| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Robert Spencer’s video on the British “Islam is Peace” campaign should be expanded to a 30-45 minute short. It would be well worth it. After all, this campaign, costing no doubt many tens of millions of dollars, is an important weapon of the attempt to fool English people and prolong their unwariness and confusion and even diffidence about discussing their entirely justified fears of and suspicions about Islam. And since the campaign is generic -- that is, since it represents the only thing that Muslims engaged in such propaganda can do -- if Robert Spencer answers, point by point, each of those five parts that make up this orwellian "islamispeace" campaign, he will have done it not only for England, but for all English-speaking countries where similar, if less obvious, efforts are underway. Do it now, in a clear and easily viewed form, and it will be done.
Now let's all imagine that we are Muslims, Believers living in the West. Muslims are not "monolithic," we are told. No. You may come from Pakistan and I from Somalia, and someone is here from Algeria, and someone else from Yemen, and so on. But we all share the same faith, a faith that is a religion, a politics, an economics, a system of artistic censorship, a guide to personal hygiene, a manual of etiquette, a guide to Dealing With Non-Muslims, a clothing manual, a guide to what are the permissible limits of thought and especially of thought about Islam and Muhammad, and so on. It's a Total System. It is unrecognized as such by most Infidels because what they know of as religion, what they think of as religion, is not a Total System.
And while Christianity is the other faith that makes universalist claims, it has not always, and certainly does not now, push those claims incessantly everywhere there are Christians. It does not think it right and proper to use violence against all those who resist the complete domination of Christianity or who choose to leave the faith. It does not regulate every area of life. It does not contain a politics ("it renders unto Caeser what is Caesar's") or a geopolitics. As for other faiths, while in Hinduism and Judaism informed converts are welcome, there is no campaign equivalent to Da'wa, nor is there anything like the Total System or violence of Islam. Islam seeks the uninformed convert, the person who really doesn't know the full story of Islam, but who is inveigled into reciting the Shahada, told he is now a Muslim, and then by slow degrees is taken carefully in hand and made much of by Muslims who watch his every move and guide his every step.
So there you are, a Muslim living in New Jersey or Michigan. What kind of campaign would you offer? Well, you'd carry on such a campaign in your own way, wouldn't you? If Infidels at work, or the parents of your children's schoolmates, are bold enough to ask you about Islam, you would first tell them all about Ramadan, and then about prayers. The very word "prayers" implies, to Christians, that the same kind of prayers to the same kind of deity are being invoked. But the prostrations to a whimsical Allah who interferes with life at every turn are not the same. Everything depends, inshallah, on Allah. The effects of that attitude are many on, for example, Muslim economic performance, or on the ability within Islam to foster the free and skeptical inquiry required not for mere technology, but for the enterprise of pure science, and also for the development of human thought.
Think for a minute and imagine yourself a Muslim living in the West. You too would wish to convince others that "Jihad" has nothing to do with violence, and is in fact a struggle against "oppression" and "injustice." This will be taken, you know, by non-Muslims to mean whatever it is they mean when they use the words “injustice” and “oppression.” And who could be for, rather than against, “injustice” and “oppression”? Whereas Muslims know exactly what, in Islam, these words mean: they mean all the attempts by non-Muslims to put up obstacles to the spread, and ultimate dominance, of Islam. That is what, for a billion Muslims, constitutes “oppression” and “injustice.” That is what they are fighting against in Great Britain. They are fighting against it right now through their islamispace campaign, with those glossy pictures on the side of the busses, and those expensive television ads, and all the rest of it.
Yes, they are conducting Jihad. They are attempting to befog the minds of non-Muslims, to confuse them, to prevent them from beginning to look at Islam steadily and whole. They are attempting to prevent them from learning the truth about its tenets and attitudes, its history, and the present behavior, everywhere that Muslims exist in numbers sufficient to attempt to impose their will, whether in the Lands of the Infidel, the Dar al-Harb or “House of War,” or in the already Muslim-dominated Dar al-Islam, which is now the House of Peace. It is the House of Peace because, you see, there is no need for war once Islam triumphs -– which of course isn’t quite true, because then there are those remaining pesky non-Muslims to discriminate against, to harry, to humiliate, to degrade, to render physically insecure, to do everything possible either to drive them out, or to keep them from multiplying or serving as an attractive and therefore dangerous example to the Muslims around them.
We are in a war. The war is not to be determined by what happens in Iraq Tarbaby Iraq, that is, the squandering of men and money and materiel and energies and attention while preventing us from coming to our senses. If this campaign in Great Britain, probably financed by those deep Saudi and other oil-rich Arab pockets, succeeds, and if all such campaigns succeed in delaying the day of recognition, the fateful, civilization-wide and not merely individual, anagnorisis, it will be a very bad thing.
There are at this point not many people fully capable of seeing the whole thing, grasping the whole thing. Spread to as many as possible what they have to say. Support them in any way you can. And learn as much as you can yourself, so you cannot be fooled, cannot be bested. Become dangerously well-informed and, therefore, implacable in your view.
Posted by Hugh at October 3, 2007 11:33 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Excellent post Hugh and as to your last sentence, we are doing just that. Jihad Watch put the final pieces in place for me and many others.
I have even changed my opinion on Iraq, becaue by trying the impossible job of winning hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan and trying to avoid the own goal of being seen to be oppresive to Muslims in the West we have given the Jihadists free reign in th West and this campaign is another example of that.
Posted by: Daffersd![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 3, 2007 11:53 AM
I keep seeing the word "monolithic" quite a bit lately. Red flag. Red flag. Red flag.
Are we a pack of Homer Simpsons? It's utterly obvious that Islam is putting a footprint on every Western nation with the goal of one day overturning our governments, Islamizing our ways and returning the Caliphate to prominence and power.
A nut like Ahmadinejad even intends to usher in the Mahdi and an Age of Chaos. Nuclear war anyone? Civil strife? Fear for your children in your own neighborhood or at school events thanks to that "peaceful" and growing and demanding Muslim minority?
Are you ready for Call to Prayer towers in major cities?
Are you ready for burqa-clad women on park benches while you walk your dog or at the super market when you're buying ingredients for dinner? Are you ready to go to "war" at PTA meetings over every holiday you ever held sacred and then have to explain to your kids what Ramadan is?
Well get ready. It's coming and coming fast and it looks like we are all too weak to stop the Islamic Glacier. Are we? 9-11 sure as Hell didn't seem to snap us out of our stupor -- quite the opposite. Instead we are hearing about Islam EVERY SINGLE DAY in the news. Anyone want to challenge me on that statement? You know it's true.
Listen to Robert. Listen to Hugh. Listen to your conscience:
"We are in a war."
Damn right we are. A war for our very souls. Remember where you come from, people. We owe out ancestors that much. We our our grandchildren more.
Posted by: Foehammer at October 3, 2007 11:56 AM
"We are in a war"
Wise words from Hugh and Foehammer. Indeed we are in a war. Not a war against Islam, as Muslim apoligists everywhere say, but a war against us by Islam. The mere fact we continue to exist as Infidels and Non-Muslims is an affront to Muslims and Islam.
Unfortunately, Islam's apologists in non-Muslim lands, their useful idiots in the PC multiculturalist mob, continue to assist the enemy's war effort in so many ways. This built-in fifth column of treason and sedition weakens us everyday and makes us more vulnerable. I'm convinced if they weren't active and have so many people under spell, Islam's evil would be widely recognized and our will to resist stronger. Many of the necessary steps to defeat Jihad would have already been taken and the Islamic enemy wouldn't be as dangerous as it is. Throw in a clueless Republican leadership and our peril grows.
We must resist, there is no other option.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at October 3, 2007 12:20 PM
Islam is not peace. Islam is Submission.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING1
I will not submit.
Lan Astaslem.
الاسلام هو كذب.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 3, 2007 12:28 PM
"We are in a war"
...It is a world war, and the rest of the world is only now arousing from a deep sleep....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 3, 2007 12:28 PM
Ramadan decorations in a Chicago school. I think I'm going to have to buy barf bags when I go grocery shopping today. The news is getting that sickening.
Posted by: Foehammer at October 3, 2007 12:47 PM
9-11 sure as Hell didn't seem to snap us out of our stupor -- quite the opposite.
--posted by Foehammer
I always wonder what would have happened if, instead of attacking and invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the American government had committed itself to education about Islam and the dissemination of that information to the people while at the same time using special operations forces to ruthlessly exterminate its muhammadan enemies, wherever and whenever they were found. This wasteful war to bring democracy to the spawn of the fiend muhammad has muddied up the waters and prevented understanding of the jihadi threat by millions of people.
For a brief moment the USA was the aggrieved party and the world waited breathlessly for its answer. Can you imagine if we had then a Robert Spencer as POTUS and not the doofus George Bush?
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 12:55 PM
See the excellent article
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010683
The reason Hugh is right about Islam and wrong about Iraq is that human nature is stronger than religion. This is true of all religions, even Islam. Behavior is more reliably predicted from human nature than from religion.
Our constitution's 'free exercise' clause was not designed for Islam. It states that congress cannot pass laws restricting free exercise of religion. But congress has passed many such laws. For example, there are no exceptions in our murder laws for killing those who insult the prophet or apostates, etc. Free exercise of Islam is already restricted, why not make it official?
Posted by: justask at October 3, 2007 1:00 PM
WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.
=====
I'm starting to put George Bush in the same category as the lying imams of Islam. I mean GB claims that Democrats are fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE! Crikey, his own co-republicans admit that he's done nothing, NOTHING, to rein in government spending. In fact, he's increased it disastrously! But then he LIES and accuses others of what he is guilty of. George Bush is a complete hypocrite. Can anyone seriously wonder why the jihadis find a fertile field for their anti-Americanism. It all goes back to what I said in the preceeding post.
GB has sodded up everything. Everything he touches turns to caca.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 1:02 PM
@justask
If Hugh is right about Islam, then he can't be wrong about Iraq.
The article you posted is so full of sh-t, I don't know where to begin, but consider the following absurd claim:
"Thousands of Americans and their allies have died helping to give Iraqis this opportunity. We have shown enormous skill and bravery in helping them fight their enemies, and immeasurable goodwill in sending our young men to protect Iraqi schools, mosques and polling booths. The reason we and Iraqis are winning this war together is that its purpose is to give Iraqis what they want."
What they want is ISLAM!
Not freedom!
Not liberty!
Not tolerance!
Not secularism!
They want ISLAM!
Are YOU willing to die so that muhammadans can have their islam?
It's absurd to talk about "the Iraqis." Saddam Hussein understood that there was no unity among Iraqis and that is why he was a wise leader. All attempts to unify this Kingdom Divided Against Itself will FAIL. I am sure of it because Jesus told me so; prophecied to that effect. A kingdom divided againt itself will not stand.
Thank God it won't!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 1:12 PM
The truth in a post seems inversely proportional to the number of exclamation points and upper case words.
Posted by: justask at October 3, 2007 1:12 PM
@justask
I'll wait for Hugh to show up. He won't use as many exclamation points. Of course you might want to read any of his hundreds of brilliant posts archived at this site.
I'll simply repeat for the record, without exclamation points:
If Hugh is right about Islam, he can't be wrong about Islam.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 1:16 PM
Brilliant post Hugh
Become dangerously well-informed and, therefore, implacable in your view.
I am fairly well informed and already implacable.
I just wonder how to best use my time remaining while on Earth.
at October 3, 2007 1:22 PM
I agree that Hugh and Robert are right about Islam. I think Hugh underestimates human nature. They also want money, a world class soccer team, and a future for their kids.
I think reparations may have been better perhaps than war after 9/11. But its clear that Gore or Kerry would have done the same thing in Iraq.
Posted by: justask at October 3, 2007 1:29 PM
"I just wonder how to best use my time remaining while on Earth.
Posted by: UK Infidel Lover "
...spread the truth about Islam to the non believers.....they just may live longer...
at October 3, 2007 1:29 PM
"Our constitution's 'free exercise' clause was not designed for Islam. It states that congress cannot pass laws restricting free exercise of religion. But congress has passed many such laws. For example, there are no exceptions in our murder laws for killing those who insult the prophet or apostates, etc. Free exercise of Islam is already restricted, why not make it official?
Posted by: justask "
....are you inferring Islam is a Religion?....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 3, 2007 1:31 PM
Foehammer,
Excellent post! The really depressing fact is that our own leaders seem to be as blind as bats concerning everything you said, and they use their high positions to blind others about the true nature of Islam.
If we think we can rely on them to protect us from the Islamic menace, we'd better think again.
I'm convinced that the only way we can save ourselves is to save ourselves. Only when there's a massive grass roots movement of the people that demands an end to Muslim immigration, and the designation of Islam as a political, not religious organization, will we save ourselves and our civilization.
Posted by: rational
at October 3, 2007 1:32 PM
I'm going to suggest (coin) a new word here: Islamomisos. This should replace 'Islamophobia', which suggests 'fear' of Islam. I have no 'fear' of Islam and will NOT submit. Rather, I detest it. The word is constructed of (of course) 'Islam', in reference to the obvious, and the Greek root word meaning 'hatred', which is 'misos'. So the definitions should be something like this:
Islamomisos - detest or hatred of Islam
Islamomisoic - One who detests or hates Islam.
at October 3, 2007 1:40 PM
@BNCurtis
Why not anti-Muslim?
Because it sounds like you're prejudiced. It sounds like anti-semitic, hatred of Jews.
But hey, who says you shouldn't be afraid of Islam. I'm scarred shitless of Islam. I'm scarred shitless every time I hear about footbaths being installed in my college bathrooms; I'm scared shitless when I read about the House of Representatives signing a "I LUV Islam" resolution; I get scarred shitless every time I see a re-run of 9-11; I get shitlessly scared about the power of the money DAWA, the demographic DAWA, and the inability of infidels to comprehend the menace.
Islam is a menace, is it not?
Well, goddamnit, if Islam is a menace, then I have every reason to fear it. Not individual Moslems. Physically I'm not afraid. If anything I'm a tad reckless. But the menace of Islam has me scared shitless. I'm Islamophobic and I wish every infidel were as Islamophobic as I am.
at October 3, 2007 1:56 PM
My earlier post should have said:
If Hugh is right about Islam, he can't be wrong about Iraq.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 1:57 PM
"But its clear that Gore or Kerry would have done the same thing in Iraq."
posted by justask
I completely disagree. George Bush is a uniquely selfish moron. His only reason to invade Iraq was to insure his re-election in 2004. That is why he waited until about a year before the elections. It was all very calculated.
Bush was asked about casualties. He said (on tape, I've seen it) "Maybe there won't be any casualties." The man is a delusional, self-serving ass-clown. The worst leader in the history of this republic.
at October 3, 2007 2:03 PM
exsgtbrown
Islam is a religion plus much more, of course. My point was whether the framers intended "free exercise" to include Islam. Clearly not in many details. So should congress outlaw Islam? Or just restrict its free exercise where it infringes on other rights?
I've read the entire Quran, some hadith, Reliance of the Traveller, Spencer, Lewis, Pipes, Fallaci,... so we know what Islam is. But Hugh is mistaken to underestimate the force of human nature.
Posted by: justask at October 3, 2007 2:04 PM
"This wasteful war to bring democracy to the spawn of the fiend muhammad has muddied up the waters and prevented understanding of the jihadi threat by millions of people."
Ynkedoodl2, spot on & if anyone questions your patriotism, just let them know that a G.I. in Afghanistan told you how the muhammedians have "kill the infidel" sermons broadcasted over loudspeakers after prayer call... Despite all the roads, clinics, and satan shrines, oops, mosques we have built for them!
at October 3, 2007 2:10 PM
"This wasteful war to bring democracy to the spawn of the fiend muhammad has muddied up the waters and prevented understanding of the jihadi threat by millions of people."
Ynkedoodl2, spot on & if anyone questions your patriotism, just let them know that a G.I. in Afghanistan told you how the muhammedians have "kill the infidel" sermons broadcasted over loudspeakers after prayer call... Despite all the roads, clinics, and satan shrines, oops, mosques we have built for them!
at October 3, 2007 2:10 PM
"This wasteful war to bring democracy to the spawn of the fiend muhammad has muddied up the waters and prevented understanding of the jihadi threat by millions of people."
Ynkedoodl2, spot on & if anyone questions your patriotism, just let them know that a G.I. in Afghanistan told you how the muhammedians have "kill the infidel" sermons broadcasted over loudspeakers after prayer call... Despite all the roads,schools, clinics, and satan shrines, oops, mosques we have built for them!
at October 3, 2007 2:12 PM
I was about to send the YouTube link of this video to a friend but the notice on YouTube stated:
"This video has been removed by the user."
Any comments why or did YouTube itself remove it?
Posted by: johnb at October 3, 2007 2:13 PM
@Armalite
Thanks brother. God bless you and keep you safe.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 2:21 PM
@BNCurtis
In you travels tell everyone you talk to about this subject to substitute the work terrorist or its related words with Islam when they hear someone say it on the MSM. I agree with your correcting of the wording and its roots but the real battle is getting people to realize who the enemy is we are fighting.
As I have stated before you could ask them a simple question...
"What was the name of the enemy we fought in Europe in WWII?"
Then ask them...
"What is the name of the enemy we are fighting today since 9/11?"
If they get it wrong which they most likely will. Then tell them a little secret. The enemy is Islam.
Ex 15:8
The enemy said, `I will chase them, catch up with them, and destroy them. I will divide the plunder, avenging myself against them. I will unsheathe my sword; my power will destroy them.'
السابقين 15:8
العدو قال : 'انني سوف مطاردتهم ، واللحاق بهم وتدميرهم. سأقوم تقسيم النهب ، والثأر لنفسي ضدها. انا لن اسحب بلادي سيف ؛ جهدي سوف بتدميرها.
at October 3, 2007 2:22 PM
I agree with your comments in general, Hugh, but I'll point out that the "Islam is Peace" campaign has motives and agenda other than obfuscation of war initiatives, and it would be good for us to acknowledge and illuminate all of these -- and educate westerners to understand and recognize them.
First, go to the islamispeace website and read for five minutes or less, and one thing will strike you immediately: After you scratch the surface the whole thing is not about repudiating warfare or violence at all. The site is plainly, and purely, with very little disguise, Islamic Da'wa.
This is a point that, for some reason, westerners and antijihad people easily miss. Perhaps it is our JudeoChristian mindset; we are used to Billy Graham, and don't recognize the Islamic forms and modes of proselytization.
The primary purpose of this site is to ride on the publicity of Jihad attacks by purportedly "refuting them" (by whatever dubious references to Qur'an and Hadith) and, once the audience is "snagged", pepper them with Islamic propaganda. Though they make a show of wring their hands about the jihadist attacks on British soil, they can hardly contain their glee at the fantastic opportunity presented to them by the publicity thus obtained. I have no doubt that they pray for more of the same -- though I personally have no trouble believing these folks would not carry out such attacks themselves.
Remember that the goal of Islamic Da'wa may be to convert the target audience to Islam, but they don't realistically expect mass conversions. What they DO expect is to have a chance to dull the western resistance to Islam with fine-sounding nonsense. In this respect the site is pretty effective, though when you read it with understanding, it loses its potency. We MUST help people understand what it is.
Kids are vulnerable to TV advertising because they do are not on guard against its manipulative devices the way adults are. Western audiences are receptive to Da'wa because it doesn't look like Campus Crusade's Four Spiritual Laws tracts or sound like Billy Graham sermons. It sounds all multicultural, and generous, and concerned with matters of justice, and...peaceful (though it is none of the above...that's the point -- it's a SALES JOB).
I detect a secondary purpose that relates more to the trojan horse tactic, but in a way not anticipated my many of the antijihad commentators:
The site is targeted as much, or MORE, for consumption by muslims than by non-muslims.
Why, you might ask, would they spend so much money to get a message of Da'wa to fellow muslims? For exactly the same reason as Osama and Mr A of Iran now include Da'wa in all their messages to the west: It brings the Umma onside.
That's right -- Islamists have learned that there is no better recruiting tool than Da'wa. Calling non-muslims to islam doesn't win many converts -- to islam; but it wins converts from "cultural Islam" to radical Islam, in the droves.
Believe me, I know, as an evangelical christian, how hard it is to stand up and say that some idiot who presents themselves as an evangelist is an idiot. Evangelists are, for some unexplained reason, considered inviolable. Those of us who do question some of the stupid things they say and do in the name of "evangelism" are regarded, in some circles, as borderline apostates.
I'm exaggerating (only a little) in my description of evangelicals above -- but I observe a parallel effect, which is MUCH stronger, in Islam. By spreading mass Da'wa the Islamists automatically get Islamic sainthood and their agenda may no longer be questioned. For this reason the muslims who stand up to them, once they start proselytizing, have to be extremely brave!
So...yes, they are playing possum and trying to catch the kuffar off guard for what will eventually turn violent ... but I don't think that is their primary purpose, and it is to our own peril that we ignore the specific purpose of initiatives like this.
at October 3, 2007 2:28 PM
justask wrote:
"But Hugh is mistaken to underestimate the force of human nature."
I believe Hugh properly estimates the force of human nature, which pales by comparison to the force fear from a vengeful deity and slavery to the all encompassing ideology of Islam.
The desire to implement Sharia in some form in their Constitution and the reality that Sharia and Westerm democracy as we know it are diametrically opposed, validates that claim.
I recall a staement that summed it up pretty well; "America loves Pepsi-cola...we love death."
No feasibly sustainable amount of intervention by the US in Iraq can swing the pendulum in the other direction as to be meaningfuland lasting. That radical change must come solely from within.
Posted by: awake at October 3, 2007 2:28 PM
Said it before, yeah, islam is so peaceful, that's why I have to wear an ACH helmet, ISAPI bullet proof plates, and carry an M-4 Carbine to survive the "love" sent from its adherents!!
Posted by: Armalite at October 3, 2007 2:32 PM
Another great, insightful piece from Hugh as always.
Meanwhile, CAIR is busy trying to fool the American people: Corey P. Saylor, national legislative director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations will be Gary Baumgarten's guest on his News Talk Online show on Paltalk today. He will discuss Senator John McCain's view that there should be no Muslim working in the White House, and calls for a Muslim aide in the White House. 5:00 PM Eastern Today. Also webcast on ASI Radio and other webcast outlets.
Please join me in counterbalancing this one-sided propaganda event. You may participate in the show by going to http://www.paltalk.com/newstalk and clicking on the "click here to join room now" button. You may also download and install the PalTalk chat client at http://www.paltalk.com. Then use the Browse Rooms Menu to navigate to Special Features: News Talk Online.
The hardcore Muslim activists, Muslim apologists, their leftist allies, and the grossly uninformed tend to dominate the callers in number if not content. You can help spread our message.
Posted by: donchicago48 at October 3, 2007 2:37 PM
Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 1:56 PM
Um, racist? I thought Islam was a religion, not a race. And, to be honest, where it comes to Islam, I'll have to admit to a bit of prejudice.
And, yes, I think Islam is a menace... like a cancer. But I refuse to walk around mis-labeled 'Islamophobic'. That's why I choose 'Islamomisoic'.
Posted by: BNCurtis at October 3, 2007 2:49 PM
Listen to Robert. Listen to Hugh. Listen to your conscience:"We are in a war."
Damn right we are. A war for our very souls. Remember where you come from, people. We owe out ancestors that much. We our our grandchildren more.
Yes, and in case you have figured it out yet this ad campaign is a shot right over your cranium that has just parted your had right down the middle.
We are a pack of Homer Simpsons drunk on political-correctness; high on multi-culturalism; and in a moribund stupor from which we had best awaken before our islamic doctors decide to disconnect our life-support.
Better dead than red or a rag-head; but on MY terms!
Posted by: witness at October 3, 2007 2:53 PM
Listen to Robert. Listen to Hugh. Listen to your conscience:"We are in a war."
Damn right we are. A war for our very souls. Remember where you come from, people. We owe out ancestors that much. We our our grandchildren more.
Yes, and in case you have figured it out yet this ad campaign is a shot right over your cranium that has just parted your had right down the middle.
We are a pack of Homer Simpsons drunk on political-correctness; high on multi-culturalism; and in a moribund stupor from which we had best awaken before our islamic doctors decide to disconnect our life-support.
Better dead than red or a rag-head; but on MY terms!
Posted by: witness at October 3, 2007 2:53 PM
Listen to Robert. Listen to Hugh. Listen to your conscience:"We are in a war."
Damn right we are. A war for our very souls. Remember where you come from, people. We owe out ancestors that much. We our our grandchildren more.
Yes, and in case you have figured it out yet this ad campaign is a shot right over your cranium that has just parted your had right down the middle.
We are a pack of Homer Simpsons drunk on political-correctness; high on multi-culturalism; and in a moribund stupor from which we had best awaken before our islamic doctors decide to disconnect our life-support.
Better dead than red or a rag-head; but on MY terms!
Posted by: witness at October 3, 2007 2:54 PM
Armalite:
Godspeed young man. It must be difficult risking your life to secure the insidious idiots of the Death Cult. On the other hand it must be fun to kill some Taliban! And I suspect you are really fighting for your family, comrades, and country, and for that we thank you.
As to the argument above re "the force of human nature" in Muslims, witness the ease with which Muslims in the flower of their youth will explode themselves amidst innocent people for a magic carpet ride to a mythical whorehouse.
Force of human nature?
Force of death.
OT: Any way we can bring members of Giuliani's staff in the JW realm? I'm liking what I'm hearing from him, and remember the kind of impossible shitstorm he fixed up in NYC in the 1990s. Let's face it we need somebody who will first recognize the problem of Islam and then DO something about it. Rudy does what he says he is going to do.
Posted by: JohnAdams at October 3, 2007 2:58 PM
If present trends continue, we will need to send these people packing. I really don't care what they do in their own lands. I care very much what they try to do in mine.
Posted by: MP at October 3, 2007 2:59 PM
"...human nature is stronger than religion" --from above
The genius of Mohammed's religion is that it so effectively manages to co-opt many of the baser aspects human nature. Within Islam, there is an excuse for almost every vice: lust, avarice, anger, violence, provided it is directed outwards away from the Moslem community. As a result, conventional morality, as exhibited in other religions, is frequently stood upon its head wherever non-believers are concerned.
at October 3, 2007 3:00 PM
"Hugh underestimates human nature. They also want money, a world class soccer team, and a future for their kids."
-- from a posting above
The idea that there is some immutable "human nature" that will prevail over any ideology, no matter how total the control of that ideology over every area of life, and the way in which growing up in a society suffused with Islam will in the end overwhelm and channel the "human nature" of all but the most independent, ornery, cunning, and insubmissive. There are such people in Islam; they end up being, in the West, the apostates, such people as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In the Muslim world, they end up being silent, or if not silent, forced back into Islam (see Robert Hossein in Iraq), or forced to flee the country for the safety of a non-Islamic policy (see Rahman in Afghanistan), or dead (see Farag Foda in Egypt, Ali Dashti -- imprisoned and tortured in his eighties, and then released -- in Iran).
Were the goose-stepping Nazis, the ones who eagerly participated in the Final Solution -- see Christopher Browning on the perfectly ordinary soldiers of the Wehrmacht who took part in the mass killings of the Einsatzgruppen -- demonstrating "human nature" or demonstrating that "human nature" could be overcome through brainwashing, or what exactly where they demonstrating? Are those automatons marching in North Korea in their uniforms and with their weapons, expressive of "human nature" or "human nature" modified?
Of course, many Americans wish to believe that "human nature" consists of the desire for -- well, the desire for what most Americans think is worth desiring. You know, things like "money, a world class soccer team, a future for their kids." What a list. It sounds like something Bush, bringing his "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, would give.
Might it be, could it be, that those desires are not necessarily first on the list of everyone in this great big wide world of ours? Is it just possible that not everyone is that "average American" at heart (for example, I'm an American, largely indifferent to accumulation though furious that the absence of money uses up so much of my time that could be put to much better use, and I don't give a damn about a "world-class soccer team" or organized sports at all, and my definition of a "better future for my kids" is probably as different from the definitiion that my neighbor would supply, as his is different from his neighbor on the other side.
What you are arguing is that Islam matters, but it doesn't matter quite as much as we seeem to think. But every witness who has arrived from that world, and every scholar who has long studied that world, reports quite differently, reports -- whether they have studied mainly the texts, or have studied both the texts and the history of Islam, or have studied the texts, and the history, and lived in Muslim countries with adequate linguistic preparation, or have perhaps done only the last -- have conducted field work -and only later, perhaps, have studied the texts that would help them make sense of what they experienced -- that for Muslims Islam is the center of their lives, directs their thoughts, creates their attitudes, and also creates a worldview in which the Believer is placed in permanent opposition to the Infidel.
Let me offer just one example. I recently read "Reflections on Field Work in Morocco," by Paul Rabinow, an anthropologist who had spent the year 1968-69 living in a Moroccam. He makes clear that he went knowing enough Arabic, but not knowing anything about Islam. But he, someone who declares his initial, third-world-sympathizing, predictably leftist views (indeed, at the end of the book he soberly describes his return to America, and the estrangement he felt from his old friends on the left, with their fixed views about the world and how Everyone Wants The Same Thing), learned from his year living with Muslims.
Here is one excerpt:
“Despite the myriad divisions which fragment Moroccan social life, there is one cultural conviction on which I never found either hesitation or disagreement: the world is divided into Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam does provide a mediating category for the “peoples of the book,” Christians and Jews. They, too, have received a divine revelation, but it is incomplete. Mohammad is sovereign among the prophets, for his revelation combines those of the Jews and the Christians and completes them. These people have the right under Isllam to practice their religion so long as they acknowledge their inferior role by paying special taxes and by accepting a variety of symbolic and material burdens. That this can be a relatively workable, if onerous, arrangement is attested to by Muslim-Jewish relations in Morocco for the last thousand years. [He did not know, obviously, about the long record of Muslim pogroms against Jews, particularly under the Almohads, such as that at Fez in which all of the Jews were killed; he does not know why Maimonides fled from Morocco to Cairo, as before he had fled from Spain to Morocco].
It is workable, however, only as long as Muslim dominance is clear. My religion did not interest them at all. They never questioned me on my assertion that I was a Christian. After all, they had the truth. A pervasive malaise, however, was symbolized by the widespread fear that I was a missionary. This persisted throughout my stay, even to the very last day. By then it should have been clear that I had not interfered with, denigrated, or tried to alter anyone’s religious beliefs. Yet, cries of messihi, missionary, still rang out from a group of drari. Although it was annoying such a tenacious identification was significant.
There was a dormant fear of Christianity. The villagers knew that the Christian lands were now more powerful than the Islamic countries. This led to a lingering anxiety that this political and military power would be converted into an attempt at religious dominance, which was, after all, the most important sphere of life in villagers’ eyes.
This seemed to be the only possible reason 2why a rich young American (me) would leave the comforts of home in order to live with them. I must be after something crucially important. The subversion of their religion was one of the few things they could imagine to be worthy of such a sacrifice. That I did not try to interfere in religious matters, I now understand, was irrelevant. The constant expression of pure and noble intentions is a rhetorical art which Moroccans [Muslims—H.F.] have raised to athe level of cultural performance, and they ever take such professions of purity [by others] at face value. I did my best to assuage these fears during my stay. I stressed time and again that my interests were historical and social, but I doubt that I was very convincing.”
And at the end:
“…there was one further question to ask: Are we all equal, ben Mohammed[a local Arab who served as a local guide and informant]? Or are Muslims superior? He became flustered. Here there was no possibility of reformist interpretation or compromise. The answer was no, we are not equal. All Muslims, even the most unworthy and reprehensible, and we named a few we both knew, are superior to all non-Muslims. That was Allah’s will. The division of the world into Muslim and non-Muslim was the fundamental cultural distinction, the Archimedean point from which all else turned. This was ultimately what separated us.”
You, just like the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, or like the assorted kagans and kristols, and of course Bush and the others making policy, think that deep down inside, Muslims are Just Like The Rest Of Us. This is a very American, and very naďve view. As a guide to understanding the world, it is useless. People are indeed different. Their definitions of what constitutes “prosperity” for example, are based on different ideas. Their ideas as to what constitutes “happiness” may vary.
Let me suggest that this modern notion comes out of the post-war shame over the destruction of Europe’s Jews, not only by German Nazis, but with the enthusiastic participation of many others, and the silent approval, or still worse, the indifference and failure to extend aid when aid might have been extended -- a failure that goes from Asst. Secretary John J. McCloy, a vicious man who prevented the bombing of the rail lines to Auschwitz, and to Breckenridge Long, who in the State Department made sure that Jewish refugees were kept to an absolute minimum, and some ships were as a result forced to turn back, with their despairinig human cargo, to Germany and certain death. Not being able to face up to it and to make some kind of amends directly, what happened is that a cult of Everyone Is The Same developed. It got a real boost from the sentimentalism of Edward Steichen’s “Family of Man” exhibit in the mid-1950s. Remember that? That’s the one in which we are shown photographs of the Stages of Life: birth, childhood, adolescence, first love, coupling, having children, growing into middle age, old age, and death. And then there are activites. For example, there is man at play, with cards, or at the track in Ascot finery, or simply shooting the breeze with some friends on a bench, outside a courthouse in a sleepy Southern town. The faces belong to denizens of hectic Manhattan skyscrapers, shacks in Shanghai, the pampas of Buenos Aires, the birch forests of Siberia. We see people expressing those emotions that all humans share: Joy, Grief, Expectancy, Foreboding, Content, Despair, Hilarity. And we are then led to believe that the going-my-way Hollywood priest’s Bomfoggery (Brotherhood of Man, Fatherhood of God) not only is true, that we must all be alike, brothers under the skin, no matter what. It isn’t true. What you take in, the ideology or ideas that move you, even if you don’t even recognize them as an ideology or set of ideas or as something less, merely a set of attitudes or expectations, does in fact fashion you and your views and your behavior.
Think of the grin on someone’s face when he learns that he has won the spelling bee. Or on the face of a schoolgirl, shyly accompanying her date to the prom, proudly corsaged in good 1953 manner. Now think of the look of pleasure on the face of Bin Laden, the mingled amusement and good humor and pride, at the thought of all those Infidels dying in the World Trade Towers (you’ve seen the tape of Bin Laden regaling his pals with tales of that exploit, haven’t you?). Or, if you wish, think of the pictures of the concentration camp guards at play, frolicking about, decorating a Christmas tree, and so on – pictures recently discovered and now on display, according to the papers, at the Holocuast Museum.
In other words, “happiness” may be a universal human emotion – a reflection of that “human nature” you refer to. But what causes one person to smile at a good report card, and another to smile, in the same way, feeling the same feelings, when he learns that a certain mission has been accomplished and nearly 3,000 civilian Infidels are dead – well, do you get the point?
I don’t know if free-market fundamentalists, like the chicken-in-every-pot boys at The Wall Street Journal, who believe that deep down inside, we are all Americans, siamo tutti americani – is your cup of tea, and if you really believe that “prosperity” (paid for, incidentally, not by Iraq borrowing against future oil billions, nor by any grants from other oil-rich Arab Muslim states, but by the long-suffering American Infidel taxpayers) is just the ticket to make Islam less potent. Well, did it work in Saudi Arabia or the Emirates? There everyone has cradle-to-grave economic security, and the money sloshes all over the place. What about the rich people in Arabia? Are they content? Or have they used one hundred billion dollars so far to push Islam in the Lands of the Infidels, and give not the slightest sign of letting up – why aren’t they content with all those things you list as what Iraqis, what Iraqis because of “human nature,” want and which will overcome Islam and its effects?
But the Saudis and the other rich Arabs already have the “money.” And they have the “better future for their kids” – and how. So what’s lacking? Oh, it’s the failure yet to rent enough players and the top-of-the-line coaches, I suppose, for that “world class soccer tieam” they still don’t have. That must be it. The reason Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Libya, and all the other fabulously rich Muslim oil states are promoting Jihad, are spending a hundred billion dollars to tear down every obstacle to the spread and ultimate dominance of Islam, is that they still don’t have that “world class soccer team” which, along with “money” and “a better future for their kids” is all that Muslims in Iraq, or anwhere else, really want, really ever wanted. That was what, for 1350 years, they have been seeking.
Money. A better "future for their kids." That "world class soccer team."
Please, spare us.
at October 3, 2007 3:00 PM
"It is unrecognized as such by most Infidels because what they know of as religion, what they think of as religion, is not a Total System."
Excellent point. However, that doesn't meant that Christianity is not a comprehensive life-governing "system," for lack of a better word. The Great Commandments of Christ ("Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself") is meant to govern and apply to all of life.
There is no aspect of life that doesn't fall under one or both of these headings. Christianity is motivated by love, so that everything we do should be colored by love of God or man or both. A pertinacious affinity for a legal code, on the other hand, breeds hypocricy and viscousness from the frustration and uncertainty that it generates.
Islam cannot, and will not, win. The stupidity of our dhimmi neighbors will dwindle to the degree that they experience the fruit of jihad among their families and friends, so that new attacks and outrages will eventually cause us to gain allies from among those who are now essentially assisting the enemy. And of course, Christ, unlike Mohammed or "Allah," can convert as many Muslims to true religion as He wants, whenever He wants.
The days are numbered for the "Religion of Peace."
Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 3, 2007 3:16 PM
If Muslims can buy ad space on a bus or ad board for their messages or champagnes, why are there not counter advertisements bought on the same places? Of course, I would like to see on the other side of the bus”
ISLAM IS PIECE – A Body Piece Here, A Body Piece There
but I guess that would be a hate crime. Still, why are there not paid ads on public buses or other public view boards that just say things like
“Visit Jihadwatch.org for up to date information on violent Islamic Jihad” ?
Does anti-jihad and anti-Islamic thought have to be seen only on the Internet and in a few books?
at October 3, 2007 3:28 PM
So, your instructions were to imagine that we were a muslim living in this country? OK, here we go....Hmmmmm..."Alright, I am imagining that I am a muslim in the US...(eyes glaze over in a hypnotic, zombie-like trance, brain shrinks, hate begins to foment, heart turns pitch-black, muscles shrink, male genitalia shrinks, considerably)...hey, I gotta do what mohammed did. He prayed 5 times a day, so I gotta pray five times a day. He faced mecca, so I gotta face mecca. When I go to Mecca, I will do several laps around the stone because mohammed did several laps around the stone, I will throw a rock at a tree because mohammed threw a rock at a tree. I will do things because mohammed did them. I must kill. MUST kill. Allah needs more blood shed to be satisfied so I will kill Jews and Christians. I will kill women and children to prove how mighty I am....."
OK, Ya know what? I can't do that imagining anymore. It is too pitiful of a mindset to enter. Just pathetic. Hopeless. No thank you.
For all it is is ritualistic exercises. There is no insight there, no light, no grace, and the attituide of the heart cannot matter, or else how could one behead a human being while chanting, "allah is great"??
No, it is pure darkness, pure emptiness. There is no life in islam, it is nothing but permission to hate and kill and not be accountable to the real God for it.
Posted by: angryeagle at October 3, 2007 3:28 PM
Hugh Fitzgerald: Thank you.
"Shine on you crazy diamond."
Posted by: Josephine at October 3, 2007 4:06 PM
"...human nature is stronger than religion" --from above
The genius of Mohammed's religion is that it so effectively manages to co-opt many of the baser aspects human nature. Within Islam, there is an excuse for almost every vice: lust, avarice, anger, violence, provided it is directed outwards away from the Moslem community. As a result, conventional morality, as exhibited in other religions, is frequently stood upon its head wherever non-believers are concerned.
Posted by: Chatillon
My thoughts exactly, Chatillon. The genius of Mohammed's religion, I would submit, is that one very like an angel simply drew upon his own corrupt nature and that of man's and whispered it into muhammed's ear over time. No wonder it appeals to men!
Three guesses as to who that angel is.
Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at October 3, 2007 4:11 PM
I always wonder what would have happened if...the American government had committed itself to education about Islam and the dissemination of that information to the people while at the same time using special operations forces to ruthlessly exterminate its muhammadan enemies, wherever and whenever they were found.
@Ynkedoodl2
How could this have been accomplished without the PC crowd accusing GWB of "condemning all Muslims for the actions of a few"? Who would have listened to it and not dismissed it as some sort of Christian propaganda? It wouldn't have taken long for CAIR or the Saudis to accuse the govt of disseminating false information about Islam and we would have been forced to do what Bush did: visit the mosque and listen to the imams. CAIR's disinformation campaign couldn't be rebutted by anyone who is not a Muslim.
As for "using special operations forces to ruthlessly exterminate its muhammadan enemies", how could this be done without the same reaction and without the US forces being accused of war crimes and being hauled before the ICC?
You said in another post that you aren't afraid of individual Muslims. Isn't that the problem? People go by what they know. Most people know Muslims who are kind and peaceful and who seemingly dismiss the jihadist rhetoric and they say individual Muslims aren't bad and they dismiss any warning about Islam as paranoia. The government can't conduct a campaign against Islam without being accused of tarring all Muslims with the same brush. Any attempt to inform people of what Islam teaches will be characterized as a campaign against Islam and disrespectful of the religion of over one billion people.
Posted by: PMK at October 3, 2007 4:21 PM
Interesting point ya raised, PMK...
actually it's precisely that LACK of willingness to "ruthlessly exterminate its muhammedan enemies, wherever and whenever they were found." that is the REAL reason that the majority are called "against the war" by the pollsters who won't ask that precise question (because it would show a VERY different picture than what's being claimed by the MSM)...yes, the fact that we're not HARSH enough is THE reason, not "the war" in general-most are sick of the pussyfooting and political correctness pahblum infesting the military's primary, and ONLY objective:
kill bad guys and destroy their wares
But don't count on al-zogby or his pahblum puking peers to admit this intentional deception on their part anytime soon...even if hell does freeze over.
at October 3, 2007 4:36 PM
Unerschrocken. Breathe it.
Posted by: undaunted at October 3, 2007 4:38 PM
I'll pocket the Pink Floyd. But I'm really a rhinestone in the rough.
Posted by: Hugh at October 3, 2007 5:24 PM
Hugh
I didn't know how you'd respond to the "Hugh ..human nature" rejoinder, not badly or meanly posed by the poster IMHO, but, yet once again, a very cogent (and non biting..to the poster) expose of Islam's central tenets...well spoken and to the point-every point..a real "clinic" at least to me, a daily reader..I appreciate very much your knowledge base and in the instance of the poster referred to, not doing an ad-hominem..from Nodak
Posted by: nodak at October 3, 2007 6:29 PM
@PMK
Just a short response:
I think what was possible in 2001, is no longer possible. By invading Iraq we have saddled ourselves with enormous GUILT!!!
We're guilty now.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 3, 2007 6:59 PM
Lets shake things up by telling the TRUTH for a change..."Islam is Evil"...enough with the lies already.
Posted by: champ at October 3, 2007 7:11 PM
Ynkedoodl: Guilty? We're guilty now? Iraq made us guilty?!?? Guilty is the barbarians who sliced off Nick Berg's head. Guilty are the Shia and Sunni idiots who massacre each other in public gathering places. But enforcing Gulf War cease-fire agreements with Sadaam, enforcing his violations of said agreements, defending ourselves over there makes us guilty? I don't feel any guilt over that. Now the babies we kill over here with our abortions, now THAT makes us guilty, but fighting evil in Iraq, no way. You're wrong.
Posted by: angryeagle at October 3, 2007 7:49 PM
I have now read virtually all of the above posts. So many of them are trenchant and wise. Islam is seen as an enemy to the West and properly so. But I also see out there in the body politic at large, in America and throughout the Western world, continued ignorance, apathy, excuse making, suicidal political correctness, idiotic multiculturalism and, overall, a decided disinclination to call Islam for what it is----------the ultimate spiritual totalitarian ideology. I don't mean to be the bearer of bad tidings but the West as a whole is far, and I mean far, from fully realizing what must be done and that would be denouncing and taking on Islam as the single greatest threat to the Western tradition since the Persians came close to exterminating the Western experiment in freedom back in the fifth century B.C. So much remains to be done and so few are really listening. I applaud, though, most who post here because they are way ahead of the curve where a true knowledge of Islam is concerned.
Posted by: Wellington at October 3, 2007 9:58 PM
If it's necessary for Islam to protest its peacefulness, then an astute observer may think of Hamlet, that "methinks he doth protest too much". After all, such a slogan would be boring and redundant if it was, say, "Buddhism", on the buses.
As to freedom of speech, I's like to see JW launch an Islam is NOT the religion of peace campaign, and put that on buses.
at October 3, 2007 10:06 PM
I'll pocket the Pink Floyd. But I'm really a rhinestone in the rough.
Posted by: Hugh at October 3, 2007 5:24 PM
No problem Hugh. All men have their respective shortcomings.
at October 3, 2007 11:24 PM
PMK,
If GWB didn't ran to the mosque after 9/11, take his shoes off after and procalim Islam a 'RoP' people would respect him. There are always 25% who oppose any war, but if Islam had been relentlessly exposed, ridiculed and scrutinized in parliament, congress and in the universities, the MSM would have come on board.
The way it is now simply discourages any inquest into the reality. That sux.
Bush really deserves the blame for this, but it is equally deplorable that nobody, NOBODY in the opposition picked it up either.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 4, 2007 12:04 AM
The really depressing fact is that our own leaders seem to be as blind as bats concerning everything you said, and they use their high positions to blind others about the true nature of Islam.
Posted by: rational at October 3, 2007 1:32 PM
That is a good observation. Except, you give "our own leaders" more credit then they deserve. You see, they became leader not to lead, but to sell you out.. only you did not know that Bush was raised on saudi money and businesses run by wahhabbi wealth. You did not know that Bush was never interested in the welfare of USA but in selling out to his campaign and businesses financers. Just ask Mr. google who your "leader" is and you'll smell the answer stink in corrupt oil/blood money. So, not quite the 'blind bats'... if you dare to see the reality. And for the record, am not a democrat.
Posted by: Alert at October 4, 2007 1:04 AM
If GWB didn't ran to the mosque after 9/11, take his shoes off after and procalim Islam a 'RoP' people would respect him.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 4, 2007 12:04 AM
.. and is that all GWB did to contribute towards the barbarians? Then you forget:
- stalling 9/11 commission.
- rubbing Saudi Arabia from 9/11 commission report.
- Dubai port sellout.
- Aid and arms to Pakistan.
- Making sure borders are open for the enemy.
- Increased student's visas for Saudis.
- Hiring Karen Hughes.
- Sensitivity training to FBI.
- Iftaar Dinners.
Add all that up and you'll wonder if white house was serious about 'war-on-terror'
at October 4, 2007 1:23 AM
Because Islam is a total system of control, the controlled must wage war against the uncontrolled.
If Islam were in a bubble and there was nothing outside the bubble, Islam would be complete. A universe unto itself, contained in a cosmic bubble.
But there is something outside the bubble, the infidel world, populated by the dreaded 'bubble poppers'. In order to maintain its purity, Islam must either bring the dis-believing bubble burster's into the fold,(conversion), kill them, or render them harmless as dhimmi's. As long as there is a bubble burster alive anywhere, Islam is in danger. Peace will come when the entire world is encapsulated in Islam. The people who post on this site are all excellent bubble poppers. Trolls that come here soon get their bubble popped, and leave deflated. All Hugh's articles are bubble burster's.
RS is a master bubble popper...Islam 'has' to war against this, jihad in all its forms is to protect the integrity of the bubble/nest/hive/Ummah...
While islam 'may' be the fastest growing 'religion', the numbers of infidel bubble burster's is also increasing dramatically...
Hugh from article: "There are at this point not many people fully capable of seeing the whole thing, grasping the whole thing. Spread to as many as possible what they have to say. Support them in any way you can. And learn as much as you can yourself, so you cannot be fooled, cannot be bested. Become dangerously well-informed and, therefore, implacable in your view".
That's a description of a bubble burster...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 4, 2007 2:20 AM
Are you ready for burqa-clad women on park benches while you walk your dog.
You forgot that there will be no dogs--they are "unclean" like infidels, thus forbidden. People are being arrested in Iran today for owning the vile, nasty creatures. But I recall one of the filthy prophet's most touted acts of benevolence was to steer his caravan around a female dog in the process of giving birth. How nice of him not to trample her and her babies. I wonder if allah created filthy creatures like us, dogs, and insects just to make muslims feel better about themselves and to eagerly anticipate judgment day, when all of allah's vermin will be sent to hell in a spectacular blaze of flaming glory.
Islam must be removed from our society---soon.
Posted by: Susanp at October 4, 2007 2:28 AM
"but fighting evil in Iraq, no way. You're wrong."
Talk to Troops who have served in Iraq and have been in the cross fire between sunni & shia who are hell bent on having a civil war.
Talk to troops who have risked their lives due to convoluted ROE.
Talk to troops about the futility of trying to hand democracy on a platter to tribal savages who have no desire to resolve their differences and form a nation state that would benefit all peop in Iraq.
Visit Ft. Sam Houston, the Army medical center and observe our wounded warriors, many who are maimed for lfe, and ponder this.
at October 4, 2007 3:08 AM
"Said it before, yeah, islam is so peaceful, that's why I have to wear an ACH helmet, ISAPI bullet proof plates, and carry an M-4 Carbine to survive the "love" sent from its adherents!!"
Armalite, thats brilliant! I could see that line in a cartoon.
All the best.
Posted by: savitch at October 4, 2007 3:21 AM
*ahem*
DODD 1344.10 review for incountry is highly encouraged at this point.
at October 4, 2007 3:40 AM
Thats why I'm a civilian. Leave it at that then.
Posted by: savitch at October 4, 2007 4:16 AM
IW/C2W liaison November 6 & November 2 NavOpSec (& interbranch counterparts) doesn't have that luxury.
Nothing personal...but keeping in mind "Durka Dan" does read this site. Loose lips, ya know...
at October 4, 2007 4:30 AM
Tell the "Islam is Peace" campaigners what you think of their religion. I already have.
Go to:
http://www.islamispeace.org.uk/mail/mail.htm
Posted by: watling at October 4, 2007 7:56 AM
Whatever military regulations may prevent or inhibit commentary, one hopes that this site, Jihad Watch, will become more widely known among the officers and men who will, from their own experience, be able to confirm much of what is written here and, in turn, may find that what they read here helps them make sense of what they have experienced, or are now experiencing, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For among the few long-term benefits of Tarbaby Iraq, and the other, equally quixotic venture in Afghanistan (where, again, it would be better to control the situation through local tribes, whose local enmities can be exploited, and through constant monitoring followed by rapid, powerful, but only intermittent military attack, rather than maintainng at great expense forces that inevitably become the accmpaniment of a quite unnecessary, and indeed counter-productive, effort at "building an Afghani society and economy" that, as long as Islam is there, will never result in anything of permanent benefit to the Infidels now spending so much money, time, effort, and lives, all because of the dreamy belief that Islam is not what it is, and because of the exaggerated attention to the few who are smiling, friendly, plausible, and who are taken, by naive American policymakers, to be the rule when they are of course the exception -- and in some cases, where the friendliness is feigned for immediate gain (what will those Americans do for me, or give me, today?), not even that.
Posted by: Hugh at October 4, 2007 9:39 AM
kill bad guys and destroy their wares
jcom972,
Easier said than done. I agree we're not harsh enough, but what can we do? Can we wipe out Iran? That's what it would take to get rid of the mullahs. We keep hearing the propaganda that all the kids in Iran are pro-Western, but there's nothing they can or will do about it. And they're not pro-Western ENOUGH to admit that Islam cannot be supreme.
The bad guys live among the good guys. The most cleanly targeted missile will kill an "innocent" civilian. Heck when it comes right down to it, every member of al-qaeda is a civilian.
We're not being attacked by countries. It's individuals. Khadafy was one of the last leaders to openly support terrorism and his country was bombed when an attack in Germany was traced back to him. Now it's Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda...all civilians. How do we pick them out of the crowd?
Now we have the ICC and I don't know how many people ready to arrest GWB and drag him to The Hague the day he leaves the US as an ex-president.
I wish we could just lay down the law and warn Muslims the world over that they risk the leveling of Mecca and then one Muslim capital after another if they don't behave. We had a policy during the cold war of mutual assured destruction. Why can't we have a policy of Mecca's assured destruction? It's the same acronym - MAD.
The Saudis are among the chief financiers of global terrorism. They're running out of oil but the hajj remains a huge source of foreign capital. How many Muslims will pay to worship a hole in the ground that Allah couldn't protect from the infidel? How long would the Saud family survive its destruction? Their legitimacy rests on their claim to be "defenders of the holy places". Destroy those cities and what do they base their rule on next?
Posted by: PMK at October 4, 2007 2:43 PM
@Ynkedoodl2,
None of this was possible in 2001. Didn't you see the pictures of Muslims celebrating as the towers fell?
The people of Afghanistan shielded Osama bin Laden after September 11. They helped him escape Tora Bora.
The PC regime was already in place after a decade of treating terrorism like a bank robbery. Soldiers in Iraq go after terrorists in a house and if they kill a woman or child without being fired upon first then they end up in a courts-martial.
In 1979 we heard that the Shia were the radicals and that the Sunni were the moderates. Then in 1993 we heard that some Sunni were radicals but most were moderate. "Educating the people about Islam" would most likely have been dismissed by anyone who knows many Muslims personally and has Muslim friends. It would have been denounced as profiling and bigotry. If this campaign had whitewashed the faith then the people would have been lulled into a false sense of security, just like after 1979 and 1993.
And if Iraq makes us guilty then this American prays that we never again come to the aid of a Muslim country anywhere in the world, even after an earthquake. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. We might as well save our energy and our resources.
Posted by: PMK at October 4, 2007 3:13 PM
Your perception is correct, PMK.
It's the ROE thing our colleague was mentioning
(that's one thing I didn't like bringing up, but didn't wanna risk our guys in country gettin in trouble for speaking it openly-it wasn't speaking/blogging that was at issue, it was content- some are taboo).
I (and I'm sure others with me) have a LOT of effective ideas how to deal with the problem, but it's not as simple as going to ones house and confronting them (damn, I wished it was, lol).
Sad fact is, THE most effective way, which is also the simplest way, will not prove palatable to the general public (especially when you have the propaganda ministry, aka, MSM throwing guilt trips ad nauseum at us for the slightest hint of it).
Many still think there's room for "discussion" in the matter...it's WAY past that now.
As far as Imanutjob, his power-trip is just as much, of not more so, of an illusion than we're painted out to be. It's panic-squared in tehran, and we know it...as per the words of a high ranking Indian General who visited there before Israels strike on Syrias nuke component. He gave a detailed account of their paranoia, as reported by a friend of his, Dr Jack Wheeler (creator of the Reagan Doctrine):
" One of India's top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran - in a state of complete amazement.
"Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing," he reports. "No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over and over again, ‘Do you think the Americans will attack us?' ‘When will the Americans attack us?' ‘Will the Americans attack us in a joint operation with the Israelis?' How massive will the attack be?' on and on, endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic."
And that was before September 6. Since then, it's panic-squared in Tehran. The mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the silence in Syria.
On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a devastating attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr. Israel's military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive speculation in the world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens' "Osirak II" article...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010619
in the 9/18/07 Wall St. Journal.
Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is not Israel's silence that "speaks volumes" as he claims, but Syria's. Why would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war perpetrated on their soil? "
With that said, couple it with iran's skyrocketing inflation rate, spiraling economy, gas rationing (awash in oil, yet refining capacity is so low they have to import most of it), most iranians aren't persians, and those hate his guts to the Nth degree, thousands of riots against him & the mullahocracy just last year alone (doesn't go reported for obvious reasons)...ok, you get the idea...their achilles heel is a LOT worse than ours.
Problem with suggestions is...though there are plenty of GREAT and 100% effective ways of taking his & his mullahocracy down in flames, a few are so ridiculously simple you'd laugh...
...only one problem.
AS I stated here, "Durka Dan" does read this site, and this is one realm even I am not at liberty to discuss. Wished I could (we'd get a great chuckle from them), but...same thing, "loose lips", you get the idea.
There IS one that's public knowledge so no risk (still has to be generically spoken):
One scenario we wouldn't NEED to take out the nuke sites...just take out their refineries & power grid (which their nuke plants aren't even close to -clue #1 they're not for "peaceful purposes").
Ya take those two out, not only do they not have power to produce fissile material, but they won't even have enough fuel for backup power to do the same...couple that with the fact their gasoline/petrol/diesel access to the public will cause exponential rioting compared to the sporadics not long ago just from announcing it.
Their air force is a joke, even with their newest stuff
Their navy?...LOL, oh puhlease.
Their army? IRGC bases would obviously be a target (relax, it's already mentioned by their collaboratorative aiders and abettors at TIME & NEWSWEEK)...the rest of their army isn't THAT willing to go head-to-head against the US.
(No, we're not invading iran).
The only thing they have, and we're uncertain of, is simple...their cells INCONUS, how far they've progressed, what they have at hand, etc...you get the idea.
It's not a question of IF on taking irans racket down...it's a matter of the toll on our civilian populace they'll take on their way to hell.
THAT is the main dilemma facing the NCA...not the russians, not the chinese, not al qaeda...it's cells INCONUS.
It's the only trump card iminajihad has left...and that is no secret at all.
It's not a chess match like the old days...
The closest game I can equate it to:
chinese checkers
It's a lot to think about.
at October 4, 2007 3:21 PM
And if Iraq makes us guilty then this American prays that we never again come to the aid of a Muslim country anywhere in the world, even after an earthquake. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. We might as well save our energy and our resources.
---posted by PMK
Amen to that brother!!!!!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 4, 2007 6:39 PM
Only thing we're "guilty" of is cutting so much slack to them all as we have.
at October 4, 2007 7:00 PM
PMK: "Why can't we have a policy of Mecca's assured destruction? It's the same acronym - MAD."
If the West burns up that meteorite stuck in the side of the Kabah, it may just piss them off... so, better to have a more "comprehensive" plan. How about AAD, Asymmetric Assured Destruction? (I get the feeling they wouldn't lose much sleep over the people, since they'd be instant martyrs... but, by Ahlalalala, don't mess with the asteroid!)
Durka durka, mohamodd, jihad.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at October 4, 2007 8:46 PM
This might be a long shot, but is it possible that England is simply being herself self, that is cavelier,stoic, self-assured with a sense of reserved honour based on her own history. I find it very hard to believe that England suddenly would make herself so vulnerable after centuries of successful conquering.
It could be complacency, which would be the worse case scenario, but it could also be that she is simply waiting for the shit to really hit the fan on a scale large enough to make her defense efforts worthwhile and then she'll go to town on her oppressors. Her "personality" has never been reactionary. I understand that the "11th Hour" is dawning but maybe beneath the veneer we perceive as cowardly political correctness is a volcano awaiting to errupt.
I am an Anglophile so I might be trying to have confidence in a nation I admire so much; hopefully it isn't just blind hero-worship on my part. What prompted me to think along these lines was the perception that author A.A. Gill has on England which he expresses in his book, "The Angry Island". He is certainly not an admirer of England, but he might be correct in regarding the English as being loaded with repressed anger!
at October 4, 2007 10:41 PM
Hmmm...it's plausible.
I mean...remembering when many of the poor bastards had to endure the blitz...bombs going off all around them...next morning, they brushed themselves off, and went about their business as if no big deal- refusing to give herr schickelgrueber the satisfation of a response.
It could be...
My concern is that this is a different kind of blitz, and the enemy doesn't just visit them to drop bombs...they're in ones own backyard and it could be too late to stop an insurrection or overthrow.
Just expressing grave concern.
at October 5, 2007 1:13 AM
...and while some aren't at liberty to discuss it from one position or another, they can however, post it if mentioned by an outside reputable source.
http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=22150
at October 6, 2007 10:40 PM
(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.)