| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The government lurches from ignorance to ignorance.
There is the ignorance and obstinacy of Bush, who never named the problem correctly (not the "war on terror" but the war against the Jihad), and came to believe, or allowed himself to believe, given his great respect for any belief-system called a "religion" that has many adherents, that Islam was in all important senses benign. And Bush is not alone. "I see you don't care much for Islam. But can a billion Muslims be wrong"? Surely there has got to be something to it?" Those words were uttered to me by a very high Pentagon official in April 2005, after listening to what I thought was a rational, measured, and unanswerable 90-minute exposition of Islam and what made sense in Iraq.
Not having identified the problem as "Jihad," the Administration has been therefore unwilling to fashion a policy whose aim would be not merely to diminish the threat of "terrorism" but also to diminish the greater threats, especially in Western Europe, of islamization. (That is the goal of Bin Laden, but also of Tariq Ramadan -- they differ, as with the Slow Jihadists and Fast Jihadists of Fatah and Hamas, only on tactics and timing.) That islamization proceeds through well-financed well-organized relentless campaigns of Daw'a, and campaigns against the legal and political institutions, and self-assurance, of the Infidel nation-states and peoples among whom millions of Muslim immigrants have been allowed to settle, and where through overbreeding they may through demographic conquest inexorably become first a large minority so cohesive, powerful, and determined that it will shape the policies, both foreign and domestic, of most of the Western world. Then they will become an absolute majority, further changing things so that, just as in the Middle East and North Africa, the indigenous populations, after Arab Muslim conquest, were islamized and, unless fiercely opposed (as in Iran), arabized -- linguistically and culturally -- as well.
Nor did Bush recognize the reality of Iraq, and what the removal of Saddam Hussein would inevitably lead to. It did not depend on dissolution of the army or on de-Ba'athificiation, nor even on that exercise in purple-thumbed "democracy" in January 2005, in which Shi'a, sure of their numbers, voted as Sistani and Sadr and other religio-political leaders told them, while the Sunnis largely abstained (participating a bit more in December 2005). And the Kurds voted twice in January 2005, once to take part in the Iraq elections, and at the same time in a Kurds-only referendum, in which they voted 98% for independence from that same "Iraq."
He never understood why those sectarian and ethnic fissures, which pre-date Saddam Hussein, which pre-date the founding of the United States by a thousand years, which go back all the way to the first century of Islam, were not obstacles to be overcome but pre-existing conditions to be exploited.
With the results we all see: a squandering of men, money, and materiel to achieve a goal that is not achievable -- this "unified Iraq" where Sunni lions lie down with Shi'a lambs, or is it Shi'a lambs with Sunni lions, or Sunni lions with Shi'a lions, no matter what temporary pretend-accommodations -- so foreign to the aggression and failure to compromise and "war is deception" and victor-vanquished spirit and letter of Islam with which Muslims are suffused -- may be made.
So one had hopes that possibly the Democrats would concentrate on opposing the war in Iraq, on unsticking the United States from Tarbaby Iraq, and in so doing, at long last come to recognize, be forced if only to make a more convincing case (if such were needed) against that war, that it made no sense, not because it was too tough, too anti-Islam, but because it isn't nearly tough enough, is not at all anti-Jihad.
It turns out, or Pelosi turns out, to be depressingly ignorant as well. She thinks "peace" is possible between Israel and its neighbors, based on negotiations and treaties, which means that just like Rice and others, she has not read, and may not read, about how Muslims regard the Infidel nation-state of Israel. It is, to them, unacceptable, it is on land that was Muslim-ruled for a period (it does not matter how long or how short a period) and therefore is on the priority list, along with the Balkans and Greece and Bulgaria, and Sicily, and Spain and Portugal, and most of India, and the entire Caucasus and much of southern Russia, to be taken again by the forces of Islam, and reintegrated into Dar al-Islam.
She thinks that visiting this or that country, a country such as Syria, does something to encourage sweet reason and compromise. It never does. It only gives the regime legitimacy, bolsters it as against its domestic enemies. It was disheartening to Israelis. It was disheartening to Lebanese -- not the Lebanese who support Hizballah and other collaborators and agents of Syria/Iran, but the other Lebanese. It is disheartening to dissidents within Syria and outside Syria, such as Mr. Ghadry. It shows no understanding that Syria's Alawite regime has decided to curry favor with Shi'a in Iran, a powerful neighbor some of whose clerics, during the last few years, even declared the Alawites to be "real" Muslims (it's a great problem for the Alawites, the kind of problem that led to the massacre of 82 cadets, all of them Alawites, at a graduation ceremony in Homs, and then to other attacks by the “real Muslims,” the Sunni Arabs who make up 70% of the Syrian population.) Those clerics gave the Alawites this certification even though they have the cult of Mary (every Alawite house in every Alawite village has a picture of her), a bit of obvious syncretism, in a part of the Middle East where the Christians managed in much greater numbers to hold out against the Muslims, and in the past century were aided by the pressure and sometimes presence of European powers, capable of protecting Christian interests -- chiefly France. And at the same time, the Syrian government does nothing to prevent Sunni Arabs entering Iraq to fight as they wish. After all, if some of those Sunni Arabs are from Syria itself, the more of them who go off to fight and die in Iraq, the easier that makes the lot of the Alawites (who comprise only 12% of the Syrian population).
But if there were to be full-fledged Sunni-Shi'a civil war, the situation for Syria would be more perilous. It would have a harder time balancing its favors to the Shi'a (by being a conduit for Iranian arms to Hizballah in Lebanon) and its favors to the Sunni Arabs (by letting them go from Syria to Iraq).
And of course the greater the power of the Kurds, and in any larger clash between Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs in Iraq, the greater the freedom of movement of the Kurds, the more danger that also means for Syria, and its control over its own Kurds.
Problems, problems. Problems for the Alawites, who think they can survive by doing favors for both kinds of Arabs, Sunni and Shi'a, but who may find that their rule can come to an end. And they know the real Muslims. Hafez al-Assad certainly knew them, and knew that the only way to buy another few decades of rule was to smash them, as at Hama. Otherwise, every Alawite village will be attacked, whenever the local Sunni Muslims feel strong enough, and there will be nothing left of them. If the Shi'a are "Rafidite dogs," then what could Sunnis do to the Alawites, who with their cult of Mary are guilty, it appears, of a kind of quasi-Christianity, and of the unbearable crime of shirk?
Pelosi's trip to Syria betrayed her miscomprehension. And by her naivete and ignorance, she has made it harder for that other display of naivete and ignorance -- the American effort in Iraq -- to be brought to an end. For to a very quick end it must be brought, as the costs skyrocket, as the army, especially the civilian army, becomes more and more demoralized, with dangerous long-term consequences that are hardly recognized by the public (but the soldiers and their families know), and as we rightly demand some kind of victory over the Camp of Jihad after so much expense, a victory that comes only when American forces withdraw, and cannot possibly be achieved while they remain, to fight and die for "Iraq" (a fictional Iraq, an imagined Iraq), in a place that, only on the maps, can be called "Iraq."
Posted by Hugh at April 5, 2007 9:00 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Now that the Dem's have banned the phrase "Global War on Terrorism", I suggest we call it "Global War on Jihadism".
Posted by: TheOmegaMan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 5, 2007 9:23 AM
I think the problem people have in questioning Islam is based in part on the billion followers and in part the fact that the religion has been around for over a 1000 years. If Muhammed was someone around in the 18th century, I don't think Bush and others would have much problem with being more skeptical.
Posted by: JSobieski at April 5, 2007 9:28 AM
Concerning the quantity of Muslims, what people don't think about is that no one in Muslim countries is allowed to question the religion. If they do they endanger themselves and their families from their own countrymen. Apostasy is a death penalty crime in Islamic countries. That surely keeps MANY would-be questioning mouths shut! Also, most adherents to Islam in Muslim countries are illiterate. They have only the Qu'ran read to them and are completely uneducated in anything else.
An argument from quantity is obviously fallacious. There's a lot of cockroaches, too.
I love this quote: "Eat dung - 50 billion flies can't be wrong!"
Posted by: darcy at April 5, 2007 9:35 AM
Another reason why there's so many - as Hugh said, "overbreeding." Muhammed decreed that the job of women was to "manufacture men" (have male babies), and indeed women are expected to start reproducing at puberty and until menopause.
HEY MR. PRESIDENT - DO YOU GET THAT???? HELLO? ANYONE THERE????
Posted by: darcy at April 5, 2007 9:38 AM
Not ignorance, Evil with full knowledge. They have chosen and act accordingly.
- bush al-saud continues to create the next muslim terror state ripped from Jewish Land.
- bush al-saud refuses to name the enemy, islam.
- bush al-saud spouts the same lies as the enemy themselves, "religion of peace," "Abrahamic faith," "worship the same god," etc.
- bush al-saud and family have a LONG history with the saudis who just happen to own the 'holiest' place in islam, makkah.
- bush al-saud's 'justice' department issues a boilerplate statement "nothing to indicate terrorism", every time a filthy muslim terrorist shotguns kids at the mall or slaughters Jewish women at the Jewish Federation.
- Why can I five + years after 9/11 walk down the street and see numerous muslim terror mosques operating? Why can I buy a $5 koran for $100 and know exactly where that money will go? Why can I buy jihad DVDs at the local terror center?
- Why do jihad front groups operate openly and with funding from the KSA?
No, there's a CLEAR theme.
The internal enemies MUST be addressed BEFORE the external enemies.
at April 5, 2007 9:41 AM
SHIT ! Can a 100 trillion flys be wrong?
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 5, 2007 9:43 AM
SHIT ! Can a 100 trillion flys be wrong?
Brilliant.
I have maintained for a long while, that it is not the concept of the Jihad, or petro-dollars that gives the greatest concern for the cintinuance of civilisation. It is immigration of Muslims in large numbers, their demographic growth rate in the West due to a huge birth rate, that is the greatest threat that we face. In fact it is fatal unless we do something quite uncharacteristic.
at April 5, 2007 9:51 AM
Definitely, that's primarily why I'm against Muslim immigration - the very real threat of demographic conquest. The "uncharacteristic" thing you mention is that we're eventually going to have to nuke'em to preserve Western civilization. They're like the bubonic plague in reproduction.
Posted by: darcy at April 5, 2007 9:56 AM
'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinsess".....the next improper phrase the Dhimmicrats will want to erase from history...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 5, 2007 10:12 AM
I cannot believe her ignorance! Just heard also Syria was confused actually at her visit, knowing well this is "Bushssh$ WAR!" Then she ask the Arabs why there are not more women in the government? How do you say in Arabic, "have you looked in the mirrow lately?!"
If we all get together can we send the dhimmicrats some of Spencer's book? PIG! To the Pork Spenders and let's call it Polosi' War! The war on the American People and their civilization as they know it!
Can you imagine the war on drugs; please identify each one specifically what your talking about so we know! Ah, how about the ones that killed Anna Nicole Smith?
Nancy looks fitting in her head scarf!
at April 5, 2007 12:17 PM
It turns out, or Pelosi turns out, to be depressingly ignorant as well.
l dont know why you are surprised at this? after she is a demicrat. so okay Bush is not perfect, he does recognize evil, and has labeleded is a war on terror. Bush needs to go a step forward, and label that "evil" as "islam".
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at April 5, 2007 1:48 PM
President Bush is neither ignorant nor obstinate. He has proven to those who know what is occurring a worthy tactician.
While the eyes behold the move of the day, the mind which examines sees China not moving against US interests but joining as much as Bolshevik Russia. The central Europeans being forced to use back door operations instead of full front assaults in economic leverage.
President Bush has joined the catastrophe and made it a diverted controlled chaos working for long range United States goals. He is resolute, far sighted and operating a perfect multi front operation.
If one examines the field and the players who are behind the proxies in how they are cowed, then there is no ignorance involved by the President as he has accomplished the goal and is working on a fruition of a plan to keep America safe or at least capable of absorbing the warfare which is indeed coming full bore now.
at April 5, 2007 2:01 PM
Does the word 'ignorance' relate to ignore. I think so. To ignore is a conscious act. Ignorance is the state of deliberately ignoring available information. In this case the history of Islam and Jihad and the Islamic policy of cooperation with the infidel when Islam lacks the power to wage successful Jihad.
In America we have a dilemma - no government interference with religion, but a religion that has an objective to supplant (overthrow) the government.
Please - no ignorance - read Jihad In the West by Paul Fregosi, Prometheus Books, 1998, and pass it on to friends.
rg.
at April 5, 2007 6:46 PM
To ignore is a conscious act. - rg
Excellent.
It doesn't get any plainer than that.
I hope the very well intentioned, well spoken, and erudite (but I fear not religious) here give those six words serious consideration.
Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at April 5, 2007 10:23 PM
A facetious but apt pov on the US policy in Iraq, from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mCCYLC-4xA
Posted by: Dunk
at April 6, 2007 2:32 AM
I am sick of the War on Terror being referred to as a war on Islam. If the socialists and communists in Russia and North Korea (to lead the pack) stopped backing the jihadists, the threat would all but vanish. To continue calling the WoT a War on Islam, is to continue ignoring the backing of all the major bad guys that matter. Putin is far more important than bin Ladin. Get rid of the socialist swine...and not only do the jihadists had a 5th century ideology...they also have a 5th century funding.
Posted by: WolvenBear at April 6, 2007 6:18 AM
"I see you don't care much for Islam. But can a billion Muslims be wrong"? Surely there has got to be something to it?" Those words were uttered to me by a very high Pentagon official in April 2005, after listening to what I thought was a rational, measured, and unanswerable 90-minute exposition of Islam and what made sense in Iraq.-Hugh
That may be true, but I'm sure the talk had an impact on him. In learning anything new there is always a period of confusion and caution re the data and uncertainty re necessary behavior. Habits of thought and behavior change slowly as principles are understood. But when the knowledge is grasped, change of attitude and behavior is often(apparently) swift. William James once said, "We learn to swim in the winter and to ski in the summer". I would read some confusion in his response.
You and Robert are having a powerful impact on peoples' thinking. Jihad School does not appeal to emotions, it appeals to reason. He reflected on the talk. Bet on it.
at April 6, 2007 10:14 AM
Hugh-
People in America have been habituated to think in terms of pluralism and most people here are influenced by the 10 Commandments and Jesus' mandates against deception. It is a shock to realize that Muhammad taught deception and permitted it as a part of a strategy of subduing "indigenous" cultures. "War is deception". Deception is war. It's the Flying Phonies and other deceptions of word and deed.
Muslims have been able to use our pluralism to call us bigots as part of the game of deception and dhimmification of "the other". But many many people now see the will to domination and deception inherent in this belief-system. There is a lot of reflecting going on in this matter.
The cat is out of the bag.
Posted by: Frank at April 6, 2007 10:33 AM
I would not be surprised if that was a Rumsfeld response. That guy always has to correct people. He's a One-upmanship kind of guy. But even if it was him, the talk had an impact. People don't like to admit being wrong or face unpleasant facts. Especially folks like Rummy.
Posted by: Frank at April 6, 2007 10:44 AM
I am sick of the War on Terror being referred to as a war on Islam. If the socialists and communists in Russia and North Korea (to lead the pack) stopped backing the jihadists, the threat would all but vanish.
posted by WolvenBear
I know your right, those who have the money manipulate the world, and have for years.
Posted by: AllahFUBAR at April 6, 2007 11:50 AM
It is WAR on Islamist terrorist!
God is nothing if not supernatural - especially in love.
It would be scientless science to off healing. It takes an unexperienced power (exceptly Christ)to heal the world's agony.
Salvation by culture instead of by Christ is a delusion. A theology dead to the power of Christ to save, is itself to dead to save.
Jehweh is most importantly a "I am ness". He is ever present- ever present in love and grace.
at April 7, 2007 12:01 PM
Deception without intent is still deception. The failure to be truthful is one of man's worst faults. It is comforting to know, however, that truth is the real coin, the currency we all desire to prevail. We who believe in God believe it shall some day.
Deception breeds deceptions and self-deception until theory is declared certain fact, and wrong proclaimed right. I am convinced many without honest study misrepresent God's word! We have a task to be trueful.
at April 7, 2007 1:12 PM
'Truth to the truth-seeker, is the most sacred thing in the universe. Truth is in the actual reality of thoughts. Many people argue that the moral issue has nothing to do with nature. Only the human race is responsible for actions so considered as right and wrong. Morality or immorality according to them has no effect (so thought) upon the elements of the natural world.
The people of faith in God have it necessary to face this issue. Are the predictions of the prophets valueless? Is there a right or a sin?
God doesn't ask for the heart alone. Jesus, we read, "increased in wisdom, statue, and in favor with God and man." The highest attainment of Jesus was reached by the Will., the mind, and the heart, not by any other part separated from the rest. THE NEW HUMANITY'
at April 7, 2007 3:18 PM
Philanthropy itself is often preached an "insurance of hope." One of the advocates of this theory suggests it as a way of world peace. Many times, foreign missonaries have used philanthropy as gospel only to find it to be gospel of American civilization and not Christ. Too often philanthrophy is doubted as geniue. Without exceptance of our motive as being in the love of Christ, our philanthrophy only arouses suspicion and we acquire a dependence on our continued generosity without even a thanks! There are more kinds of thankless people than leepers! Doubt concerning our motives in our philanthrophy can only be dispelled when THEY find our true motive the CROSS of CALVERY Jn.3:16
LET YOUR ENERGY IN LIFE
BE SUPPLIED BY THE ENERGY
IN GOD'S LOVE FOR YOU AND
YOUR ENERGY WILL NEVER RUN DRY
at April 7, 2007 3:51 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)