UPDATE 12/13/05: As we get farther from the controversy over Thomas Tancredo‘s remarks, this article has been used in some quarters to smear Hugh Fitzgerald and me as supporting the implementation of the actions listed below today. This is not the case. It is important to bear in mind that Hugh Fitzgerald wrote these as a series of alternatives to Tancredo’s suggestion of bombing Mecca in the wake of another jihad attack on American soil.
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers some suggestions of what we can do to defend human rights and resist the jihad threat, in the wake of Congressman Tancredo’s remarks:
It would have been better to make the following point: during the Cold War, the Soviet rulers knew that if they did certain things, certain things would be done by NATO or the American government. And the knowledge of what might be done, would be done, in return, helped prevent the Soviet rulers from doing what they might otherwise have done.
So it would be helpful to make suggestions as to what would constitute deterrence of a chemical or nuclear attack by Islamic jihadists on American soil. These might include, not destroying Mecca, which would cause maddened Muslims everywhere to attack and kill Infidels — and the problem with Islam is that it contains many elements of a violent cult that cannot be wished away, or hidden any longer. Are maddened millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of inconsolable Muslims, for whom Mecca no longer exists, and so with nothing further to lose, what we wish to bring into being? No. But the idea of discussing possible means of deterrence, not of the determined suicide-bomber, but of all those who have helped to fund mosques and madrasas, or to supply the emotional and financial and intellectual support system (including the continued smooth practitioners of taqiyya-and-kitman in the West), and who can be threatened in all sorts of ways.
More sober discussion of how, for example, points of entry and exit into Mecca, could systematically be reduced in number, or airfields used by pilgrims made unusable, is a different suggestion, one that has many advantages, in that it is an incremental response: first this quadrant is closed off, and now this one, and so on.
It is now clear to Muslims in the West, or to some of them, that their assumption about continued Western appeasement, based on continued misunderstanding of Islam by Infidels was wrong. The EU’s foreign policy is still in place, but Bat Ye’or’s “Eurabia” is circulating — even at the highest levels of the Pentagon. Eventually, terror, used as an instrument of Jihad, will alert enough Infidels to the permanent problem of Jihad, of all the instruments of Jihad, including that of demographic conquest and Da”wa, and lead inexorably to an understanding that the Muslims in their midst, allowed in by political elites who were either indifferent, or mesmerized by the Idols of the Age, those unexamined assumptions about how Everyone Wants the Same Thing and All Religions Are Alike. Those Muslims may be “moderate” or “immoderate,” and the “moderation” may be real, or feigned, permanent or temporary, immune to, or susceptible to, being jettisoned whenever setbacks or depressive fits or any of the ills that flesh and spirit are heir to, may cause a “moderate” Muslim, or even a “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslim, to throw off that “moderation” and morph in Jekyll-into-Hyde fashion, into someone ready to blame the Infidels. There have been quite a few examples of such outwardly “moderate” people changing their beliefs and hence their behavior, as a response not so much to political or geopolitical events, but to personal setbacks, emotional disarray. When the universe is viewed through the prism of Islam, it is the Infidels who always wear black.
Discussion of measures that might truly curb, for example, the Saudi money that pours into the Western world, and funds mosques everywhere, all over that world, and madrasas all over the dar al-Islam, and that is furthermore used to buy an army of hirelings, non-Muslim apologists for islam, should be undertaken — out in the open so that Infidel publics can be made aware of the size of the problem.
Deterrent measures that could be undertaken in the event of a chemical or nuclear attack, but without waiting in some cases for any further attacks (although further attacks will help to justify the more far-reaching among them) might include, but not be limited to:
1) Seizure of Saudi-owned assets in the West, and sale of such assets to pay for the economic damage, including the cost of surveillance and other security measures, that are attributable to Saudi-funded mosques, madrasas, and propaganda all over the world.
2) Seizure of other Arab-owned or Muslim-owned assets in the West, for the same reasons. There need not be any distinction made between property owned by governments and those who are deemed to be enemy nationals — no such distinction was made during World War II.
3) A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained ciizenship and — unless they are native-born converts — their countries of origin.
4) Careful review of how citizenship is obtained, and what oaths of loyalty are administered, and if those oaths can possibly have been meant by those whose sole loyalty, by the very tenets of their belief-system, can only be to Islam and the Community of Believers, the umma al-islamiyya.
5) Government-sponsored centers to teach people about Islam outside of universities, which all over the Western world have been infiltrated, or rather captured by, apologists for Islam both Muslim and non-Muslim.
The study of Arabic under teachers whom the Infidel governments will deliberately find among Arabic-speaking non-Muslims, chiefly from those populations most likely not to supply subtle apologists for Islam — Maronites, Copts, disaffected Berbers, Arabic-speaking Jews. A knowledge of Arabic is not required for an understanding of Islam 80% of the world’s Muslims do not speak or read Arabic but have no difficulty knowing what Islam is all about. But it can be of help in studying the history of Jihad-conquest, and certainly it can be of help in debates with Muslims who accuse one of “not understanding Islam without a knowledge of Arabic.” Nonsense, of course, but nonsense more convincingly refused if someone has studied Arabic.
6) War-footing (i.e., Manhattan Project support) for solar and wind and nuclear energy projects, for conservation, and for mass transit, including that such as Amtrak which loses money, but should be cheerfully subsidized by an intelligent government bent, even hellbent, on diminishing OPEC oil revenues.
7) An end to all outward and visible signs of rhetorical “respect” for Islam, including the studied refusal to mention “Islmaic terrorism” or “Muslim terrorism” which has gone on for too long. Use these adjectives; never let them go. Use the word “jihad.” Stop all attempts at verbal escamotage, where the listener is left, puzzled, dissatisfied with the deliberate vagueness.
8) End all access to Western education, not only for those Arabs and Muslims studying any kind of science, but in every area. Attempting the hopeless project of “educating them” out of their belief-system will not work. Many terrorists have lived in the West, seen the West, studied in the West, taught in the West. Dr. A. Q. Khan did “research” in the West — and we know the results of that research. Muslims in Western universities are dangerous to Infidel wellbeing, not only because of the women they marry and cause to convert (to the subsequent sorrow of many), but because they are, with the odd exception, likely to conduct Da”wa and promote the geopolitics of Islam. Past masters at taqiyya-and-kitman, they should be regarded as akin to enemy agents, promoting a belief””system that means Infidel political and social arrangements and assumptions no good.
Condemning them to the solitary confinement of dar al-Islam will cause a concentration of minds.
9) End all access to the Western world for the children of the ruling elites all over the Muslim world. Without this escape hatch, those rulers will have to begin to consider how to ameliorate things in their own countries.
10) End the jizyah of Infidel aid to Muslim states, such as Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and whatever the latest political instrument of the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel, the “Palestinians,” may be called. Call attention to the $10 trillion that has already been recdeived by the Muslim members of OPEC in the last 1/3 century, and continue to advise those Pakistanis, Egyptians, Jordanians and “Palestinians” to ask for that aid no longer from the Infidels, who suddenly have to pay higher prices for oil and hundreds of billions more for security all over the Western world, but to those Arab and Muslim states that, not coincidentally, are receiving those hundreds of billions more in oil revenues each year.
11) Keep the focus clearly on the belief-system of Islam and on Jihad. And after the next small terrorist attack on Infidels — say, 10 killed – begin to legislate to make sure that some of the measures suggested above become not merely ideas but the law.
12) Clean out the taxpayer-funded government radio and television stations of those who have so misled us about Islam over the past 20-30 years. Begin, possibly, by firing John Simpson, the deeply, even conspiratorially, anti-Israel and islamophilic head of the BBC World Affairs broadcasting, the same John Simpson (a close friend of Peter Hounam, whose conspiracy book about Israel is the kind of thing that antisemites love to flog) who described the Muslim bombers in London as “misguided criminals.” That should have been enough to cause his discharge. Why wasn’t it? What will it take for the long-suffering British license-payers to demand a change in the BBC coverage and, even before that, iin the personnel in charge of reporting on the Middle East and Islam? This domestic Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose business, where one need not even bother to turn the dial to Radio Berlin or Radio Tokyo to hear the sly propaganda, has to stop.
These are things that can be done, should be done, long before suggestions about “bombing Mecca” need to be bruited about.
Talk of attacking Mecca, instead of concentrating on more plausible suggestions (which do include limiting easy access to Mecca, something which the Saudis already do in limiting the number of visitors), is not likely to be helpful.