| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers one for Prester John:
No aid should be given by Western nations on the theory that it is "only humanitarian" -- not to the “Palestinians,” and not to anyone else. And as Somalia becomes an Islamic state, especially not to Somalia. Let Saudi Arabia make Somalia its project.On what basis, for what benefit, should Somalis be allowed into Western lands at this point? After all, no care is taken, none, to determine their sentiments regarding Jihad. Will they not simply swell the ranks of those who either are adherents of a belief-system inimical to all Infidels? Or, if they are not full adherents, they can become so at any time, or their children or grandchildren can. For what reason should we not take that risk? Furthermore, in answer to those who say that some are "moderates" fleeing the "Islamic" takeover, their "moderation" is entirely relative, akin to that of certain Afghani warlords who opposed the Taliban, and whose services may be welcome in Afghanistan, but who themselves, or any of those supporting them, should not, out of some diseased sense of what they are owed (they are owed nothing), be admitted into the Lands of the Infidels.
Any such "refugees" who might flee from Somalia can go to any number of Muslim lands, and should. They can go, for example, to Saudi Arabia, where foreigners who can work are always needed. Treatment not so good? Too bad -- that's an intra-Muslim affair, not ours.Or to sunny Egypt, with a view of the Nile. Egypt won't let them, you say? Egypt just treated terribly some refugees from Darfur, now living in Israel? Well, we can make Egypt let them. Begin by cutting off, not merely cutting back, the Jizyah of foreign aid to meretricious, corrupt, sinister Egypt, our "ally" Egypt, with its Democracy-Is-On-the-March farce and American taxpayers footing the bill -- $60 billion and counting -- for the Mubarak Friends-and-Family Plan. No more Lewistons.
You know that phrase in those ads -- "No Hidden Costs." The "hidden costs" of Muslim immigrants -- look at France, England, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Belgium (shall I go on?)-- are considerable. The "hidden costs" are not seen because the belief-system of Islam, and its effects on attitudes toward Infidels, is something not declared in the mental baggage brought by Muslim immigrants. Those "hidden costs" include societies now riven by disquiet and alarm, and huge expenses for monitoring or placating or "integrating" the immigrants -- vainly, in almost all cases, if by "integrating" we mean making them into loyal citizens of the Infidel nation-state, and not people whose loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya transcends everything else. And finally those "hidden costs" include a sense of physical insecurity on the part of Infidels in their own countries, on planes or trains or busses, at Christian or Jewish day schools, at sports events, at government offices and official functions. All of this is an effect of the large-scale presence of Muslims, who through their organizations work tirelessly to undo the laws, the customs, the understandings, the legal and political and social institutions of this country and of all Infidel countries.
The policies that were the result of negligence born of ignorance must not be continued. Not with "refugees" from Somalia or any other Muslim country, and not with Muslims coming from other Western countries. This has to be comprehended not just by the INS, but by all the immigration services in the Western world. Now.
Arm Ethiopia, or rather, arm and support the Christians in Ethiopia. Make sure that they are guarding their borders, or if necessary, entering Somalia.
And back Ethiopia -- or rather, the Christians of Ethiopia -- in their attempt to irrigate their land by diverting the headwaters of the Nile, as they have every right to do so. Egypt has been bullying Ethiopia, telling it not to dare to try to end its droughts and famines by taking Nile waters -- or at least not without the express permission of the Arabs of Egypt, who apparently think they own the Nile.
They don't. They have received $60 billion from American Infidels. They do nothing for us in return. And they dare to bully the one Christian kingdom -- the site, in the hopeful belief of the medieval Christians besieged by the forces of Islam, of Prester John's mythical kingdom (transferred mentally from Asia to Africa, from India to Abyssinia). Support Ethiopia to the hilt.
And right now, hope that American aid, through Ethiopia, can bottle up the Somali government, or whatever passes for it nowadays.
Posted by Robert at June 18, 2006 4:40 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Trillions for defense, not a penny for tribute.
Posted by: profitsbeard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 18, 2006 5:22 PM
I'll be honest, I used to think the US somehow owed it to the world to police war torn regions and send aid to every depraved person that wasn't an American, but looking back on it now I wish we hadn't gone to Bosnia/Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, etc. etc. Let these people sort out their own problems, whether they've "got oil" or not, it's really nothing we should concern ourselves with. It's a waste of our money (and I am not even speaking in the "there are Americans who need it" sense, because I don't really agree with welfare for Americans either, but if you could convince someone who does think that way to stop supporting foreign aid on that argument, fine) and a waste of our god damn time, too. These people always become dependent and then hateful of the US and its attempts at benevolence.
Would Palestine have the time to wage jihad against Israel if they really were starving everyday? Would the Somalis have been able to spend their money on arming their jihadis to kill our Rangers back in 1993 if we hadn't been simultaneously feeding said jihadis with aid?
I think on this one I am in your boat, Mr. Fitzgerald, though I don't think we (the US gubmint) should be helping the Darfurians either, and I'm not sure how you stand on that one. As sad as it is to see more people struggling against the jihad in another part of the world... eh... I'm just not sure any form of aid (food, weapons, CASH) we could send to such peoples would ultimately be of help and be enough in our interest to justify the fact that such aid is derived in large part from the theft of the taxpayer. I think if people want to help these people out (Darfur, for example), they have plenty of channels to send aid privately, and if they don't, they shouldn't be forced to pay taxes that are used to do so, but that's just me.
Of course, I didn't just say that I am personally and privately opposed to helping the people of Darfur or others suffering the effects of the Jihad.
Posted by: sologue at June 18, 2006 6:33 PM
And before you possibly get angry with my evil, "libertarian" sentiments about the taxation issue in terms of who the government is supporting with aid, Mr. Fitzgerald, just remember what the topic of this and your previous article was... obviously you're indignant at the idea that the government takes taxes from you and then uses them to provide welfare for people you consider to be your enemies, or at least undeserving of your assistance. That's the fundamental point I am trying to make, I really don't want to get into a debate about how I think the government is the ultimate bastard child of anything and everything and my vision is clouded by my hate of this government theft I am so enraged about.
Simply put, I think we can all agree it's no fun when someone forces us to support people we see as our ideological or physical enemies. :)
Posted by: sologue at June 18, 2006 6:37 PM
Hugh: “Egypt won't let them, you say? Egypt just treated terribly some refugees from Darfur, now living in Israel? Well, we can make Egypt let them. Begin by cutting off, not merely cutting back, the Jizyah of foreign aid to meretricious, corrupt, sinister Egypt, our "ally" Egypt, with its Democracy-Is-On-the-March farce and American taxpayers footing the bill -- $60 billion and counting -- for the Mubarak Friends-and-Family Plan. No more Lewistons.”
I love it. Make our aid to predominantly Muslim nations contingent upon them taking in fleeing Muslim refugees from any failed Muslim states.
It solves a whole lot of simultaneous problems at once while still allowing us to assume the moral high ground, especially if we give it the right spin.
We could, for instance say how much we can obviously appreciate the many virtues of life under Islam, given how both Iraq and Afghanistan elected Islamic governments, and the PA and Egypt and now Somalia have all now moved in that same direction as well. So appreciating these virtues, in combination with noting how many Muslims who have actually moved to our communities evidence a certain amount of "home-sickness" for the ummah, we believe that from both a practical and a humanitarian/psychotherapeutic POV, it is advisable to settle Muslims refugees in Muslim states - in the warm and conmforting embrace of the Islamic ummah. In addition, anyone following the news in the States this past year would surely appreciate that we Americans already pretty much have our hands full with our brothers and sisters to the south. So it really makes a lot more sense for us to send aid to Egypt or Jordan or Pakistan to take these people in. That would then be what our "jizyah" was going to - Muslims taking in Muslims. From a practical POV it's got to be a whole lot cheaper in the long run than bringing them here. And from a "temperamental"/psychological POV it's where they belong anyway.
Posted by: Caroline at June 18, 2006 6:40 PM
Somalia needs world's attention, says Qatar and France
at June 18, 2006 11:37 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)