properly addressing the enemy. We chase out the insurgents and then move on, only to see them return to their original location. It is pointless to continue in this direction.

The current US administration has proven itself to be completely clueless to this harsh reality, and more importantly, to the depth and strength of Islam and the vise-like grip it has on the entire region. They talk of success, yet have not, because they can not, define victory. They cannot define exactly what this victory will look like because thay have not defined the enemy. This absurd "war on terror" is no different than if Bush claims we are fighting a war on tanks, without identifying just who is driving the damned things.

The "mission" in Iraq, and elsewhere in the region, is lost unless the US is prepared to kill nearly every Islamist they encounter not just limited to adult males alone. This is a full team effort, with Islam as the nameless, faceless coach with the whistle, running the show.

Until Saudi Arabia, not the sole transgressor but certainly the biggest, is called-out on their slow jihad, by the generous spreading of their oil-made wealth, to build mosques and madrassas all over the world, expanding Islam's indoctrination, Islam's ranks will continue to be replenished and its sphere of influence to grow faster than any military action can offset, save for total annihilation.

Pull out now. Give not one more dime to our "allies", those in ficticious namesake only. Sit back and watch the societies of the failed ideology of Islam do what they do best. Taint, adulterate and destroy. This time they will be doing it amongst themselves, like a closed team meeting.

Choose your candidates wisely in 2008.

Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 9:09 AM

eagerbeaver,

Sin may be our downfall, as you say, but Islam offers no reasonable alternative. Islam is not, nor has it ever been, the moral high ground approach to anything. This originates from the seriously flawed man and self-appointed prophet, Muhammad. If this is the example of a morally perfect man, than morally-perfect seriously needs to be redefined.

You could and should question the US motives, but your sad follow-up belies a weak mind behind your purported strong moral front. Not a Muslim, as you say, but certainly ripe for conversion.

Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 9:24 AM

@ awake

Who are your candidates for '08?

Slim pickings if you ask me. I do have to say Fred Thompson looks like the best choice. Ill have to hear more about him but he seems the most well grounded.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 9:33 AM

Pakistan is an "occupied territory"

Posted by: drk at March 23, 2007 9:45 AM

Elric66-

Take a look at Duncan Hunter. He was a Ranger during the Vietnam War, and has served as the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee-as a great friend to our military. One of his sons served as a Marine in Fallujah.

He is great on borders, National Security, and trade. He is no globalist/Wilsonian like the current crop in power....his vision is strongly and unashamedly American.

In his speech at CPAC, one of his key points was that our "arsenal of democracy" is being outsourced, and that is a foolish and shortsighted policy.

Hunter/Tancredo '08

Posted by: treehugger at March 23, 2007 9:57 AM

Elric66,

Unfortunately, the two-party system we have in the US, limits our choices. That is if one wishes their vote to go to an acyual contender.

2008 is a long way off in terms of candidate endorsement.

Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 9:57 AM

same old, same old, no alternative given what does one expect, just say islam is great and retreat?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 23, 2007 10:07 AM

Get rid of Porn, stop loving money. Repent & return to GOD!!!

Eagerbeaver, you ARE Dinesh D'Souza, and I claim my £500 prize!

Posted by: thomas ato at March 23, 2007 10:07 AM

@ treehugger and awake

Hunter and Tandredo are also excellent choices. I have a feeling Rudy if anything will be on the ticket, Pres or VP. Awake is right though that its early but we need to push candidates like Hunter, Tandredo and Thompson now or we will get stuck having to choose between a Dem or as RINO.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 10:14 AM

Well Hugh,

At least we can agree on this: allowing sharia law as a touchstone of any constitution guarantees the supremacy of the disgusting koranic ideology.

The reality might be that to get any muslim to head any voting state without this precondition could be impossible these days. But how can we know if it has not been tried ?

The battle lines in any case must be redrawn and a lot more of the enemy must be taken out. Western people who have not got the stomach for this continue to be a brake on success and part of the problem .

The war is over only when the jihadis are defeated and they cry uncle.

Posted by: dgene at March 23, 2007 10:15 AM

God even loves those who kill.God HATES sin but LOVES the sinner.
I will say that God loves everybody the same, BUT , He respects His word. So,if you obey God and fill yourself with His word then you will have His ear.
If God is just given 'lip service' , with no obedience or fear of Him, then He may not hear you.
Muhammad is a big problem. This prophet was not in line with God's word, and so deceives the people. God can and will fix that. Until then He will call those whom He has chosen out from Islam.

Posted by: eagerbeaver at March 23, 2007 10:17 AM

And eagerbeaver,

Get hold of yourself. Dont panic.
Run back into a madrassa or a monastery.
(sounds like you've been afflicted with the AlGore disease, 'the sky is falling'disease).

Posted by: dgene at March 23, 2007 10:20 AM

Keep in mind that, should an anti-Dhimmi presidential ticket emerge, or want to emerge, the two would have to campaign via TV. Making the traditional hundreds of personal appearances would almost certainly result in serious injury or death of the candidates, their bodyguards, and innocent bystanders attending such events.

The notion of an anti-Dhimmi ticket is very unlilkely, for fear of... fear.

This is one of Islam's principle strengths.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 23, 2007 10:22 AM

eagerbeaver,

Who is your God, and what is the source of His word? With each new post, your position becomes increasingly convoluted and compromised.

"God loves Islam" but "Muhammad is a big problem"????

Do you have a medical condition that you wish to share with the group?

Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 10:26 AM

dgene wrote:
"The war is over only when the jihadis are defeated and they cry uncle."

Therein lies the problem. How to determine wich Islamists endorse jihad as opposed to those who don't.

Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 10:32 AM

awake wrote

Therein lies the problem. How to determine wich Islamists endorse jihad as opposed to those who don't.

You cant. Thats the problem with Islam. It teaches to deceive non Muslims for the greater glory of jihad. I explained on another board that Islam must be banned because we have no idea who is a Muslim that is sincere and who isnt because of the teachings advocate deception. I was labled an extremist for it and now banned.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 10:40 AM

"The battle lines in any case must be redrawn and a lot more of the enemy must be taken out. Western people who have not got the stomach for this continue to be a brake on success and part of the problem .

The war is over only when the jihadis are defeated and they cry uncle."
-- from a posting above

"When the jihadis....cry uncle?" Is this some kind of schoolyard game? And do you think the phrase "[the] war is over...when the jihadis are defeated" really makes any kind of sense?

Points Never to Forget:

1) This "war" has no end. Even to think in terms of a war with an "end" shows that you have not thought through the problem of Islam. Even if Muslims are weakened, or appear to have let the doctrine of Jihad fall into desuetude, because they may appear, and may in fact be, too weak to act on it (essentially, from about 1800 to 1960, that was the case, and that was the period when some Muslims, recognizing the weakness of the Islamic world, actually tried to think of ways to "reform" it but aside from visiting Europe and noting the need to rival it in military technology, nothing every came of that "reformist" impulse, tiny and ineffectual as it was).

2) This war has no end, because Islam cannot everywhere be stamped out -- have Nazis, or neo-Nazis, ceased to exist? Of course not, nor have devout Communists eager for levelling by the state, nor have Fascists, nor have all kinds of human impulses that, if translated into the political sphere, are mortal enemies of civilization and intelligent freedom. But they have been held in check, their numbers limited.

3) The task of the non-Muslim world is to weaken the Camp of Islam, and the appeal of Islam to the psychically and economically marginal in the West, in the most effective way, and at the lowest cost. Ordinarily that can be done by exploiting the natural pre-existing divisions within Islam. Iraq, for example, offers two of the three main divisions.

The first is the sectarian (Shi'a and Sunni), and sufficiently balanced in power that neither side could easily defeat the other, despite the large Shi'a advantage in population, for the Sunnis are much more ruthless, aggressive, and determined, and have deep-pocketed allies in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait (the Al-Sabah family doesn't want a Shi'a threat fro Iran-cum-Iraq to replace that it faced with Saddam Hussein, especially since there are many Shi'a in Kuwait, who may now be regarded as a potential fifth column).

The second is the ethnic: the justified desire of the Kurds to be independent of the Arabs, who have persecuted them, and murdered them, and taken over their lands, and appropriated the oil wealth under those lands (which lands, in fact, were in reality those of the Assyrian Christians who in fact were, in the post-World War I settlement, dispossessed by some of those Kurds moving south, as in turn, the Kurds were later dispossessed --as in Kirkuk -- by the government-sponsored resettlement of Arabs moving north).

The third, not present within Iraq but certainly present among the Muslim states: is economic: the resentment of poor Arabs and Muslims over the unmerited vast wealth of the rich Arabs and Muslims, a resentment that has not been exploited because, idiotically, the Western world has, instead of drawing attention to the grand theft of "Muslim" resources by a handful of rulers and states, and their refusal to share the wealth not only with many of the people in those states, but also with other Muslims, thus showing not the slightest interest in supporting fellow members of the umma (although payments to other Muslims for spreading Islam in the West, or to engage in acts of terrorism against Israel or India or other Infidel states -- well, that can and is supported by rich Arabs).

We need first to recognize, and then to exploit, these fissures. I haven't begun to explain, at this site, the kind of propaganda that would help, but most of it should be obvious.

But it is not obvious to the likes of Karen Hughes. It is not obvious to the likes of Cheney's daughter, the one involved in bringing "democracy" to Iraq (what makes her an expert? what allowed her to be pout in charge of such matters?). And it certainly isn't obvious to Condoleeza Rice, with a most limited view of things, whose claim to fame is that she was a good -- i.e., obedient -- graduate student in some branch of Kremlinology, but lacks the learning, the world experience, and the imagination to push her even more limited boss into something like a comprehension of what Islam is all about, and how it makes best sense to constrain and weaken it.

When historians write about the years 2000-2008, they will gasp at the expense, at the squandering, at the obstinate naivete and failures of intelligence (of every kind) and of imagination. They will be amazed at the lack of ability of the people in charge to comprehend, to articulate, to instruct, and to protect. They will be flabbergasted at the trillion dollars wasted, at the great damage done to the morale of the military and to its capability, at a time of peril. They will not understand why nothing started to be done, then, about the campaigns of Daw'a and the slow but seemingly inexorable (it is not inexorable, it can be halted, and it can be reversed, but this requires a recognition of the problem and an intelligent awareness of what is at stake, and what is permissible -- see the Benes Decree of 1946 for a guide) demographic conquest of the heart of the West -- Europe.

The historians will compare the failure of our leaders, or rather, of those "taking a leadership role" -- with the intelligent awareness, and acts of mass auto-didacticism, whereby many, including those who come to this website, have begun to undertake their own study of Islam, because they sense the discrepancy between what they are told in the press and on television and by their "taking-leadership-role" leaders, and what they see all about them, if they are not deaf, and dumb, and blind.

The political class, the ruling classes, the elites all over the West have failed. They failed when, without study or thought, they began some thirty years ago to let in Muslim migrants. They failed when they continued to avert their eyes from what such migrtation meant for the indigenous Infidels, their legal and political institutions, their freedoms, their art, their free inquuiry, their physical safety. They failed for all kinds of reasons. Stupidity, cupidity, timidity - the Esdrujula Explanation that has been put up here many times. They will not be forgiven by posterity. So many things, now so difficult to deal with, could have been so easily avoided in the first place, had intelligence been properly applied.

Future historians will sum it up this way:

Never have so few done so much damage to so many.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2007 10:53 AM

Agree with your excellent analysis, Hugh.

Two brief points.

1) A while ago I read a column about Afghanistan by Matthew Fisher. Fisher pointed out the radically opposite belief-system of the ordinary Afghan as compared to an ordinary westerner. Most notably, Afghans considered the best thing the Taliban ever did was the Taliban beheadings and the mutilations (the amputations and cutting off of limbs). The ordinary westerner, on the other hand, feels that the best thing ever done by the West was to "liberate" ordinary Afghans from such abuses by the Taliban. Thus Fisher momentarily glimpsed the enormity of the problem...(probably not quite to your extent, Hugh).

2) The term "corruption" (like "terrorism" or "innocent") has an entirely different meaning in the Islamic world...(it's almost laughable). It refers to "purity." Money networks, bribery, promotions/rewards based solely on monetary or political considerations (as opposed to a principled analysis based on merit), etc, is "the norm" and, from an Islamic perspective, bribery is not corrupt, but non-western, non-Muslims are corrupt (by simply being non-Muslims, they are "corrupting.").

Posted by: J.S. at March 23, 2007 11:30 AM

Elric66-

Thompson has some potential, although I have to do more research on his record.

In the meantime, call your Reps. The Gutierrez/Flake Shamesty is in the works...besides swamping the US with illegals and hundreds of thousands of foreign workers (from friendly countries like Pakistan??)annually, it will also establish a common security perimeter with Mexico (as envisioned by the SPP/North American Union crowd).

If you are interested in the sovereignty and security of the US, now is the time to call.

Posted by: treehugger at March 23, 2007 11:32 AM

@ treehugger

Ill definetly do that. A country without borders has no security.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 11:36 AM

Well said Hugh. Your insight into the Pakistani mindset is spot on. It appalls me as to why no one in the establishment see it for what it is. Or is it they don't want to see Pakistan for what it is. It surprises me that Musharraf has such a hold on the thinking of the establishment here. A UK defense department study came out with the conclusion that that in order to effectively fight the "war on terror", the ISI would have to be dismantled. Please see the quotes from the study

"
The Army's dual role in combating terrorism and at the same time promoting the MMA and so indirectly supporting the Taliban (through the ISI) is coming under closer and closer international scrutiny.

Pakistan is not currently stable but on the edge of chaos.

[The West has] turned a blind eye towards existing instability and the indirect protection of Al Qaeda and promotion of terrorism.

Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism - whether in London on 7/7 or in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The US/UK cannot begin to turn the tide until they identify the real enemies from attacking ideas tactically - and seek to put in place a more just vision. This will require Pakistan to move away from Army rule and for the ISI to be dismantled and more significantly something to be put in its place.

Musharraf knows that time is running out for him...at some point the US is likely to withdraw funding (and possibly even protection) of him - estimated at $70-80M a month.

Without US funding his position will become increasingly tenuous. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5388426.stm

Posted by: Ishwar at March 23, 2007 11:39 AM

Run back into a madrassa or a monastery.

This comparison is objectionable.

The blind urge for equivalence will be the ruin of us all. At least, except for the Moslems.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 23, 2007 11:54 AM

My God is the God of Abraham = Jesus
My God is the God of Islam and Isreal and the whole earth.
I have no medical condition(thanks for asking)
I know my God and He loves muslims
I have never read the Quaran,but knowing God,I know He would not agree with Muhammad. Muhammad,to me was a false prophet - but the people of Islam are God's people and belong to Him.

Posted by: eagerbeaver at March 23, 2007 12:00 PM

Perfect, Hugh, Perfect!

The situation is very, very similar to the Cold War. The people, who know what to do and how to do it are still around. Almost all the experience from the second half of the XX-th century is relevant in the case of islam. Oppression, autoritarian rule, comlete lack of justice and justification, deception, total economical failure - so many features are common between islam and communism. Following the islamic sites in the ex-soviet area, one can see a significant proportion of the new converts acting and thinking with a staggering resemblance to their compatriot bolshevic recruits from the early 1900's. Sharia and caliphate are embraced for their promise to rob weath and power, and give it to them - true believers, who decided to never admit their obvious shortfalls, and become "master race" by eagerly joining the most likely to succeed violent ideology in existence today. Add them to the power thirsty heirs of the ancient islamic conquerors and there is you new Axis, your new Warsaw pact, ready, willing and eager to rape the sinful, but oh, so beautiful West. See http://www.dutch.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5852&sid=e641f26b35d1dfc1c595421a9a5cf3f9

Without this conquest, without the promise of rich and defensless plunder, jihad will have no driving force.

Last time I checked Fulton , Missouri was still there. They even had a piece of the real Berlin wall, the Iron Curtain, wich will make the proper background for proclaiming a new policy of isolating and stimulating the self-destruction of another destructive ideology. All we need is a new Churchill.

Then and then olnly will be the time when one will do so much to save so many.

Posted by: Excommie at March 23, 2007 12:06 PM

eagerbeaver,

there is no God in islam. Muhammad received visions from an entity, he beleived to be archangel Gabriel. The book he wrote is in appaling contradiction with a lot in both, Judaism and Christianity. It is regarded by his followers as the only truth, discarding even the Ten commandments and almost all teachings of Jesus Christ. You shall know them by their fruit...

There is no God in islam!

Posted by: Excommie at March 23, 2007 12:15 PM

Above, Hugh, with whom I am in agreement on his views of Islam and the problems facing us, states.

Future historians will say.
Never have so few done so much damage to so many.

I am afraid future historians will instead praise the 'victory of the will of Allah' if our present course is not diverted to actually facing reality and fighting this war with the knowledge of what Islamic victory really means if it is allowed to happen. The future historians to whom Hugh refers will not exist unless our policies and methods towards stopping this onslaught are changed.

Good luck to us all.

Posted by: Coeurmaeghan at March 23, 2007 12:29 PM

Or joy in Mudville, for that matter.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2007 12:30 PM

treehugger,

What exactly does this mean?

"The Gutierrez/Flake Shamesty is in the works" ?

Elric66

What is it about Thompson that makes you think he is at all knowledgeable about the real Jihadist threat?

If you, or anyone else hears of any candidate that leans towards the views expressed herein, please do post! I shall also research the Hunter/Tancredo team to see if I can find anything.

It is sad and amusing to see so many comments on this site about the lack of leadership with our politicians on this fantasticaly critical issue. This is not rocket science. Perhaps political science , but not so hard to understand.

If only one of them marshalled the courage.... At this point I don't care what party that person is from. He/she will likely get my support.

Posted by: Al E. Baba at March 23, 2007 12:53 PM

eagerbeaver wrote:
"My God is the God of Abraham = Jesus
My God is the God of Islam and Isreal and the whole earth.
I have no medical condition(thanks for asking)
I know my God and He loves muslims
I have never read the Quaran,but knowing God,I know He would not agree with Muhammad. Muhammad,to me was a false prophet - but the people of Islam are God's people and belong to Him."

eager,

Your belief in God, the God of all, all encompassing and benevolent,is duly noted. From an agnostic standpoint, it makes sense.

That being said, you need to know a few things. Muhammad, the false prophet, the desert warrior, invented Islam in the 7th Century, declaring Allah the one God of the Earth, and conveniently, Muhammad himself as the one undisputed ultimate prophet of Allah. The holiest of Islamic texts, the Qur'an, incorporated through borderline plagarism, portions of Judaic and Christian ideologies. To suit his own purposes, Muhammad then placed Abraham, Mary, Jesus, etc, as lesser prophets to Muhammad, in spite of the fact that the aforementioned historically predated Muhammad and thus, Islam as a whole.

In your estimation, God does not "agree" with Muhammad, but what about the 1.3 billion plus people in the world that do? What about an unknown portion of that 1.3 billion plus people that would kill you for what you have stated above, and who would be justified in doing so under a divine mandate contained within their holy texts?

If Muhammad is a false prophet, then Allah is a false god. If Allah is a false god, then Islam is a false religious ideology. If Islam is a false religious ideology, then it's followers are false worshippers. or slaves to the false ideogy, at best.

It is a nice sentiment that the one true God that you speak of loves all people and that all people are His. It would be an interesting discussion, like how can one believe in an omniscient and omnipotent being, with compassion for all, and then justify the belief in Hell, a place where God's influence and authority is stymied. Theological discussions like this can go on and on and on, and there are places to do so...just not here.

I am genuinely attempting to appeal to your senses at this point. If this is the form of contribution you insist on making, please move on and do so somewhere else. You will just be wasting time here, mainly your's. You can not continue to speak in riddles, stating that "God does not agree with Muhammad, but loves Islam", and expect to last long here. This site is Jihad Watch. It's intentions are clearly visible in the top left border of the main page. Your vein of discourse is noticably absent.

Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 1:06 PM

This war has no end, because Islam cannot everywhere be stamped out -- have Nazis, or neo-Nazis, ceased to exist? Of course not, nor have devout Communists eager for levelling by the state, nor have Fascists, nor have all kinds of human impulses that, if translated into the political sphere, are mortal enemies of civilization and intelligent freedom. But they have been held in check, their numbers limited.

It is a fantastic assumption to think that Islam can be made to go the route of Nazis, Commies, and Fascists.

However Global Sharia is averted, if it is averted, Islam will certainly not go the way of the other ideologies mentioned above, for a number of reasons:

1) Islam has a base of 800 million to 1.2 billion. Before you mention the population figures from Red China, the USSR and such, ask yourself how many in those countries actually gave a damn about Communist Marxism. Then ask yourself how Moslems feel about Islam, and compare the two results. Whether activated or not, the idea of Islam will not be so easily got rid of in the minds of Moslems.

2) Islam is an all-subsuming ideological framework that ensconces the Moslem mind. Not so for the three aforementioned ideologies, including Communism. If nothing else, the average Fascist, Nazi, or Commie was in no way as decoupled from modern reality, and tended to be amoral instead of anti-moral, as are Moslems.

3) Enjoying the official status of a religion, Islam — unlike the other three political ideologies — is given a leg up and is able even to receive funding, logistical assistance, arms, and other knowledge transfers from its enemy. That was never the case with Nazis/Fascists/Commies.

4) Islam is a total integrated program, even down to the practices of bigamy, misogyny, and terrorism, and suicide-murder as strategic weapons, all inculcated from birth and constantly reinforced by scriptures regarded as holy and immutable. Before the women in here scream about the misogyny piece, have you seen the numbers on female support for the benign occupation of Iraq?

610 * 623 * 632 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

No, the disposal of Islam as a mortal threat will be quite different from the same of the other three ideologies. And far, far messier.

By allowing Moslems to live amongst us, one day we will have to stoop to their level to save ourselves — for a good long while, at least.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

It is Dreamland to think that Islam can be abated in the ways that Fascism, Naziism, and Communism were.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 23, 2007 1:15 PM

Apparently I have missed the figurative as messianic never comes up in any form in your argument. The literal though mess of Afghanistan and tar baby of Iraq does not fit the operational history.

In comparison, the United States border will today be invaded more often by coyotes armed with AK 47's and smuggling all kinds of murderous things into the Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona frontier which will result in more dead than in Iraq today.
Cosco via the PLA Chicoms will in their shipping be dumping loads of drugs, weapons and agents into the United States in greater numbers than the Taliban is in Afghanistan.

No one thinks of calling Texas a failure or it costing too much and that the other 46 states should just abandon the southwest to terrorist from MS 13 or the Mexican mafia.

In a historical perspective in speaking with relatives who actually were on ground in securing operations in Japan after occupation, it was a very dangerous place. Italy was actually considered too volatile to ever become a democracy and Germany was murderous sniper pit after 1945.

The debate should be focused on whether the "love thy Muslim" doctrine which President Bush implemented in trying to civilize Muslims in Iraq instead of killing them and if it was viable to make Iraq a kill zone for foreign terrorists.
This humane policy has cost Rumsfeld his job, Bush horrendous poll numbers and convinced too many people that Iraq and Afghanistan are something which they are not.
That policy fooled terrorists into coming to the kill zones and it has convinced many success is failure.

The mop up operations are being waged now, but there is also the factor of certain cartels making a huge sum of money off of war in exchange for supporting the war.
Islam though is not the problem it is thought. Christian ministers in France are converting groups of Muslims without billion dollar budgets and the Pope is working on measures to stem the flow. President Bush in promoting bio fuels will further weaken the capital structure funding terrorism and China along with Russia are already in their support of the proxy groups are realing back as their own people's demand more.

It sounds barbaric at times, but the policy of America is to kill a few terrorists in order to save 30 million Muslims from an all out war. That is the human policy even though if it looks like it is costing so much. If America does not continue on this slow bleed policy, the Eurasians will settle the problem with nuclear warheads as once the Muslims are done in being useful as proxies against the west they will be exterminated as China and Russia have proven in their past.

That is why I support with more advanced policy what is in the Middle East, because I know the future from Eurasian past. The idea of American children being warned as I remembered as a child of not being able to play outside today, because fallout clouds were settling from Chinese tests over America is something which makes Iraq and Afghanistan worth the cost.
These Eurasians are not Americans and will muck it up horrid when they start tossing around WMD's. In a policy paper I published SARS, bird flu and hemorraghic fever outbreaks in China are but examples in how they screw things up in contolled circumstances.
I apologize again for the long post, but it is necessary to find solutions if America is going to pull out of the area as just leaving the situation will only release WMD's in the next 5 years which America will suffer from.

Thank you and my sincerest appreciation.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 23, 2007 1:23 PM

APF wrote:
"No, the disposal of Islam as a mortal threat will be quite different from the same of the other three ideologies. And far, far messier."

"By allowing Moslems to live amongst us, one day we will have to stoop to their level to save ourselves — for a good long while, at least."

Good points. Islam is fascism on 'roids.

Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 1:32 PM

Hugh said

The Big Mess in Tarbaby Iraq, the Little Mess in Afghanistan

Afghanistan is not the "Little Mess" because things are going any better than in the "Big Mess" Iraq. The only difference is that in Iraq the Administration (and their Iraqi government "allies") are putting up more of a pretense of resistance (pretense on the part of Iraqi troops, not Coalition troops). Afghanistan has been, for the most part, conceded to the Taliban. The Taliban controls the majority of the country, while the Karzai government hangs on by its fingernails to its last neighborhoods of Kabul. The transfer of power from U.S. to jihadist has just been smoother and more peaceful in Afghanistan, that's all.

Bring Pakistan, or threaten to, to its knees unless there is a change in its policy toward exporting the Jihad to Afghanistan and to India (and not only Kashmir) and for that matter to Great Britain.

I agree with the earlier suggestions to isolate Pakistan. But beyond that, I think diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to change its policy on exporting jihad will prove as fruitless as it has in the past regarding Kashmir. Isolation will work, military force will work, all those other methods Hugh has suggested (reducing petrodollars to the Islamic world, controlling immigration, border control) will work, but diplomatic pressure and diplomatic threats will not. I think we have to resign ourselves that for the moment, some countries will remain deeply Islamic and deeply anti-Western. It would be more productive for us to accept that fact, and to begin to take appropriate steps on our part to protect ourselves from the inevitable. Pakistan will successfully export the jihad to Afghanistan, because the Afghans are themselves pro-jihad. Its a fait accomplis. It may not even be accurate to say that Pakistan is exporting the jihad to Afghanistan, they are just supporting their fellow Muslims in their common struggle against the infidels. We can, and should, kill some of tthe Pakistani jihadists crossing into Afghanistan, and isolate Pakistan, but they will support the jihad in Afghanistan. We should neither be surprised by that, nor spend too many of our resources trying to stop the inevitable, nor set as our goal "to help" the Afghan people who helped carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2007 1:50 PM

"The Gutierrez/Flake Shamesty is in the works" means that our Congress and President are working hard to pass an illegal alien amnesty, bring in hundreds of thousands of foreign workers, and merge the US into the SPP/North American Union (see the final paragraph in the proposed bill creating a "common security perimeter with Mexico, which is part of the overall plan).

If you'd like to find out more, I'd suggest FAIR and NumbersUSA as good sources.

Here's a breakdown of the main points of the proposed bill.

What is in the new amnesty bill?
Rosemary Jenks, NumbersUSA Director of Government Relations, wrote the following based on what Rep. Flake and Rep. Gutierrez have been telling the media is in their bill. The actual text of the bill has not yet been released. When it is, our NumbersUSA legislative team will quickly provide analysis on our website: www.numbersusa.com

UNDER GUTIERREZ/FLAKE:

Every illegal alien who could produce marginally plausible “evidence” that he/she had been illegally present in the United States since June 1, 2006, would get amnesty and be put on the path to US citizenship.

In exchange for the highest honor our country has to bestow, the illegal alien would have to pay $2,000, pass a criminal record check, pay at least some of any income taxes he/she had chosen not to pay while working illegally, and learn some English. The already overburdened and error-prone U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would be responsible for ensuring that applicants meet these criteria and for handing out temporary visas and work permits to 12-plus million illegal aliens.

After the no-longer illegal aliens had been in temporary status for six years, USCIS would issue green cards to those who had
learned passable English and, in the case of some heads of household, had traveled outside the United States (to any other country, not necessarily their own) for a short time. Single heads of household, children, the elderly, business owners, and those in the military would be exempt from the travel requirement. (Any criminals and terrorists whose fingerprints were not yet on file with the FBI would then have official documents in whateve name they chose to provide USCIS during the first phase of the amnesty.)

Lest any illegals be left out of the general amnesty, the bill includes two others for which they could qualify: the AgJOBS amnesty for those claiming to have performed agricultural work in the United States (the fraud rate for a similar amnesty in 1986 is estimated at 70% and resulted in at least one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers getting a green card, which he used to fly to Afghanistan for terrorist training) and the DREAM Act amnesty for those who received a US taxpayer-funded high school diploma or an equivalent.

To ensure a constant flow of cheap labor into the United States, the bill would create a worker importation program for an additional 400,000 foreign “guest” workers each year, all of whom would be given the choice to stay permanently, as long as they weren’t caught c ommitting a crime or terrorist act before they applied. DHS would have to certify that it is capable of verifying workers’ legal status before this new program could take effect.

As a bone to lawmakers who believe that the laws they pass should actually be enforced, the bill would mandate that all employers eventually verify the legal status of their workforce and it would increase penalties for those who fail to do so. It would also authorize an increase in the number of border enforcement personnel and in enforcement technology.

Finally, as icing on this rich enforcement cake, the bill would create a “North American security perimeter” that would establish Mexico as our first—and only—line of defense against any security threat from the south.

Posted by: treehugger at March 23, 2007 2:47 PM

I find it very interesting to see that you all consider Islam to be a radical religion prone to persecuting all others, if you consider it a religion at all. And yet you say that we must completely eliminate Islam by murdering all its followers, including all women and children. Have you not considered the hypocrisy that this entails? Persecute all muslims because they are “persecuting” others? Who is the uncivil religion now?
It is also interesting to note that you think that Islam encourages the persecution of others, which is simply not true. Historically, Christianity has actually been better known for persecution than muslims. In the Crusades, muslim captors, for the most part, allowed Christians to flee the city and area taken and avoid death. The Christians, on the other hand, massacred just about every city they took, regardless of age and sex of inhabitan. And look at the treatment of Jews in Western Europe. There has been a growing anti-semitism in Christian Europe for thousands of years, where they have been unjustly accused and singled out. It’s also kind of remarkable that you are referring to Islam as a Fascist and Nazi religion. Guess what. Nazism is a Christian theocracy. And all the while in the Middle East the Persians were liberating the jews from captivity and persecution. Muslims never historically had something against jews and they don’t today. Muslims and their leaders have something against the government of Israel which has been repeatedly been accused of humans rights abuses towards Palestinians and who unjustly invaded countries like Lebanon (in the past).
And between all of this some of you are saying that Islam isn’t really a religion, but a radical militant group. But why is this? Because from Islam has come some militant groups? If you’ve seen the documentary, “Jesus Camp”, you’d know that just in America there are hundreds of militant Christian groups ready to persecute and eliminate all other religions. So if you say Islam isn’t a religion then you could just as easily say Christianity isn’t one.
It seems all you see in Islam is this radical militant group in the Middle East, but you fail to see that it is a world-wide religion. And it is not accepted because it is against western society but because it accepts everyone no matter what social status or ethnicity. And to think of Islam as the persecuting religion is ridiculous. In my school, kids (Christians) give the muslims names like terrorists and Osama. What does this say of the civility of Christianity?
You say that Islam rejects Christianity, and yet you ignore the fact that before Western intervention countries like Iran were fair democracies. Somehow the U.S. found fault in this, and with CIA help they took out the democracy and instated the Shah, who killed thousands of his own people and tortured even more. So to say Islam rejects this is misguided.

Posted by: Stu at March 23, 2007 3:07 PM

i think i posted that one a little late

Posted by: Stu at March 23, 2007 3:08 PM

"And yet you say that we must completely eliminate Islam by murdering all its followers, including all women and children."
-- from a crazed posting by a crazed poster above

Have we now? Where, exactly?

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2007 3:15 PM

(Alarmed Pig Farmer: you are correct, and I apologize. There is no equivalence.)

Posted by: dgene at March 23, 2007 3:30 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer, you are right there is no equvalent between islam, communism and national-sozialism. However there is a strong resemblance. A New Iron Curtain appears to me to be the only plausible way to deal with the problems now. It will not solve all, not even most problems. Other measures will be needed, but that can be established only after observing what all those militant activists will do to each other once they are isolated from the rest of the world.

Posted by: Excommie at March 23, 2007 3:38 PM

Stu or 'Stooge' for Liberals
You are merely repeating the claptrap put out by
any Islamonline or self hating Westerners.Take a
reasoned look at your arguments.
Yes,Christians did do killing but who asked those 'gentle,tolerant'Muslims to invade Byzantium,Christians of MiddleEast,Balkans,India[Hindus],
Afghanistan[originally Buddhist],Spain etc??Islam was spread by Fire & Sword-you have to fight fire with fire otherwise we wouldn't be holding this conversation today since 'lovely Islam' did its best to enslave whole of Europe.
Did you know Muslims raided Cornwall & took men,women & children never to be seen again?
Of course not-you have been reading PC Islam Clean books such as those written by Karen Armstrong[she should watch a stoning] and John Esposito[nothing like a beheading ,beats soaps anyday}-both handsomely paid with Saudi money to
trot out Pro Islamic treatises.Would you feel so
reverent about Islam, I wonder, if you saw you children seized-boy to be brainwashed into a Muslim Janissary to fight all 'Infidels',girls carted off to harems or sold in slave markets?
You,yourself must be humble & a good dhimmi paying the Dhimmi tax,not allowed to carry weapons or ride a horse or dare to glance too boldly at your Muslim masters-for fear of being impaled & roasted alive...Read true accounts of those who travelled through Muslim enslaved lands
and see what they have to say about the lovely prospect of living under Islam.Without exception all lands occupied by Islamic masters were left with decimated & wretchedly poor Christian populations. And look today at any Muslim country and see how 'democratic' & mindful of 'human rights' it is.Then come back to
this site and tell us,facts please not rhetoric,
how Sharia Law has made the world a better place...

Posted by: Morgane at March 23, 2007 3:47 PM

Boogie with stu wrote:
"And it[Islam] is not accepted because it is against western society but because it accepts everyone no matter what social status or ethnicity."

As is evident by the current ethnic slaughtering of African Muslims by their Arabic Muslim brethren in Darfur and throughout Africa.

Nice try though.

Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 3:51 PM

Hey Stu!

If you want to find out the true nature of a religious group, find out how that religious group treats other groups in a weaker person. Let us apply that simple test to present day Islam. Whenever Muslims are in “strength”, that is able to dictate political, social and religious decisions in countries or regions where they are in majority (think of Muslim majority regions and nations like the Middle East, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, certain regions of Africa and Indonesia)we see clearly how they act.

Is there freedom of religion? Is there freedom of speech? Can non-Muslims freely and equally practice their faith? What about civil laws?
In a nutshell, what kind of society have Muslims created in places where they had the power to create the kind of societies that they wanted to create?

Now compare those societies with the societies created by Christian majority states, like those of the Western Europe or in the US. Violence in the name of Islam is committed every single day in those Muslim majority countries like Saudi Arabia where you cannot freely practice any other religion, cannot have a free civic discourse and cannot have basic human rights. That is the true, the real face of Islam.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 23, 2007 4:01 PM

Stu said

And yet you say that we must completely eliminate Islam by murdering all its followers, including all women and children.

I find it interesting that Stu believes that we should torture puppies and babies to death. And user Stu thinks that all left-handed people should have their eyes plucked out and the soles of their feet burned by blowtorch. And yet Stu thinks his/her self a moderate. Are these the beliefs of a moderate and civil person?

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2007 4:08 PM

Well said Hugh.

Just another reason to expel the
"U"seles "N"ations from the U.S., cut off all foregin aid to non-democratic countries, halt all immigration from moslem countries and respond to any attack with massive overwhelming force.

It worked during the first half of the 20th century and it will work in the 21st century.

Posted by: walterc at March 23, 2007 4:16 PM

Stu,

No one said "Exterminate all muslims". Unlike them we have:"Thou shalt not kill".

It is interesting to note that many here think that Islam encourages the persecution of others, simply because it is absolutely true. Please do read some contemporary fatwas and postings on islamic forums, before declaring false facts about contemporary islamic political views. It is also interesting to note that in your post you seamlessly change the time frame from what islam does today (of which you are obviously not informed) and what Christianity did in the past. Also please do not insult the atheist Adolph by calling his Third Reich a theocracy. Like me you may disagree with him, but at least do read some of his works and speeches. About Israel too, references to past treatment of Jews are irrelevant, today the most often quoted ayat on palestinian forums is the one that says how even rocks will appeal to muslims to come and slay the hiding Jew.Like you I disagree that Christian militant groups should be in any islamic country. Likewise NO militant islam in our lands.
Finally no one here is opposed to muslims creating their version of a just society in their lands. We only disagree with any steps towards wolrd caliphate. We are convinced that islamic and Western values are not compatible, and that large presence of muslims in the West will result in the loss of centuries of cultural and civilization development. So Stu please do some research of contemporary islamic concepts and see for yourself what their ideas are today and how much of your opinions you can even share with todays muslims. Good luck!

Posted by: Excommie at March 23, 2007 5:11 PM

I never was a fan of the Afghan adventure. Afghanistan never was anything more than a hole in the map--too far north for British Inja, too far south for Russian Central Asia, and too Sunnite to be absorbed by Safavid and Qajar Iran. Further, fighting there depends on such reliable, stalwart, ever-loyal allies like Pakistan and Uzzbekistan.

Posted by: Kepha at March 23, 2007 5:47 PM

Poster at 5:11: Are you distantly related to N.B., of "The Italics Are Mine"?

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2007 6:50 PM

awake:
thank-you for your teaching and advice.
I would hope everybody would want a better place.

Posted by: eagerbeaver at March 23, 2007 6:53 PM

Hugh:

No to the best of my knowledge, I am not related to N.B. I enjoy reading her though.

Posted by: Excommie at March 23, 2007 7:03 PM

She has her points. The book I mentioned is I think her best. She's made so much of in France --everything republished by "Actes Sud" (in Arles? Orange?), and something of a cult-figure, for a while. Having been for most of the 1930s the consort of one of the greatest Russian writers, V. Kh., then later landing at Princeton, she went gaga at the end, writing about Freemasons in Russia -- and you know how telling a choice of topic that is, with its dangerous skirting of themes - protocols of the elders of freemasonry --so dear to the hearts of the chornosotentsy everywhere.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2007 7:39 PM

The murder of the Pakistan cricket coach, Bob Wolmer,has led one British Pakistani, on a phone in to the BBC today, to reflect on the ingrainedness of corruption in Pakistan's culture. He mentioned that in the 'trade' journals of the British medical and legal professions, each week, a list is published, of the names of those who have been struck off the register for professional misconduct. Apparently these lists are striking in that they invariably contain a preponderance of Pakistani names. A classified report by the metropolitan police was leaked last year in which it was stated that police officers from the Pakistani community were ten times more likely to be corrupt than the average policeman. The excuse was that their extended families would make financial demands on them that they found it impossible to refuse. All I can say that it would be a prudent policy to treat all Pakistanis - however plausible or respectable - as likely to be corrupt and mendacious until proven not to be ( and even then keep a close eye on them).

Posted by: wallyUK at March 23, 2007 9:51 PM

Stu said

And yet you say that we must completely eliminate Islam by murdering all its followers, including all women and children.

Stu, no one has ever advocated killing all muslims on this site. We just need to outlaw all mosques, outlaw the black death cult of islam, and those who want to practice it go back to their islamist countries. it might sound strict, but unless true reform is worked in islam, which l dont think ever would happen, better to destroy the cult by outlawing it. hey if the sowdis can outlaw all non muslims religions, we can do the same here.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 23, 2007 10:37 PM

Excommie,

You claim (Off-Topic):

"Also please do not insult the atheist Adolph by calling his Third Reich a theocracy. Like me you may disagree with him, but at least do read some of his works and speeches."

According to his public speeches, he was a self-described Christian. According to what he said in private, and what he was actually trying to implement, the evidence suggests that he believed in some kind of "German Faith," notably, one with a God. While in the later years he became hostile toward at least some of the extant forms of Christianity (hence, statements about destroying "Christianity"), there is no evidence that he was an atheist. Rather, he developed his own adaptation (or perversion) of Christianity, adding himself (much like Muhammad added himself) to the doctrine, but not removing God, and combining notions of racial purity and Germanness etc. with the religious concepts.[2] He was pushing hard to establish this German religious faith, replacing the extant forms of Christianity with his modified version.

There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that he was an atheist, despite the popularity of that claim. (E.g., some Christian apologists claim Hitler was an atheist because he opposed the extant forms of Christianity, but that doesn't hold because lots of Christians oppose many of the extant forms of Christianity. Christian apologists also claim that because he had some ideas about evolution, that that made him an atheist. Not so. Lots of religious people accept evolution; for that matter so do some agnostics and some deists (some of the first evolutionary theorists were deists).

There is, further, evidence to support the claim that Hitler was not only not an atheist, but actively opposed atheism, e.g.:

From a speech by Hitler in April, 1933:

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith…”

From a speech by Hitler in October of 1933:

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

[1]
[2]

From Source 2:

"...However, an article released today by the United Press, Hitler bested God by 2 commandments, should be the final nail in the coffin of this spurious claim. This brief article concerns the discovery of an extant copy of "Germans with God", a version of the Bible written by the Third Reich and distributed to German churches in 1941. The Nazi version contains two additional commandments to add to the standard ten, neither of which should be very surprising: "Honor your Fuhrer and master" and "Keep the blood pure and your honor holy". Here is its rendition of the original decalogue:

* Honor God and believe in him wholeheartedly,
* Seek out the peace of God,
* Avoid all hypocrisy,
* Holy is your health and life,
* Holy is your well-being and honor,
* Holy is your truth and fidelity,
* Honor your father and mother — your children are your aid and your example,
* Maintain and multiply the heritage of your forefathers,
* Be ready to help and forgive,
* Joyously serve the people with work and sacrifice.

Christian apologists fond of Nazi comparisons might want to take a closer look at that first one: "Honor God and believe in him wholeheartedly". Again, this is a Bible that the Nazi regime, and this almost certainly means Hitler himself, wrote, edited and approved of."

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 23, 2007 10:57 PM

What Hitler really admired was Islam. He lamented the fact that Germans had not been born into Islam, because, he said, they would have undoubtedly been the leaders of the world-wide Muslims, and Islam itself already imbued its followers with aggression and a readiness to violence, and the will to conquer.

This can be found in, among other places, the diaries of Albert Speer. I don't remember exactly where.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2007 11:10 PM

Hugh,

I was going through some files...

"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity."
-- Albert Speer

"Had we been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone, then the Germanic races would have conquered the world." --Adolf Hitler

February 08, 2007
Jung on Hitler and Islam
Andrew Bostom
Karl Jung, The Collected Works Volume 18, The Symbolic Life (1939), Princeton University Press, p. 281.

"The chapter is itself called "The Symbolic Life", and Jung was asked two questions, the first of which is the most relevant:

First, had he any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development?
"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god). That can be the historic future." "
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/jung_on_hitler_and_islam.html

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 23, 2007 11:28 PM

Some Nazi - Islam connections:

Haj Amin al-Husseini
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543

Inayat Ali Khan
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_ziontruth_archive.html

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 24, 2007 12:06 AM

Kaybar:

Some thoughts on Hitler & atheism. You refer to H's public speeches in 1933 in which he condemns atheism. H had just come to power legally, & of course would want to solidify his position with the German people by makking public statements that appealed to them. Since the overwhelming majority of them were Catholic or Protestant, denouncing atheism & praising Christianity would be one obvious strategy. Furthermore, and I'm making an educated guess here, atheism might have been understood as a code word for communism, and we know that the commies were the mortal enemies of the nazis. So by denouncing atheism, H might well have been also been implicitly condemning communism. In short, I wouldn't think those speeches offer any credible evidence of H's true attitude toward atheism.

As for the Nazi Bible, its existence does not to my mind offer compelling evidence that H was trying to develop a new German religious faith. Again, I think one has to look at his ulterior motives. He was trying to create a thousand-year reich. Could he do it without interfering with Christianity, the country's dominant faith? Probably not. But he was also aware of how the Bolsheviks dealt with their "religious problem." The Bolshies killed the priests, destroyed the churches, and forbade religious practice. Hitler was in many ways far cleverer than Stalin. I could envision that his mind would quite naturally turn to finding a way to co-opt Christianity & subvert it to serve his purposes, which I don't think had anything even remotely to do with worshiping the Creator. Modifying the 10 Commandments would be a good place to start. You can't throw out straightaway the commandment to honor thy God, b/c that's the primary commandment, and believing Christians would oppose any attempt to exclude it. So you retain that commandment (at least in the first few editions of the nazi Bible) and slip in another one, perhaps at the bottom of the list, that commands believers to honor the fuehrer. Since God isn't constantly hectoring people about honoring him, while the fuehrer is (through speeches, newspaper articles, etc.) the commandment to honor the fuehrer will, as a practical matter, quickly supercede the true paramount commandment to honor God.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 24, 2007 1:03 AM

Well Khaybar, Hitler also said , in July 1941, that "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together...". However I was wrong in writing the arguable "atheist", while trying to decisively reject the notion of the Third Reich as a theocracy. Thai it simply was not.

As for the rest of your points I stand corrected.

Hugh: brain malfunction is a threat to even the best minds...I have gone through a lot of "protocols" of all sorts, before figuring out it was all an illogical brain diarrhoea. Luckily for me was unaware that N.B. succumbed to this. I'll have to re-read some things again.

Posted by: Excommie at March 24, 2007 1:30 AM

Re Hitler,

My [1] link, above, was outdated. My apologies. Here's an update [1].

sheik,

What you are saying is possible, but there's no evidence to suggest that he would have continued his modifications (or perversions) to the point that all religious notions were removed entirely. There is no evidence that he was an atheist, but plenty of evidence (public and private) to the contrary. A point to keep in mind: Atheists are not only not theists, but they are not any of the following: deists, animists, pagans, polytheists, pantheists, agnostics, etc., either. Given the occult-like aspects of Hitler's beliefs, and his references to God, Nature (captial N), Providence, etc., the notion that Hitler was an atheist isn't supported by the evidence.

I do agree that Hitler was probably dishonest about a lot of what he was saying in public. Thus I prefer to look at the evidence regarding what he was actually doing. He was trying to implement this "German Faith," described above (also see the updated link [1] in this post), basically forcing it on the various Churches which opposed it. But the main piece of evidence to support his non-atheism, as I see it, is that his substitution still included theistic and occult-like ideas. Also, his admiration for Islam goes against the idea that he was an atheist.

Excommie,

Some of those statements about "religion" and "National Socialism" (also his references to "Christianity") are ambiguous. My opinion is that he was talking about getting rid of the extant forms of all of the above to replace with his "German Faith." For example, he was talking about destroying "Christianity", meanwhile he was trying to implement his version of it.

I think the bottom line is that neither Christianity (as presented in the Gospels) nor atheism advocate or prescribe Hitler's actions. But it is useful to point out that he was most probably neither a Christian (in the normal sense of the word) nor an atheist.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 24, 2007 7:39 AM

Hitler’s admiration for Islam

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers
-already, you see, the world had already fallen into
the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing
Christianity! -then we should in all probability have
been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which
glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh
Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic
races would have conquered the world. Christianity
alone prevented them from doing so."

p. 667 "Hitler's Table Talk; 1941-1944" translated by
N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)

Posted by: Odyessus at March 24, 2007 8:29 AM

Now hold on there eagerbeaver. I agreed with you in the past, but now you preach 90% truth, and 10% pure evil. I don’t blame you; you have caught the disease of Western propaganda, which is giving us the prescription of suicide. Note: it’s the disease and the prescription (the symptom: you know who and what.) I suppose the source of your attitude is Matthew 5:38-42, which the multi-culti propagandists have taken to the literal extreme and the exclusive truth.

It is easy to take those verses at face value, and disregard all of Jesus’ other teachings. First off, they dealt with personal non-perpetual offence: if someone sins against you, don’t retaliate with an equal amount of sin (Matthew 5:39-42). Read that last sentence twice. Does this mean you shall not rebuke sin? Nay! You shall always rebuke sin. Does this mean you shall not protect what is really valuable to you? Nay! You shall always protect your pearls (Matthew 5:6).

Certainly you should love and pray for your enemies, but don’t love or accept/approve their sins! Sure God loves them, but they do not love God, and for that they will pay in the afterlife.

One or two pages forward, Jesus says:

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.”

Beware my brother! Beware!

Posted by: ofcourse at March 29, 2007 2:03 PM