This forced cancellation amounts to the co-optation of our representative democratic republic.

Nothing new, except that this is a little more public and embarrassing than usual.

As to the SAA Act, it's good to finally see some Jews standing up to Islam. The likes of Specter, Schumer, Weiner, and Frank should hold a group press conference and lambast the many other prominent Jews who have sold out their own people (and America in general) in order to pursue their various craven political aims.

The list of Surrender Jews is too long to list, and too painful to look at.

But whaddya wanna bet that lurking in the back of Specter, Weiner & Company's minds is fear for the personal safety of themselves and their families?

That's what makes Islam so special. Only Moslems can openly revere the Sunnah, whereby critics -- especially Jewish critics -- of Islam are to be murdered.

Anybody remember what happened to Abu Afak and Asma Marwan? I bet Arlen does. Especially after the stern Islamic warning he no doubt received last night.

As God said, Mohammed's life is a most excellent pattern of conduct for Moslems to revere and emulate.

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at October 25, 2005 11:16 AM

The main problem is not fear, but money. Too many people simply repeat the same phrases: "We need Saudi oil," "we cannot afford to offend the Saudis because of their oil," and so on. They never bother to ask themselves why we need to modify our behavior. Are we especially nice, do we do favors, to the owner of Costco, Wal-Mart, the gas station, the grocery store down the street? No. We don't have to, and never had to, do favors for Saudi Arabia.

However, there are individuals that are directy or indirectly on the Saudi payroll, as unregistered or registered foreign agents, with their lectures and Op/Ed articles on the wonderfulness of Saudi Arabia, Islam, the Arab League, and of course, on the need to make sure that Saudi Arabia stays "our staunch ally" and "friend." They never explain why this is necessary. They do not feel the need, because no one ever asks just how the market price for oil that Americans pay differs, say, from the market price that France, or China, pays. It doesn't. It won't. It can't.

And there are businessmen who wish to get contracts for this or that in Saudi Arabia, and they too have shown in the past -- the highwater mark for this was the AWACS battle back in 1980 or 1981, when United Technologies and the Whitney Corporation (hospitals built, with a special profit derived from Saudi Arabian operations -- though for all the Whitney Corporation's loyal services, the contract with Saudi Arabia came to an abrupt end just a week or two before Thanksgiving) -- that it is their interest in recycling Saudi petrodollars that leads them to help mislead others in believing that Saudi Arabia is our friend.

With another $80-$150 billion this year to play with, Saudi Arabia is no doubt offering all kinds of money, all over Washington, directly and indirectly, and that must have played its part.

Or perhaps they really are just waiting to gather more evidence. If they are, let us hope they will name names, in both parties, of former diplomats, former intelligence agents (if Raymond Close is not called to be grilled about what he reported about Saudi Arabia from 1970-1977, when he was station chief in Riyadh, and then in detail about his "career" as an "international business consultant" since, then the hearings will likely be useless), journalists, businessmen, and of course all those academic centers and King Abdul Aziz professors, who may have allowed themselves to believe they can analyze Islam in a completely unbiased way -- but so far, there has been no evidence of this, judging by the extraordinary inattention to the kind of scholarship, of a recent but quite different period, so meticulously collected in Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad."

Individuals are sometimes declared to be persona non grata. If an entire country deserves to be declared non grata in the Bilad al-kufr, that country is Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Hugh at October 25, 2005 12:27 PM

As you've said many times: despite all the toadying we're paying the same price per barrel as everybody else.

Question: If we implemented a Save Freedom program whereby Islam was put on watch here in the States, Moslem immigration was stopped, non-citizen Moslems were deported, and the government started actively pursuing conversion of the Moslems we're stuck with to convert to anything but Islam, or at least repudiate the most egregious elements of Islam, and put strictures on all Mosques...

What do you think the Saudis would do? Would they cut off our oil? Force a world recession?

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at October 25, 2005 1:42 PM

"What do you think the Saudis would do?"
-- from a posting above

Nothing. Oh, huff and puff about blowing our house down, perhaps, but in the end -- nothing. What could they do?

And to your To-Do List, I would add: make it difficult, if not impossible, for Saudis and other Arabs to receive advanced training, in anything except possibly social work, in Western colleges and universities, and to be denied easy access, or perhaps any access at all unless enormous sums are paid, to Western medicine. Finally, Saudis and other rich Arabs and other Muslims should in general be prevented from coming to the Infidel lands, and using Western Europe and North America as a fun-fair-cum-brothel where they enjoy their shop-till-they-drop, gamble-till-the-cows-come-home, and of course buy the services of "our women" (thereby confirming their contempt for "us"), and do all the other things they really want to do but can't do freely at home -- condemn them, as much as possible, to the solitary confinement of Dar al-Islam. It will drive those who have been to the West absolutely crazy with desire and envy. You don't really think the fleshpots of wartorn Beirut, or dumpy Cairo, or the Grand Shopping Mall and Hotel Complex which Dubai, and Bahrain, have turned themselves into, are any match for Paris, London, New York, do you? Of course not.

Oh, and if they make any threats at all -- start seizing their assets. They seized ours, long ago, with the forced nationalization of ARAMCO. Tit for tat. Do the same. And since all the so-called private wealth is really the wealth stolen from the government, seize those apartments, those villas, those shares in media companies.

We have a thousand ways to deal with Saudi Arabia. The one we have chosen -- appeasement -- has for the past half-century been exactly the wrong thing. We got, and will get, nothing from that.

Try the other way. See what happens. Americans will be pleasantly surprised if they begin to treat Saudi Arabia the way it has long had coming.

Posted by: Hugh at October 25, 2005 2:05 PM

To from here to there means cleaning house at State and CIA. That unto itself is a tough nut to crack.

For example, let us not forget that the Valerie Plame Name Blame Game all over the news this weeek was spawned by a disloyal Arabist, the egregious Ambassador Joe Wilson.

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at October 25, 2005 2:13 PM

Hugh: I've puzzled over the incongruities of the Saudi Royals behavior, and their heavy financing of mujahideen, Jihadis, the families of "shaheeds" (the suicide bombers) in "Palestine" who receive a $25,000 stipend and subsidy from the Saudis.

On the one hand Muslims, who live outside of Saudi Arabia, will complain about the Saudis being apostates or heretic Muslims for their unislamic lifestyle, yet while those complaints and criticisms are aired, the Saudis fund mosques and Imams throughout the word, that preach Wahhabiyyah Islam, and provide succor, refuge, jobs, passports, passage to mujahideen/Jihadi's.

The two actions appear on the surface to be contradictory, but they aren't, when one considers Muhammads dictum that War is Deception.

I've gotten whiffs that the Muslims accept this "unIslamic" behavior of the Saudis (like cavorting with prostitutes, drinking liquor, etc) because the word is out on the Arab street, that the actions of the Saudis in interacting with the west, is their own contribution to Jihad..deception, all of which is forgiven, if the action is taken in "struggle in the way of Allah" Jihad.

Just as all sins are forgiven the Shaheed, the moment they give up their lives to kill the kafir (what is the accepted spelling of kafir anyway?)

The fact that these "shaheeds" that flew into the WTC, or committed other acts of "martyrdom", went out whoring, drinking, gambling and living a licentious lifestyle prior to the operation, has been used by Muslims to disclaim their status as muslims, since per Shari'a such activities are forbidden, but also per Islamic ideology such activities are forgiven at the gates of "Jennna" (Paradise) if they were committed with "good intentions" to further the cause of Islam in the "struggle in the way of Allah".

As regards the Saudis excesses and ostentatious show of wealth, well they use our money to subsidize their people (whom they own, all "citizens" of Saudi Arabia are the property of the al Sauds) and the Sauds subsidize everything, water, utilities, food, housing.. Saudi citizens live on the most luxurious public dole in the world.

I use to wonder why, in this age of privatization, where governments are forced to, or overthrown, if they don't privatize their resources and utilities, why the Saudis have never been forced to privatize, then it dawned on me...they already are. Saudi Arabia is the largest privately owned piece of real estate and business in the world, everything and everyone is privately owned by the al Sauds.

Slightly off topic, while watching al Iraqya news, I heard an off hand comment from a reporter, that the proposed Iraqi constitution was being distributed at locations where Iraqi's pick up their food subsidies.

Imagine that, virtually no employment in Iraq, yet they are all obviously well fed (well fed enough to have nice full bellies and healthy complexions, there is no one dying from hunger, which is what you would expect with 60% unemployment), they get free water, free electricity, free sewage and free food, and free medical care..the entire population of Iraq is subsidized, and at American tax payer expense. This while millions of Americans don't have medical care, can't pay their bills and don't know where they will get their next meal.

Posted by: Nariz at October 25, 2005 4:20 PM

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous.

Carl Sagan

Posted by: otterfisher at October 25, 2005 4:50 PM

Hi,

I'm a Hindu (Balinese), part of an (in the closet) islamic country. I'm 28 years old, and still not sure about my sexual orientation (I had slept with some guys, though only oral sex was as far as I went).

My question is: if -- god forbid -- Indonesia applies shariah law, what would happen to me? [a -- possibly -- gay non-moslem guy]. Can I live happily and peacefully?

I need to know some fatwa.

Thanks

Posted by: Hindu Guy (of course, I'm a KAFIR) at October 25, 2005 6:03 PM

In an effort to explain Nariz's absurd post above regarding his feigned perplexity and puzzlement:

He says:
"On the one hand Muslims, who live outside of Saudi Arabia, will complain about the Saudis being apostates or heretic Muslims for their unislamic lifestyle, yet while those complaints and criticisms are aired, the Saudis fund mosques and Imams throughout the word, that preach Wahhabiyyah Islam, and provide succor, refuge, jobs, passports, passage to mujahideen/Jihadi's...."

Well, Nariz, that's very similar to hailing from the West and trotting out the same tired out useless leftist canard of "...This while millions of Americans don't have medical care, can't pay their bills and don't know where they will get their next meal..."

Both are examples of hackneyed rhetoric disguised as pious utterance, both blathered by fanatic ideologues intent on unfairly wringing concessions from their culture of origin by deliberately mischaracterizing their culture of origin...

Posted by: jsla at October 25, 2005 6:49 PM

In an effort to get this back on topic -- Hugh -- you ask an interesting question:
"Why does the press, why does television, why do people in Washington continue to call Saudi Arabia an "ally," a "friend," or as the BBC likes to do, a "staunch ally"?"

I think this also begs the question, if so many Westerners are in such ignorance about Islam, but nevertheless in such a hurry to prove their dhimmitude as we see, do the two things really jibe? I.E ignorance of Islam and rush to dhimmitude?

While not familiar with the arcana of Islam, or even with it's broader history of cultural rape and civilisation-destroying imperialism, I think that the VAST majority of westerners have a kind of atavistic memory of "the Hun" and see it manifested in many ways in the Arab/Muslim... It is this inculcated memory which makes Westerners jump to appease the beast, bend over backwards to not offend, out of an ancient albeit vague notion of what will happen if the beast becomes offended...

Arabs and Muslims suffer/benefit from a complete lack of expectations on Westerner's parts... Is anyone really surprised to see Arafat begin to take hostages and hijack planes -- Did anyone, except the idiots among us and the self deluded Muslims argue that 9/11 didnt' have Arab/Muslim fingerprints ALL OVER THE DIRTY DEED?

I think it's no coincidence that UBL, in the guise of the desert warrior, complete with long fingernails (a Koranic exhortation for the Mujahaddin to grow them long) the long flowing beard (a Koranic exhortation for the Mujahaddin to grow them long), the face -- the body -- the COMPLETE costume out of central casting for the Arab/pirate/rapist/villain ...

On some deep level we ALL know exactly what we're dealing with here -- and that little voice deep inside just won't shut up -- It won't stop hoping -- hoping against hope that what we're seeing isn't what we're seeing -- that what's happening isn't what's happening -- that who we're dealing with isn't who we're dealing with --

Posted by: jsla at October 25, 2005 7:34 PM

Said more plainly -- We're dealing with archetypal human malevolence -- It looks the part -- and see how abashed we culturally have become -- furtive cartoons appear -- a line here -- a line there from the comedians -- but whereas in previous culture threatening moments, the culture trots out the ancient methods of dehumanizing the enemy -- objectifying the enemy -- Why the reticence now with the Arab foe? How ready made he seems for the cartoonist's pen -- how ready made for the villain in the film -- Yet we are culturally reticent.

Part of this, no doubt, arises from the development of social guilt at past dehumanizing of enemies -- the square-faced robotic "kraut" in Germany, the slanty eyed "Jap" -- the mindless killing maching "Gook" in Viet Nam -- later on all things seem distasteful and embarrassing -- not good reflections upon us, or our secret thoughts about the various species of enemy we have faced -- Yet today it's somehow different -- Why?

Some of it attributable to the reticence above, but are we perhaps more knowledgeable about this particular enemy -- is there something in our deepest suspicions about him, manifested on 9/11 -- somewhere is there some primitive knowledge that THIS enemy is more crazy -- more dedicated, more undeterable than all the others -- Do we somehow know that this one is just crazy enough to go so far beyond the limits -- even of the unthinkable limits -- that we know we've really got to keep an both eyes on the Arab mad dog?

I think so -- I think we already knew, and 9/11 just proved it -- this one is capable of ANYTHING -- ANYTHING! This one has to be marked "Special Handling Needed"

It is just possible that our leadership, along with the rest of us, just hasn't come up with something satisfying yet to do with this "special case" -- the Muslim Jihadist -- and until such a time, isn't it best to say "Staunch ally" until we figure out what that something is???

Posted by: jsla at October 25, 2005 7:50 PM

-- not wishing to hog this thread --
A final thought --

I believe, if I am correct about an atavistic knowledge of this particular enemy, that the Arabs have grossly overplayed their hand, and underestimated the dangers of the tigers they have by the tale -- Pompously they sit in baroque splendor, bejeweled, cosseted from want, imagining that they, primitives, can rule the world through terror, oil, and hatred -- I think the frankenstein of their most important export, terrorism, is beginning to nip at their heels, but they are not awake...

But the real gorilla - the one they don't seem to notice, the one they pretend not to notice, the one that's sitting in the room nevertheless -- is the ease with which they can be shunted to the margins of humanity because of their hatability...

Has there ever been a culture more ripe for lampooning? Has there ever been a culture more deserving of ridicule, and contempt than the flea bitten Arab Muslim? For whatever reason, our noble forebearance or out of fear of the Hun, (or combination of both) we have not lifted the slightest finger yet to truly marginalize these eminently marginizable miscreants -- their follies are legendary -- their mistakes are legendary -- their excesses are legendary -- their incompetence is legendary, their offensiveness is legendary -- their arrogance is legendary - their detestableness is legendary -- their absurdity is legendary --- their hatefulness is legendary, their spleen is legendary - their greed is legendary , their treachery is legendary -- and all of these are surely unsurpassed in human history ! ? !

Yet so far, we have treated them with equanimity, fairness, and tolerance. We have developed the resources in their otherwise stone aged gutter, and shared staggering amounts of treasure with them in exchange for the accident of oil. In exchange for this from us, they have sold their oil, at ruinous prices, and exported their hatreds, loathings, vitriol and violence to our very shores --

How should they TRULY be repaid ??-- If the matter is ever honestly asked and examined on OUR side -- they will not like the inevitable conclusion we arrive at -- Of that I am fairly certain...

Posted by: jsla at October 25, 2005 10:51 PM

I don't know if there is anything in your 'atavistic memory of the Hun' theory. Maybe. But the Occam in me points to something more obvious: that anyone who "dehumanizes the other" in our society tends to be dehumanized himself -- thought of as like a Nazi, or KKK, or similar ilk. We are perceived as dehumanizers for asserting that Islam is dehumanizing.

Those of us who charge Islam with totalitarian, fascistic intent often are perceived as bigots, little fascists, ourselves. Those who perceive us this way, it seems, simply don't know Islam. They don't know that most of us Islam-critics are happy to live with a rainbow of races and religions, so long as a religion is not politically totalitarian.

But people can't be entirely blamed for mistaking our intentions. Any time we slip up and say something critical of Islam without the statement being based on really open-minded, ongoing consideration of all points of view, and a full consciousness of our own fallibility, at that moment we behave in a small way like fascists and bigots and thus do our cause -- the cause of maintaining a free society -- damage. When we employ immoderate emotion in making our points -- give vent to undisciplined and unconsidered outbursts -- we arguably do ourselves damage.

Maybe hate can be a justified emotion, but it is perhaps particularly prone to intoxicating one and blinding one to the truth. In some ways, hating wisely requires more discipline and wisdom than loving wisely. In particular, we are probably going wrong if we take any pleasure in hating something. If we actually want to hate something, we are a bit ill, or very ill, and worse, we are unconsciously collaborating with the thing we claim to hate. We behave unjustly toward it, and thus become an unconscious cousin to it and to its injustice. Hate is only justified, if ever, when we make the continual effort to love a thing, when we want to love it, but in the midst of that never ceasing effort, find evil, hateful elements, and yet make every effort to salvage in the midst of that evil any things that are lovable or that might be redeemed. Hate is only justified, if ever, when we see the need of redemption everywhere, including in ourselves and in each of our thoughts and behaviors. This is not to claim all cultures or persons are equally good or evil. Far from it. But the most effective fighters against evil fight it continually within, as well as without. The struggle within will affect the whole manner of the struggle outwardly, leavening condemnation with compassion. Genuine compassion and gentleness would imbue our voices with the greatest persuasiveness to those around us not yet aware of the dangers of Islam to social and spiritual freedom.

Posted by: eduardo odraude at October 26, 2005 12:27 AM

""What do you think the Saudis would do?"
-- from a posting above

Nothing. Oh, huff and puff about blowing our house down, perhaps, but in the end -- nothing. What could they do?"
-- posted by Hugh

Let us not forget what they did in 1974, when they pulled off an oil embargo in reaction to the Yom Kippur War (specifically, in reaction to America's role in helping secure the IDF's humiliating defeat of the Arabs).

That embargo sent shock waves through the West. The memory of that is, IMO, the root source of Eurabia, and of the toadying in Washington.

Is there any reason the Moslems couldn't do that again?

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at October 26, 2005 10:22 AM

"That embargo sent shock waves through the West. The memory of that is, IMO, the root source of Eurabia, and of the toadying in Washington.

Is there any reason the Moslems couldn't do that again?"
-- from a posting above

Yes, because that "embargo" in 1973 was in fact phony, a complete failure, used to ensure that the tripling of the price of oil, and the seizure of power by the OPEC nations (which had begun in 1970, and the main instigator was not Saudi Arabia but the Shah of Iran), would not be met with any firm measures.

Read "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West" by J. B. Kelly for the full story of how Yamani and Co. snookered and frightened the West. The United States and the Netherlands, the most pro-Israel of Western nations, received far more Arab oil than did Britain and France, the most pro-Arab and appeasement-minded of Western countries. Teh whole business has been completely misunderstood.

What would an Arab "oil embargo" do? Not a single Arab state has a modern economy. The oil states receive 98% of their income from oil (and gas). They are now dependent on armies of Western and non-Western wage slaves, to do everything for them. They furthermore must fear that the attitudes of 1973, when the Western world had no idea that the oil money would go -- would necessarily go -- to fund mosques, madrasas, and Da'wa all over the Western and the rest of the Infidel world -- are no longer, and should anyone in Saudi Arabia, for example, be foolish enough to try to shut down all production, the Western governments, or at least that of the United States, would not hesitate to seize the oilfields of Hasa. Take a look at any atlas of Saudi Arabia -- say, that of Hussein Hamza Bindagji. Now look, not at Mecca Mokarramah, or Medina Monawarah, but at Hasa --at Ad Dammam, Dharan, Qatif, and so on. All of them conveniently placed on the Persian Gulf -- which of course in a Saudi atlas is identified as the "Arabian Gulf." But what's in a name? Now of course the Saudis have let it be known, with great fanfare, that they have carefully mined and boobytrapped and sabotaged in advance all the oilfields, so that no one better get any ideas.

It's all nonsense. They wouldn't dare. They know what the local Shi'a think of them. They know, too, that Al-Qaeda members, the ones who concentrate not on the Infidels outside Saudi Arabia, which is just fine in the view of the Al-Saud, but those who concentrate on the Al-Saud, which is a terrible, awful, immoral, and disgusting thing, in the view of those same Al-Saud, might welcome the chance to blow up those fields.

No, it would be a lot easier to seize, should the need arise (and it may, if for no other reason than to stop the funding of the world-wide Jihad), those Saudi oilfields in Hasa, or for that matter whatever may or may not be found in the Empty Quarter.

Saudi Arabia can be drawn and quartered, with a lot less effort than it takes to subdue, on behalf of the Shi'a in Iraq, a single town in Anbar Province.

And it makes a lot more sense. And would be a lot more fun.

Posted by: Hugh at October 26, 2005 10:45 AM

Except for the holding operations in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the War for World Freedom is a war of ideas, with our system of mass communications being the battlefield.

So then, the objective must expanded beyond merely exposing Islam for what it is.

I think we all agree that reversal of immigration policy is a key tactical engagement, as is also as you have pointed Moslem access to western education.

But it would seem that ameliorating the underlying stress about oil embargo lurking in the back of every adult infidel's mind is also a tactical objective.

Here's hoping I live long enough to see the day that we take the first tactical objective, that being our birthright to be able to speak plainly amongts ourselves, and to throw off the Marxist mandate that we speak delusionally, under the stern and monitoring eye of our olympian elite.

In other words, right now, if you recited your brief essay above on national TV you'd be castigated, shunned, and mocked for being devil enough to even have raised the subject.

I long for the pleasure of real planning. One can only hope that deep inside the Pentagon they're having conversations like yours.

Yeah, I know that the CIA should also be doing such planning, but that's a disloyal operation; only the armed forces can be counted on for common sense and loyalty.

I shoulda joined the Army.

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at October 26, 2005 11:53 AM

To "Leaving the Left":

One can certainly say "Stop!" My only point was that how we say "Stop!" can make a big difference to whether sufficient numbers listen and stand with us.

You ask (sort of rhetorically) if it is wrong to hate evil. My point was that victory for the good depends on how one hates evil. Some kinds of hatred of evil tend to strengthen it. The communists hated the Nazis and vice versa, and yet they strengthened each other in various ways. There are many pitfalls in hate, and if we want to succeed in defending ourselves against the totalitarian plans of Islam, we have to be careful of those pitfalls. Most of all, hatred often, though not always, has inadequate self-restraint and moderation. It often, though not always, leads people to fudge, exaggerate and lie. It leads people to hate indiscrminately, both things worthy of hate, and things unworthy of it. It leads people to desire winning any way possible, more than winning honestly or fairly.

Now I know in war one cannot always fight 'fairly' or honestly. Imagine if one of Stalin's would-be assassins believed it necessary to be honest with Stalin's guards about the intent to assassinate. Obviously, deception is sometimes justifiable as the least morally bad course of action available. So I don't say we must fight according to the King's rules when our totalitarian opponents use any means at their disposal no matter how evil. But if we are going to deceive and exaggerate and do other shady things to help us win our battles with totalitarianism, we should do so on the basis of anxious moral deliberation that comes to the tentative conclusion that deception is the least morally bad course of action in a particular situation and a particular moment. It's evil to lie to Stalin's guards and pretend we are not about to assassinate Stalin, yet it is even more evil not to lie, and not to kill Stalin.

But we should never fall half-consciously into deception and slander because we get carried away by hate's passion. Then hate has become more important to us than truth. Truth must be uppermost, and if we deceive, we must do so with complete sobriety in the life of passion and with anxious awareness of the moral hazards. Otherwise we deceive ourselves in the same moment we deceive the enemy. If there must be hatred -- and I'm not sure it's ever fully justified, since one can fight a just war and kill without hatred -- but if there must be hatred then let it be restrained, self-questioning hatred, hatred limited carefully only to those few things really worthy of it, including some things in one's own soul. That education of passion requires vigilance. Blind hatred is easy. And blind hatred and careless words might prevent us from getting all the mainstream allies we need. That's the point. Truth and rationality will set us free. Probably if we all spoke more like Mr. Spock from Star Trek (though he's far from my ideal) our cause here would get many more adherents than it currently has. As it is, Spencer is often tarred as a bigot, and we commenters are probably part of the reason. Who knows how many thousands or millions of people will not be exposed to Spencer, because of our sometimes immoderate passions and manner of speech here? All I'm saying is that we'll do our cause good if we seek continually to raise the standards of objectivity and virtue we apply to our words here.

Posted by: eduardo odraude at October 26, 2005 5:39 PM

I admire the naivete of the sentiments with which eduardo's post is composed -- but I am not certain he comprehends what is required to win this fight. His post expresses noble ideas, and abstractions worthy of reflection -- But can he really believe that rhetoric by certain posters (could he possibly be referring to MY posts?) may drive potential allies away from this site in the thousands or Millions? This is hyperbole...

The idea that it's critical for us to wage war in a moral way is a discussion that is well worth having -- It is an extremely complex subject -- and the notion of "just war" preoccupies the minds of many great military scholars today -- and helps shape modern US warfare.

I believe we are at a desperate crossroad now -- at least I am encouraged that we both seem to concur that a civilizational battle is at hand... But I am convinced that our mobilization for this civilizational battle is WOEFULLY LATE and WOEFULLY INADEQUATE -- We are still utterly complacent...

In illustration, let's compare and contrast the preparedness, knowledge, and tactics of the two sides in this battle:

Our side:
We have been taken largely unaware by this foe -- The majority of our population isn't yet aware that we are already enmeshed in a RAGING existential battle-- Our side is STUPENDOUSLY ignorant of the contours of the battlefield -- and we are even largely ignorant of our enemy's name, his tactics, and his goals...
Even the language used to define the enemy's methodology and his ideology is foreign to us -- Worse, these things are defined in the enemy's own language -- the concepts and definitionswhich guide his actions are alien and opaque to us -- If we wish to win this battle, our methods REQUIRE that we first must understand WHO the enemy is, comprehend his tactics, and identify his ultimate goals... Once this is done, we must prepare a fairly unified and rational strategy to fight and repel his onslaught against us...

Their side:
The enemy has been waging this basic battle since the inception of his ideology -- 1400 years, non-stop. One of the the most fundamental precepts of his ideology is the call to fight for his ideology -- the term is Jihad. He is relentlessly prepared and groomed for this Jihad from childhood. Our enemy inculcates his minions five 5 times a day -- the indoctrination is RELENTLESS -- The enemy understands the contours of the battlefield -- In fact, the enemy has largely defined the battlefield... The definition is simple -- He separates the world into the House of Islam -- and the House of War... In order to fight against and defeat us, our enemy does not need to know ANYTHING about us, is not required to understand our culture, has no need for insight regarding our tactics, motivations or our ultimate goals -- In fact, our enemy is indifferent to our goals, and does not hesitate to define our goals in a manner which suits him, and makes us into an enemy whether we would wish to be or not. The very fact that we are not Muslim makes us part of the Dar al Harb -- house of war -- and the enemy understands that his ideology requires that he must subdue us or destroy us... There is no alternative.

Is there still time to have discussions on "just war" in this battle?

Yes and no. The battle must begin -- NOW!

We are already being assailed by our enemy in ways we have not begun to understand or comprehend... If discussions and debates about the 'justness' of war or the nature of hatred DELAY our actions, then they are counter-productive and harmful...

Posted by: jsla at October 27, 2005 12:21 AM

I agree with much of jsla's last comment. But when jsla says:

"...can [Eduardo] really believe that rhetoric by certain posters (could he possibly be referring to MY posts?) may drive potential allies away from this site in the thousands or Millions? This is hyperbole..."

I point out that I was referring not to 'certain' posters, but to posters in general, or a very significant proportion of them. And understood in that sense, my statement was not entirely hyperbole. In complex systems, very tiny changes in initial conditions can trigger huge or total system transformations. Mountains sometimes turn on pebbles. Physicists say that under some natural conditions, the flapping of a butterfly's wings can trigger a chain of atmospheric events building into a hurricane. We also frequently hear the truism that 'one person can make a difference.' This all has to do with complexity and the nature of chaotic systems, so I'm told.

I'm not focusing on you, jsla -- my comment was general, and applied to me as well as to others. We may not always be delaying sufficiently in expressing definite, passionate conclusions. Passion tends to sweep us toward strong assertions, even when we might hear a voice of conscience saying, "but do I really know that? Have I really listened closely to and thought hard about opposing views? Have I really checked enough of the facts in this matter to be justifiably at peace with myself when I speak so passionately or harshly?"

This website is a context where thinking, not just advocating (action), is presumably a good idea. And if the truth is what we here believe it is, surely our questioning of our own conclusions, or expressing them in a more tentative, 'scientific,' exploratory tone, will on the whole tend to strengthen us in our convictions? If they are correct, that is.

The point is, if we want to win, we have to favor cool facts, logic, impartiality, perhaps a Socratic style, over passion and hate. That's one way we can each do our little part to help teachers like Spencer break into mainstream acceptance. If, on the other hand, visitors to this site find that behind Spencer, a crowd of all too often rabble-rousing commenters rises into view, then we only shoot ourselves in the foot and make the mainstream wonder why Spencer inspires that kind of rowdy following -- even if it's not Spencer's fault in the least who follows him. We then lose the mainstream, and without them, we might be severely limited in what we can accomplish.

Posted by: eduardo odraude at October 27, 2005 8:59 PM

To be clear about my last post, I think it's fine if we here discuss courses of action, even dramatic courses of action like war. All I'm suggesting is that we should strive for a scientific manner, both in the facts and ideas expressed, and above all in the emotions. You might say that emotions cannot be scientific. Then put it this way. Some emotions are far more honest, more truthful, than others. Debased emotions just reinforce our vices, our insecurities, our perverse pleasure in hating something. Truthful emotion is based on a continual healthy striving for an all round balanced awareness that works hard to be compassionate and fair to all sides, has no axe to grind, and makes a discipline of continual self-questioning and openness. That doesn't mean treating evil as if it were good. That doesn't mean being a pacifist. Socrates was quite a soldier and fought in several battles. In one case, where Socrates and his fellow Athenians were forced to retreat over many miles, none of the enemy dared come near Socrates, because of his badass mein. All I am saying is that one's struggle with evil need not be based on hate and can be based on love for the good and it will then have a better chance of moving the mainstream. If on the other hand, one takes the easy path and struggles with evil because one hates, and likes to give vent to one's spleen rather than to one's mind, then one will not be helping the cause of this site. At best one might help one's indigestion.

Posted by: eduardo odraude at October 27, 2005 9:39 PM

Good points all -- and well taken...

It is important to point out that this Islamic Jihad requires serious action as well as serious thought -- and I for one despair that we are so late to the discussion in the West. The Muslim has been inculcated for 1400 years in an intolerant supremacist ideology -- the ideology also includes immunity to mutation, self criticism, reformation. The two primary branches of Islam, those that constitute fully 95% of all adherents, emerged only a few years after the "prophet's" death... It appears to me, given the stone aged appearance of Islam's laws under the sharia (the difference between Sunni Sharia and Shiite is immaterial to me -- both barbaric -- both unsuitable) that Islam has evolved little in its 1400 year bloody imperialist history. Its fortunes have ebbed and waned, but largely the residue of Islam seems to be that of shattered cultures, broken spirits, and civic and governmental corruption the likes of which boggle the mind... Islam is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and human degradation.

Given this deplorable historical record, and today's resurgence of Islam's florid virulence, and desire for genocide, we are faced with a dilemma... Yes -- serious thinking must occur on our side -- WE MUST NOT ALLOW THEM TO DESTROY US -- NO MATTER WHAT IT WILL TAKE -- what that will entail, I do not know....

But Muslim thinking seems largely preoccupied with our annihilation using time honored mechanisms of hatred and incitement... While their methods are utterly deplorable, it doesn't mean it isn't also VERY EFFECTIVE!

If such is true, then the niceties of Western considerations for a proper responses may not be germane..
Waiting vainly for invisible "moderate" Muslims to turn the hearts and minds of their more vicious brethren may not be germane...

Waiting for fairies and pixies to wave magic wands and make them all turn into christmas tree ornaments (definitely not germane... but possibly just as meaningless and ineffectual as the first two ideas...) will be fatal for us...

I'm not saying "Let's not be thoughtful-- let's not think about this..." There is clear evidence that Muslims consider us to be their enemies, in the main. There is clear evidence that Muslims will not relent in their aspirations to see Islam rule supreme -- It is a fundamental tenet of their religion, and one of their god's primary exhortations to them... There is clear evidence that THEY are not concerned with waging a war of ideas amongst themselves to crush the malignancy that tugs at the very heart of Islam... There is even evidence that there is no separation whatsoever between the heart of Islam and a malignancy -- Where ever Islam rears its ugly head, misery and death is sure to follow.

Most here at this site clearly see the malignancy of Islam. Even Muslims see it in their Islamic societies, but sadly their remedy is to annihilate us to relieve the symptoms of their malignancy. This is extremely dangerous to them, since it clearly won't work. We all understand that if their most fervent dreams came true -- the kaliphate was restored, and all non-Muslims brought into to fold , brought to heel, or exterminated, the world's miseries would only be beginning, and Islam's infection would never cease... Nazism was exactly the same, as a supremacist ideology -- its evils would never cease to butcher and destroy... But even at the end of the WW2, many didn't fully grasp the utter malignancy of Nazism...

But the pathological thinking of Muslims is even more dangerous for the rest of us... They pose an even graver, more convincing existential threat to us than the Nazis did--

I agree we should not do things like waging war or dropping major ordnance to snuff out cities in anger... But I am also not convinced that once waging war on your existential enemy does not require hatred and dehumanization in order to be successful.

That is a topic worth discussing as well... I am convinced that this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if it gets better at all from here... They now are beginning to openly declare their intentions, as we see with the comments from Shiite Islam's epicenter -- it is our extermination -- have no doubt -- This convinces me that

1. They are undeterrable.
2. We are still tolerating intolerable numbers of adherents to this "religion" in our midst.
3.The solution to resolving Islam's menace to us won't come from invisible non-existent Muslims in their midst.
4.The solution to resolving Islam's menace to us won't come from invisible non-existent Muslims in our midst.
5. The responsiblity to nullify the threat Islam poses to our existence will fall squarely on our shoulders, but the "solution" may prove impossible --either because we can't bring ourselves to do what's necessary, or because the Islamic momentum is already too large, and we are too late.

Being honest about my appraisal of where we stand today -- I don't think we're necessarily going to win this fight with Islam-- the enemy is EXTREMELY entrenched. The enemy is EXTREMELY dedicated. The enemy is inured to the sentiment of the individual and is therefore not subject to political forces or public opinion. The enemy is among us and multiplying, and the intended victims of the enemy continue unabated to provide jobs, revenue streams into enemy coffers, resources, technology, and housing, even on our own soil.

There is historical precedent for everything I say -- To learn more about it, read about Byzantium, Jerusalem, Assyria, Persia, India, Egypt, etc & etc. Human kind, and former world superpowers have seen this ALL before, they just didn't notice what was happening until it was too late to do much about it...

To conclude -- I agree with a post by Hugh elsewhere on this site, and take it to heart --" Victory is not inevitable"

Posted by: jsla at October 28, 2005 6:15 PM