| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
We've done a lot.
We've spent $880 billion -- more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has ever fought.
In Iraq we have built schools, hospitals, roads, protected oilfields and repaired those that are damaged. We have handed out packets of money: stacked it high on pallets, handed it out like confetti ("I can't believe we are paying these people not to shoot at us" as one soldier was quoted in The Washington Times). It was not enough, you see, to assure ourselves that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction or programs that were close to manufacturing such weaponry. (The Americans did not realize that his intent was to fool Iran, not the United States, into thinking that he did possess such weapons -- and apparently they still don't realize that). Now that it is in the Shi'a thrall -- the thrall of Maliki and the greatly-misunderstood Al-Sistani (see "Mugged by Reality" by John Agresto) -- is Iraq now, in the scheme of things, less or more likely to be a force for "secularism"? Is it less or more likely to be such a force now that both kinds of Islam, Sunni and Shi'a, have been given a boost at the expense of the secularism? Secularism was, admittedly, thin but at least permitted, for reasons having to do with the political calculations of the outnumbered Sunnis who ruled over Iraq. It was allowed to develop, though not encouraged as, for example, it was encouraged by Ataturk or the Shah of Iran.
We have decided that it is we, the Infidels, and not the rich Arabs, who should be paying for the "rebuilding" or "reconstruction" of Iraq. Why is not clear. Why haven’t the Saudis been asked to contribute 200 billion dollars -- that's mad money to them -- if they wish the Americans to prevent Iraq from descending into "chaos"? The Americans are remaining, at this point, essentially to help the Sunnis. The Shi'a already have won, and it is now only a matter of seeing just how many of their gains they can keep, despite American pressure. Why the Saudis haven’t bee asked to contribute is entirely unclear. But when did the United States ever ask anything of its Arab allies? It asks only to be allowed to keep the region safe and sound so that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, Qatar, and others can continue to sell oil and make money, and use much of that money to pay for mosques, madrasas, Tablighi Jamaat, Hizb ut Tahrir, and armies of Western hirelings. They "allow" the Americans to defend them, their regimes, their rulers, while the Americans keep thinking they are "protecting the oil."
The American government has been played for a sucker. At the very least, it should ask itself why it has chosen to spend close to a trillion dollars to "protect the oil" on which such likely antagonists as China also depend. Why is America "protecting the oil" and spending all that money, and save for Britain (and to a much lesser extent Italy), there have been a few dozen or a few hundred troops from other places, sent for purely symbolic reasons at the request of the Americans? Should American taxpayers be bearing every burden, paying every price, in order to defend not "freedom" but access to oil that China, inter alios, needs as much or more than we do? Why?
What will be the effect of all the building going on, thanks to the Americans and other NATO forces, in Afghanistan? Who will use those roads that are being built to connect one part of Afghanistan to another? Will it be people intent always on peaceful commerce, or will it be the Taliban or other Muslim groups? What will be the effect of making it easier for Afghans to travel to Pakistan, or Pakistanis to Afghanistan? Will those schools being built (not the ones for girls -- they are being burned down faster than they can be built) teach illiterate Afghanis to read and write so that they will read Jefferson and John Stuart Mill, or is it more likely that they will be reading Islamic propaganda? When we provide that electricity, that allows for those televisions, or spread those computers and access to the Internet around, what will Afghanis watch? What will they learn? How will this improve the safety of Americans and other Infidels?
Yes, the government has had some success in arresting, here and there, this or that person who was determined to engage in violent Jihad. But what has been done in the United States, or more importantly at this point in Western Europe, to staunch the flow of Muslim migrants, to reverse that flow, and to make the campaigns of Da'wa more difficult? They should be defined as a threat, as of course they are, to the legal and political institutions of the Infidel nation-states, all of them, and a threat to the physical security of Infidels -- because a convinced Muslim convert is likely to be far more effective in his or her propaganda efforts, and far more likely to be a True Believer, than those who are simply born into Islam without choosing to the religion themselves as adults.
Six years, not entirely, but largely, wasted -- because of the ignorance, confusion, timidity, and sheer sentimentalism of the so-called "leaders" of the Western world, with Bush and Blair in the lead. Six years in which the kind of information that ought to have been presented, in an act of mass dissemination, by the governments themselves, have been left to private greatly-underfunded websites. Six years of false authorities telling us what and how to think: "terrorism" experts, "Bin Laden" experts, e tutti quanti. And those are the good ones.
Six years.
Posted by Hugh at September 12, 2007 2:44 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This is what it feels like to die.
The various 'organs' of our civilization become less and less efficient, the 'brain' becomes muddled, slow, delusional. Movement becomes more and more constricted. The most basic survival mechanisms atrophy.
Western civilization is ready for the respirator.
By the time we wake up and smell the coffee we will be too sick to get out of bed.
Posted by: poetcomic1![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 12, 2007 3:15 PM
The Work of the Righteous is Done by Others
The last six years have seen the global jihad grow and expand. The dominant response was two invasions of Muhammadan countries that our clueless leader gambled "would all come out fine in the end." In fact, Bush got re-elected, so one half of his bet worked out well. But the war in Iraq turned out to be worse than the worst of the worst-case scenarios.
Hugh hits the nail on the head when he says there is nothing to do now but make lemonade from lemons (my words) by withdrawing, leaving the Shia and the Sunnis to kill each other. Islam is a winner-take-all system and the hatred between Shia and Sunnis in Iraq, now stoked to all time highs, will not end peacefully.
There's some justice, but what a cruel justice. The Muhammadans love death. Well death they have now in Iraq. Above them, below them, around them, inside them. And the Muhammadans, instead of killing innocent infidels in New York and Pennsylvania, now kill each other and will be doing so for many years to come.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 12, 2007 3:37 PM
Ah, the pessimistic weltshmertz, the glass is half empty crowd, the dress me in black and let me drown my woes in a dimly lit coffehouse cellar club with lithe lit majors bemoaning the fate of the world, gloriously, next to me.
(those were the days my friends)
We interrupt this programme to tell you the news:
We are winning, and if we can keep you doomsayers off our backs, (and we can), we will continue to win.
Posted by: dgene at September 12, 2007 4:02 PM
I, for one, am confident we in the West will eventually prevail. But to prevail, we need a leader who understands the threat & can explain it to the people. Another Churchill would be perfect, but someone with lesser abilities will do.
Several years ago, with the publication of the book, "The Greatest Generation", many people born after WWII envied that war generation's sense of transcendent purpose to their lives, namely the defeat of Nazism & Japanese Imperialism. We face as mortal a threat to our civilization as they did back then, but our leaders describe the threat as terrorism, or extremeism, or evildoers who hate freedom. A leader who explains the situation as it actually is and tells the people what is at stake will give the people a sense of transcendent purpose & they will respond as the WWII generation did.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at September 12, 2007 4:25 PM
I believe that if there is infastructure to build in those places, and culture to share, then it should be of the type that Dinesh D'Souza doesn't like.
Sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll. How many rock festivals would $880 billion fund? How much free pornography and rock music could have been airdropped across the entire Muslim world for that kind of money? How many Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu-singing Britney Spears' could Hollywood produce for that kind of money?
Work with criminal organizations to build and expand black markets in vice in all of those places.
Let us organize care packages of beer, pot, an MP3 player stuffed with Speed Metal and Gansta Rap, and trampy clothing for every Muslim 12 year old on earth.
at September 12, 2007 4:34 PM
So who are you going to hire to replace Chimpy? Clinton? You guys are really on top of it. You should have the problem fixed in, oh, how about six months?
What's the plan? We hide from the Muslims and let them kill each other so we can come out in the dominant position? I guess we can ignore the airplanes and the other stuff that's happening outside the middle east.
My God it's a good thing that you caught Chimpy in his moment of deception. Are you by any chance with Moveon? What do you think of Petraeus?
Posted by: Mike H. at September 12, 2007 4:53 PM
Recently here in England, the Times front cover and two full inside pages were used to report on Police findings that more than 600 of Britains 1300 mosques were controlled by clerics who are 100% anti-western and actively teach their "students" not to mix with their English hosts.
A few days later....and I read that our pathetic PC government is going to approve state funding of Islamic faith schools.
I think that it is about time that Britain's leaders and people be made to stand up and face the music.
I feel that only the USA can bring our PC obsessed liberal establishment down.......I wish George Bush would tell Britain to either stop appeasing the unappeasable Islamic cult or America no longer backs Britain in any way.
My statements may seem extreme, but I live here and the way things are going, England won't exist in another 30-40 years if wholesale pandering to Islam continues.
Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at September 12, 2007 4:54 PM
"We have decided that it is we, the Infidels, and not the rich Arabs, who should be paying for the "rebuilding" or "reconstruction" of Iraq. Why is not clear. Why haven’t the Saudis been asked to contribute 200 billion dollars -- that's mad money to them -- if they wish the Americans to prevent Iraq from descending into "chaos"?"
"The American government has been played for a sucker. At the very least, it should ask itself why it has chosen to spend close to a trillion dollars to "protect the oil" on which such likely antagonists as China also depend... Should American taxpayers be bearing every burden, paying every price, in order to defend not "freedom" but access to oil that China, inter alios, needs as much or more than we do? Why?"
-Hugh
Hugh, I swear to God, I think almost EXACTLY along the lines of most of the stuff you write. It's like listening to my inner-self talk, except 5 x's
more eloquent...
Great piece again Hugh; this is an excellent assessment of the current state of afaires. Why must America bankrupt itself attaining goals which may or may not benefit the national interest. America's leaders to this day have no clue and have completely mischaracterized the WOT; it's a complete travesty. Why haven't the Saudi's, Kuwaitis, Omanians donated their VAST oil wealth to the security situation?
America is almost bankrupt. Look at what the treaury markets are saying!
at September 12, 2007 4:58 PM
What's the plan? We hide from the Muslims and let them kill each other so we can come out in the dominant position? I guess we can ignore the airplanes and the other stuff that's happening outside the middle east.
---posted by Mike H
Welcome Mike H. to Jihad Watch. Here you will find dozens and dozens and dozens of brilliant posts by Hugh Fitzgerald and others and you can see that "hiding" from the Muhammadans is the LAST, I repeat, the LAST thing that ANYONE on this Watch ever would recommend.
Au contraire.
We despise the Muhammadans and we are ever vigilant about them because we know that their unholy prophet whom they worship, commanded them to KILL US (if we don't submit to them as Masters). And we will never submit.
But we also don't believe that they are capable of living in a democratic country with liberty for all, human rights, equality for women, religious minorities. Only a retard like George Bush thinks Islam is a religion of peace (he said it) and that Iraq is composed of "ordinary moms and dads" who just want to live in peace and watch their kids play soccer. All the blood we've spilled and the 900 Billion we've spent to build schools, airports, highways is not taking the fight to the Jihadis.
Adjudicating a civil war in Iraq based on a theocratic division that is 1400 years old DOES NOTHING to lessen the threat from the global Jihad. The answer is not to play policeman in Iraq and try to build a civil democratic society in the heart of the mideast where none has existed before. The answer is to ban Islam, deport a large percentage of the Muhammadans on our soil and educate the infidel about the society we live in and the difference between Islam and ALL OTHER RELIGIONS in the world. That's a start.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 12, 2007 5:22 PM
Mike H.,
I think you are trying to lecture us about something but I can't tell what that is. You seem to be dribbling on yourself.
Who the hell is Chimpy?
And as far as Patraeus is concerned, I think he is
just tickety-boo.
at September 12, 2007 5:38 PM
The last paragraph is what bothers me the most. I wonder why some Brits convert to Islam. It is rare, but it does happen. Why does no-one ever convert to Sikhism? It does not make any sense to me. What would someone find on offer in Islam that is not in Christianity or Sikhism? I cannot understand it at all.
Posted by: Aveyard at September 12, 2007 6:58 PM
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 12, 2007 5:22 PM
Well said Ynkedoodle, well said.
As a side note, it REALLY irked me when another poster accused me of being a 'leftist' the other day. Just because I vigorously do not support the Iraqi war; never have from day 1, does NOT make me such. While I totally support stronger countermeasures such as increasing democracy broadcasting in the ME, elevated security of the borders, lower immigration etc, somehow my skeptism of the war makes me a 'leftist'.
I would like to think however, that posters like myself and Hugh are realists. If a policy is not working, it is best to shift away from it and try another approach. Clearly the Iraqi war fits this characterization.
Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at September 12, 2007 7:03 PM
Thank you Ynkedoodle2, I wasn't too sure from the comments that I was reading.
Allow me to proffer my bona fides, I come from another war in which the clarion call was for 'Give peace a chance" or can't we just talk? The one thing that was obvious then and is obvious now is that someone who says that they have a vested interest in getting rid of you is telling you the truth as they see it. And when they tell you that, you have no choice but to fight them where you have the best opportunity to defeat them, as soon as possible.
Sometimes an alternate plan is to turn them away from that which they have a vested interest in (in this case salafism, both Shia and Sunni) and give them something better. A modicum of freedom that can be handled by their culture. The one thing that won't win anything is to stand around and weaken the support of the leadership by cutting them with the torture of a thousand verbal cuts. That was what I observed and why I reacted in the manner that I did.
It shouldn't be a surprise that we disagree over tactics or strategies, banning Islam and deporting Muslims wouldn't gain us a thing beyond making us look over our shoulder every time we heard a noise. I ran is trying to establish a proxy in Venezuela and the tri-corners in South America is teeming with mufsidun trying to access the southern border to commit hirabah in this country. Nicaragua with Ortega is in the process of normalizing relations with Iran and Europe is in the midst of a politically correct hand over of their lands to an influx of North African and Pakistani immigrants. If you haven't done so lately you might take a look at Sweden and Norway's progress in handing their systems to the Islamists.
To cut to the chase, deporting the Muslims and ignoring them won't do us a bit of good. We will have to fight and it would be better to do it there than any where else. Remember, the NVA had a free base of operations and replenishment above the DMZ. The fight should have gone there.
Posted by: Mike H. at September 12, 2007 8:19 PM
from dgene"We are winning, and if we can keep you doomsayers off our backs, (and we can), we will continue to win"
HURRAH!
We are winning for we've managed to construct hundreds of hospitals in Iraq. Hospitals that we'd have otherwise have to have built in the US.
HURRAH!
And we've spent a cool trillion buckeroos in Iraq. Money we could've have given back as tax cuts to the US taxpayer
HURRAH!
And we've got 1,000's of US soldiers dying in defence of a Constitution that is based on the Koran.
HURRAH!
Yes, dgene we are winning.
Posted by: ewha1 at September 12, 2007 8:22 PM
Six years in which the kind of information that ought to have been presented, in an act of mass dissemination, by the governments themselves, have been left to private greatly-underfunded websites.
- Hugh
Absolutely correct. However, it could not have, nor could it now be done by this Administration for two reasons:
1) The effort to "win the hearts and minds" of the enemy would be useless if we were disseminating information disparaging their belief system, albeit truthful information, here in the States. In this day and age it would be impossible to educate the masses here without the Iraqis and Afghans being aware of it. It would also invoke the wrath of every individual in all Muslim countries and any efforts to recruit Middle Eastern allies in the "War on Terror" would fail. Not that we really have any, but at least some aren't fighting us.
2) To do so would validate Al-Queda propaganda that this is a war on Islam, a so-called Crusade. Their ranks would swell to the millions. Their enemies would include every country that not only is friendly to us, but even those who would refuse to condemn us. "Occupied Europe" would become a bloodbath.
Immediately following 9/11 a vast educational and truthful campaign aimed against Islam would have succeeded. Definitely here and maybe even in Europe. Even legislation outlawing its practice may have succeeded, following which there would have been no need to deport Muslims. They would have gladly left on their own. The sheer anger that permeated the whole of America could have been used in a very productive way. Instead, it was wasted on a war that cannot be won.
Posted by: Mick_n_NYC at September 12, 2007 9:43 PM
As a response to 9-11-01, after hitting Afghanistan with its al qaeda camps and taliban, the next logical target would have been the financiers of the attack against us (the US), Saudi Arabia.
We could have taken the oilfields, the Saudis are no military match for us, and the Arab street would have screamed in rage and then went back to what it does best: licking its anus.
Saudi Arabia, however, could not be hit by the administration we had at that time. The ruling house in Washington (father and son cum advisors) decided if anything were to be hit, it would be the elder G. Bush's enemy: Saddam. And so it was.
A half-witted strike carried out by a half-wit trying to flesh out his half-witted "dream." Still trying to do that, no matter how much of our money is blown and how many of our best and bravest young people are thrown to the dogs (sunni and shi'ite) in the process.
Can we win in spite of the idiot at the helm? Yes, if we don't replace him with worse one. And there is a whole bunch waiting out there, wanting that job--from Lady Macbeth on down to Kucinich on one side and a better selection on the other, some of whom are not hesitant to name the enemy (no, not "terror," Gomer, it's the boys on jihad).
It's so tiring to have to push that huge old rock up the hill, only to watch it roll down again. But what else is there to do?
Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 13, 2007 3:03 AM
Naahh...why would anyone think that a fellah was a leftist for calling the President "Chimpy" or "a Retard"? Particularly in this forum, where our enemies visit to see what we think of things or what we call the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.
Like it or not, we are winning in Iraq, but only because even the most Islamic of the Iraqis,have finally found the extremes of AQ to be too much. Living in an army town, I've spoken with many soldiers who have done multiple tours in Iraq. Even if you don't believe in what they are doing, they do. I haven't spoken to one in the 40 or 50 I've been privileged to meet that did not have a positive view of their work, which is our work, in Iraq.
If you think that the Armed Forces are stretched to their breaking point, you're kidding yourself. Have you ever seen the film of the tactical nuke being fired from a 105 Howitzer? That's the little piece of artillery you see towed behind Jeeps in WWII. Never mind going nuclear, the firepower that is available there now is incredible. The only thing that keeps it from being unleashed are the massive civilian casualties that would ensue. Being the kind of people that we as Americans are, precludes us from using that power without regard to loss of innocent lives. Practicing that kind of compassion costs blood and lives. Our scumbag enemies have no such compunction and take the innocent with target, or more often, the innocent are the target.
The problem is, I'm beginning to see in my short time learning about Islam, that the chances of them maintaining any kind of peace that may eventually be achieved, is minuscule. Their ancient feuds are their greatest enemy.
However, I don't feel that we should condemn them to death on that basis alone. We should give them the chance to survive. Given the tools to govern themselves, a miracle might occur. Is it worth American lives to give them that chance? That seems to be an American tradition...giving freedom to the oppressed. We did a lot of that in various and sundry countries that did benefit from our efforts. I believe the world is a safer and certainly freer place due to those efforts and sacrifices. Should we stop now? Is it our place to spread freedom? I'll leave that to you to decide. You know my answer.
at September 13, 2007 4:25 AM
"We are winning, and if we can keep you doomsayers off our backs, (and we can), we will continue to win."
Osama Bin Laden, speaking on behalf on his global jihad, couldn't have phrased it any better.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 13, 2007 10:47 AM
@Mike H
1)...banning Islam and deporting Muslims wouldn't gain us a thing..."
Oh really? It would outlaw the enemy and remove the enemy from our midst. If that's not a gain, I don't know what would be. You want to fight 4 different enemies at once (who all hate each other) and pretend that Iraq will emerge as an American ally with a pro-Iranian, pro-Syrian Shiite theocracy.
2)...If you haven't done so lately you might take a look at Sweden and Norway's progress in handing their systems to the Islamists.
Yup. Seen it. That's why I'm calling for not letting any muhammadans into the USA.
3)...To cut to the chase, deporting the Muslims and ignoring them won't do us a bit of good.
Deporting the enemy would do a WORLD of good. And it wouldn't be because we "ignored" them. Au contraire. Keeping them here is ignoring them and requires that we KEEP IGNORING the danger of Islam to our society.
4)...We will have to fight and it would be better to do it there than any where else.
Why does fighting muhammadans in Iraq help us here? How does squandering 1 Trillion dollars to build a peaceful, non-sectarian, secular state in Iraq (after we destroyed the one that was already in place) help our fight against the global Jihad? Would it stop a single lone Jihadi from acting here in the U.S. Has it made our southern border harder for Jihadis to penetrate. Has it stopped the flow of "refugees" (muhammadan) from flooding in?
Haven't you figured it out yet. Muhammadans are not interested in LIBERTY. LIBERTY is a no-no for muhammadans. They are slaves to Allah.
slaves to allah
slaves to allah
repeat until memorized.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 13, 2007 11:04 AM
"1)...banning Islam and deporting Muslims wouldn't gain us a thing..."
*stifles uncontrollable giggling*
Posted by: Foehammer at September 13, 2007 3:22 PM
Ok, you guys win, sorry I bothered you. You haven't gained any votes but that's a minor problem I guess.
Posted by: Mike H. at September 13, 2007 4:40 PM
Who the hell are you people? I have a lot of respect for Robert Spencer, but some of the comments in this thread really disgust me. George Bush is a retard, idiot, cum adviser? Is this the DailyKos?
Now, I'm not a big George Bush fan, but that kind of rhetoric is something I expect from the anti-war left, not the Jihad Watch faithful. Stick to the facts and leave the condescending, hateful demagoguery out of it. Seriously, you guys are not helping your cause at all by behaving like this.
Posted by: 2Brave2Bscared at September 13, 2007 6:05 PM
It shouldn't be a surprise that we disagree over tactics or strategies, banning Islam and deporting Muslims wouldn't gain us a thing beyond making us look over our shoulder every time we heard a noise. I ran is trying to establish a proxy in Venezuela and the tri-corners in South America is teeming with mufsidun trying to access the southern border to commit hirabah in this country. Nicaragua with Ortega is in the process of normalizing relations with Iran and Europe is in the midst of a politically correct hand over of their lands to an influx of North African and Pakistani immigrants. If you haven't done so lately you might take a look at Sweden and Norway's progress in handing their systems to the Islamists.
To cut to the chase, deporting the Muslims and ignoring them won't do us a bit of good. We will have to fight and it would be better to do it there than any where else. Remember, the NVA had a free base of operations and replenishment above the DMZ. The fight should have gone there.
Posted by: Mike H. at September 12, 2007 8:19 PM
Maybe I'm not understanding you but you seem to contradict your own words! You're obviously aware of the situation in Europe as a result of mass muslim immigration. Muslims are multiplying like rats and there are more deaths than births among indigenous Europeans.Every European country with muslim immigrants is paying dearly for that irresponsible mistake. Muslim ghettoes defile every large European city; mosques are built on every corner and jihad is preached by clerics imported from Saudi ARabia and Pakistan; muslims refuse to assimilate; Europe is in the midst of a tumultuous upheaval and civil war between muslims and Europeans is almost inevitable. So exactly why do you say that deporting muslims from America would solve nothing? We're facing the same thing here in ten years or so, if not sooner. We WILL be fighting them here after rabid jihadis start blowing up malls and schools.
We will never "win the hearts and minds" of muslims! If muslims cannot appreciate freedom in the West, what makes you think they will appreciate it in Iraq? Democracy to a muslim means electing people to enforce Sharia; Sharia and democracy are antithetical! The constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan contain clauses stipulating that Sharia is the supreme law of the land and no law can be enacted that contradicts or violates Sharia. Saddam was a genocidal psychopath but Iraq had a secular government and women had rights. Now they are killed for not wearing hijabs. Christians and Jews are butchered every day under the noses of thousands of U.S. and allied troops. Bush, the devout Christian, is completely indifferent or oblivious to the plight of minorities in Iraq. He all but begs muslims to love America and embrace "democracy" because all people want the same thing--freedom. Bush is IGNORANT! I voted for him twice and I initially supported the war. But when I realized that the Bush administration was setting up theocracies in Afghanistan and Iraq and consulting ayatollahs like Sistani, who considers all non-muslims to be as "filthy" as feces and urine (that means you, me, and President Bush) my support vanished. Islamic law is obscene and should be eradicated from the face of the earth. Our soldiers do not deserve to die for that filthy, vile, archaic abomination and it is in no way remotely related to DEMOCRACY.
Nothing will stop the sectarian violence in Iraq but another tyrant like Saddam, who would kill tens of thousands until they got the message. Brute force is all those savages understand. We could win that war in a month if we used the tactics a muslim tyrant would not hesitate to use against his own people, but we're too nice. Can't kill any women and children but we can sacrifice our brave young soldiers to a hopeless and unworthy cause. Muslims are not worthy of anything we have; they would continue to hate us and try to kill us if we handed them America on a silver platter. Whenever we do leave, whether it's next week or in ten years, the sectarian violence will explode and sunnis will converge on Iraq from everywhere to fight the shi'a. Why waste any more money and American lives to delay the inevitable? Let them have at it and slaughter each other with wild abandon. Saudi Arabia spends billions every year on da'wa, spreading their malevolent Wahabbi islam around the globe, building mosques, buying real estate in the West, corrupting our societies. Let them spend that money on internecine warfare to fight shi'ites. Let them revel in their favorite sport---bloody conflict, carnage, and glorious death, the more the merrier. Let the rivers of MUSLIM blood freely flow, financed by petro dollars extorted from the West.
Posted by: Susanp at September 14, 2007 12:56 AM
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.)