Link to a long essay by Baron Bodissey at the Gates of Vienna blog about what happened to all the ethnic Greeks in Asia Minor in 1922. Think it doesn't matter today? Think again.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/18/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
great and enlightening as always - but his solution is not enough to stem the tide.
Posted by: tired and beat down ||
09/18/2006 0:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
this article is a good reminder of what we face. Those of us over the age of 30 grew up in a golden era unlike few others in recorded history.
We were all very naive. We really did believe that we had harnessed mans better nature and moved into a gentler, more enlightened era. It was brief but beautiful and I'm so lucky to have been a part of it. On 911, that era was officially over. Those under the age of 30 will have to fight very hard to beat back the murderous Islamic tide. Unfortunately for them, the enemy will not just be Islamic fanatics, but home grown ones as well. Neighbor against neighbor - brother against brother. Rape, murder and terror will become part of everyday life. In reality, nothing has changed - it is just human nature as usual. It was the time of peace and prosperity that was anomalous.
Posted by: tired and beat down ||
09/18/2006 1:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
one last thought: The saddest part of all of this is that it was all totally unnecessary. If the liberals had united with conservatives after 911 this war would already be over. But it was not to be.
But divide they did. Our universities have been bought with oil money. Our children's text books are bought with Saudi oil money. Our media influence has been bought with oil money. Our State department has been bought with oil money. Many of our elected offices have been bought with oil money. Our mosques have been bought with oil money.
If you look at France and Britain, you can see what is coming to a town near you soon.
Man, I'm feeling tired and beat down. It's a long road ahead. What a shame we will have to travel it - if we could just unite - we could still stop it.
Posted by: tired and beat down ||
09/18/2006 1:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's been said many times before, by those more articulate than me.
Humanity is at a unique point in history, given the current state of technology, where the dominant meme set established over the next three or four generations will likely be the one posessed by the bulk of humanity and that goes out to the stars.
Unfortunately, we are involved in a three way war, with the left and Islam both hoping to take out the West and feed, vulture-like, on its corpse. The left and Islam detest one another, but as long as there is a confluence of purpose (not conspiracy) among them in toppling the West, they work towards the same goal, each believing that should they win they can take out the other.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/18/2006 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
let's dispense with humanity and make an example out of one of these troublesome little bands of goatherders. Warizistan would be a good start for a nuke campaign. I'm telling you, drop two or three and people will start to listen when we talk.
Take Back the Lands and Culture of our European Ancestors!
Perhaps we've started at the wrong end of things.. in order to restore our culture and Western values we must seize back the Lands and Culture of our European Ancestors.
Instead of defending every attack from the traitors here at home and the Socialists/Islamists by only using the tools of voting and fighting the muj everywhere they pop up [Iraq & Afghanistan etc.] we should demand the return of all the stolen lands of our murdered European ancestors.
This would not only draw the jehadis/islamist into the box of our choosing but it would provide a tangible and righteous goal that would fire up awaken the torpid amongst us.
Posted by: Potent Optimistic and Raring for The Fight ||
09/18/2006 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The Archbishop Chrysostomos was among the victims, murdered at the hands of a mob while under the protection of French marines. The city, except for the Turkish quarter, was reduced to a smoking ruin.
#8
"Right of Return" applies only to Paleos, not to the Greeks of Asia Minor or Germans of Silesia, nor to the jews who had lived until 1948 on lands now held by those same Paleos. Take care of the three that predate the Paleos and then we'll talk.
#9
Man, I'm feeling tired and beat down. It's a long road ahead. What a shame we will have to travel it - if we could just unite - we could still stop it.
What if you think of it as a never-ending battle? (which it is) The batle between right and wrong, justice and tyranny, and yes, good and evil will never be over. We just have to keep fighting the good fight, because our enemies (and I do include the socialist, leftist, pacifist moonbats as enemies) will never stop fighting for the other side. Unity, shmoonity. It would be nice, but without an underlying sense of morality and decency on the part of the left, don't expect that to come along anytime soon.
Edmund Burke once said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", and it's still true today. I've no time to be beat down. I will go to the polls. I will speak out. I will challenge evil philosophies, weak politicians and leftist ideas every time they rear their ugly heads. And I will not give up.
Posted by: tired and beat down ||
09/18/2006 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I'm not so sure all the unity was there during the great world war two, either.
Charles Lindberg comes to mind. Perhaps it was more like 80-20, or 90-10, whereas at the moment, it's prettly close to 50-50....
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/18/2006 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Unfortunately, Bobby, I think it's more along the lines of 25%/25%. The other 50% are just too naive and enthralled with themselves, Survivor and the latest episode of American Idol to care. Of course, what I find ironic is that their (the enemy's) biggest targets are our internal enemy's biggest strongholds. By that, I mean, the urban centers where mass casualties can occur. The rest of us in flyover country "get it."
Posted by: BA ||
09/18/2006 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The life of a common man beats you down and leaves you tired - events should not.
Politics, racism, war, religious ideologies, murder, rape, suicide, etc., etc., are all part of the common man's world.
If you let it get to you, it will beat you down and leave you tired, but that's because you allow it to do so.
We all have our individual lives to lead and we all, from time to time, allow the world to beat us down and leave us tired. There's a cure for this, however.
Take a vacation. Talk with your friends. Go to church. Get away from the "world" (including Rantburg) for awhile. Give it a rest. Recharge your batteries. Turn off the radio and the TV and get out into the hills and woods and go fishing (there's nothing so much as standing alongside a roiling stream in the woods to recharge one's batteries IMO). Go camping and pitch a tent and have some s'mores.
Laugh!
Have a good time. Drink too much. Eat too much. Find a pretty girl (or if you're of the opposite persuasion, a man, or whatever floats your boat).
Dance!
Forget the "world" for awhile.
Everyone needs to (even the Pope and the President).
Remember your folks and your grandfolks and everything they taught you. Visit their graves and honor their memory. Go to Arlington and remember all those who have fought and given their all for their country. Visit Washington and see the monuments and memorials, especially the Lincoln Memorial - READ that inscription and take it to heart. Visit the Gettysburg, Bull Run, Appomatox Courthouse, Stone's River, etc. national battlefields. Visit Mt Rushmore.
Take a roadtrip across the USA!
Re-connect with your country and the people who live here!
It won't take long before thos batteries are recharged and that weight is lifted and you come back stronger and more dedicated than ever.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/18/2006 21:28 Comments ||
Top||
#16
thanks FOTSGreg. It's good advice. I do need to just shut it off for awhile. Like msgeek said - the battle will never end. Doesn't mean that you can't fight back - but best to enjoy the gift of life along the way.
It is no secret that in Europe the anti-American, anti-Israel propaganda machine is operating full tilt. How bad is it? Samizdata writes this report, concluding I am not making this up.
As I type these words, Britains Channel 4 is airing a major piece of breath-taking propoganda.
This two-hour prime-time documentary is called The Doomsday Code and purports to be a ciritical examination of the violent, apocolyptic, end-of-the-world ideology of (wait for it)...American Christians!
The story so far:
American Christians and Israelis are conspiring to bring about a global nuclear holocaust and this is why they are attacking Islam Americans are deliberately causing global warming as a part of their monstrous plot to realise End Times
The only hope for mankind lies with the UN but its effectiveness is being undermined by the corrosive hostility of the fundamentalist Christian Americans
I cannot find any specific programme website to which to link but there is a link to the website of the production company which is somehwat illuminating:
The Doomsday Code is produced by Fozia Khan and directed by James Quinn. It was commissioned by Aaquil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor for History, Science, Religion and Arts at Channel 4.
It is still broadcasting and has now moved on to Africa which, allegedly, is proving to be a fertile recruiting ground for the insanely violent American Evangelicals who are (among other things) doing their best to facilitate the spread of AIDS in accordance with the Book of Revelation.
#3
When will people figure out how to use permalinks? (By "people" I mean Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker. Michelle Malkin was quoted in another post, and she wasn't able to use them either. It ain't rocket surgery.)
Go here to read the Samizdata column directly. Pay careful attention to the comments, many of which run as follows:
"I don't get it. They're just showing a fanatical, crazed Christian cult that's very powerful in US politics. But that's all true, so what's the big deal?"
#6
Europeans, please help us. We Americans are being forced to go to church and pray. We're forced to vote republican and learn to shoot guns. Please send help. We've been thinking for ourselves and it's beginning to overcome us all. It's not easy keeping up with a booming economy and free speech and have a family life too. Please tell us what to do. Oh, the humanities.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/18/2006 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Europeans, please help us. We Americans are being forced to go to church and pray. We're forced to vote republican and learn to shoot guns. Please send help. We've been thinking for ourselves and it's beginning to overcome us all. It's not easy keeping up with a booming economy and free speech and have a family life too. Please tell us what to do. Oh, the humanities.
Ya' know...this gives me an idea for one of those Nigerian scam thingies...
#11
American Christians and Israelis are conspiring to bring about a global nuclear holocaust and this is why they are attacking Islam Americans are deliberately causing global warming as a part of their monstrous plot to realise End Times
No, no, no, you friggin idiots! It's all those mickeyed polio vaccines we pass out over there. Pay afrigginttention, for crissakes!
I was at the Jones Beach show mentioned in the Drudge Report article. It's true that he sent out his flying pig with anti-Bush drivel and pro-Democrat scribblings. It's true that he sang a song about Lebanon that made no sense -- it talked about Bush and Blair and bombs and how Lebanon in 1961 was the birthplace of fuzzy bunnies and ducks and somehow George Bush and Tony Blair are responsible for the man in the cartoon/video having only one leg, his wife having a hunch and his infant daughter having a damaged eye. When the song was over, I said to my brother "I'm pretty sure that the US and Britain never bombed Lebanon. I don't get it." There also was another song that included a video of a US nuclear submarine attacking an oil rig inside an arena that featured Marv Albert as the announcer. [Marv, are you wearing women's underwear? "Yess!"] The middle portion of the show, with his new anti-war/anti-US songs, were what I (and perhaps Marv Albert) would characterize as "extensive gar-bage time."
The Pink Floyd stuff he played was well done, and the show ran for 2+ hours, which is rare for a rock concert these days, but the communist (hammer and sickle)/islamicist/anti-US/pacifist/idiotarian ostrich crap left a bad taste in my mouth. I also didn't like him perverting "Another Brick in the Wall Pt. 2" by featuring a bunch of schoolkids wearing "Fear Builds Walls" t-shirts on stage.
The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the mountains of Alaska for some sight-seeing. He was cruising along in the Pope mobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods. A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a "Save the Whales" hat, and a "To Hell with Bush" T-shirt, was screaming while struggling frantically, thrashing around trying to free himself from the grasp of a 10 foot grizzly.
As the Pope watched horrified, a group of Republican loggers came racing up. One quickly fired a .44 magnum into the bear's chest... The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding, semiconscious Democrat from the bear's grasp. Then using long clubs, the three loggers finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the another tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat.
As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. "I give you my blessing for your brave actions!" he told them. "I heard there was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic Environmental activists but now I've seen with my own eyes that this is not true."
As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies "Who was that guy?"
"It was the Pope," another replied. "He's in direct contact with heaven and has access to all wisdom."
"Well," the logger said, "he may have access to all wisdom but he sure doesn't know anything about bear hunting! By the way, how is the bait holding up? Or do we need to go back to Massachusetts and snatch another one?"
Did you smile?
Yes, You are Republican with a sense of humor
No, You are a Democrat with no sense at all
Posted by: DanNY ||
09/18/2006 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
As a young minister, I was asked by a funeral director to hold a graveside service for a homeless man with no family or friends. The funeral was to be held at a newly-established cemetery way back in the country, and this man would be the first to be laid to rest there.
As I was not familiar with the backwoods area, I became lost and, being a typical man, I did not stop for directions. I finally arrived an hour late. I saw the back-hoe and the crew (which was eating lunch) but the hearse was nowhere in sight. I apologized to the workers for my tardiness and stepped to the side of the open grave where I saw the vault lid was already in place. I assured the workers that I would not hold them up for long, but this was the proper thing to do.
The workers all gathered around still eating their lunch. I poured out my heart and soul. As I preached, the workers began to say "Amen," "Praise the Lord," and "Glory." I preached and I preached like I had never preached before-from Genesis to Revelation. I closed the lengthy service with a prayer and walked to my car.
As I was opening the door and taking off my coat, I heard one of the workers saying to another, "I ain't never seen nothing like that before, and I been puttin' in septic tanks for near twenty years!!!
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
09/18/2006 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oh, dear, I didn't expect that last bit. tabd, I do hope after all that you eventually found the right burial site.
Oh, and I think after hanging out here for a while you'll start to feel better about the world -- it really, really helps to know there are others who understand what's happening, and some of them (mostly the ones who don't comment, actually) are in a position to do something effective about it. Not to mention the pure intellectual pleasure of the Rantburg University bits -- many of the people here are amazingly knowledgeable about the most fascinating things. I haven't said yet, but welcome to you all the new posters who've recently joined this very interesting conversation!
#8
Actually, tabd, you did need to tell me -- I've had a very sheltered life, while surrounded by those who haven't. So I've heard some pretty amazing true stories, and I'm not nearly subtle enough to pick up on those that are only tales, much to the quiet amusement of some here. Are you also not a minister?
My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism
by Cyrus Nowrasteh, Wall Street Journal
I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.
My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.
It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. . . .
In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.
The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission. . . .
Mr. Nowrasteh wrote the screenplay for "The Path to 9/11."
Posted by: Mike ||
09/18/2006 07:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Great work, many thanks to you, Cyrus Nowrasteh.
Compared to you, Bill Clinton is pond scum.
#5
In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger
Isn't the left just soooo nice, warm, and friendly?
And you notice the same number of national liberals of standing who denouce such behaviors matches the number of senior Imans who denouce the behavior of their thugs. Power is self-justifying.
#6
And you notice the same number of national liberals of standing who denouce such behaviors matches the number of senior Imans who denouce the behavior of their thugs. Ref. #5
I also note that the said liberals do not represent the entire population, even when the non-liberals are not out in the street seething, protesting and breaking things.
By the same token, I presume a number of senior imams do not represent what I presume is the 'silent majority' of (mythical) moderate muslims.
Our enemy is the Islamofascist, or Islamic Crusader, if you will, not Cyrus Nowrasteh because he looks Iranian.
When you say you want to "kill all muslims", you're in the same boat with the 'kill all the jews' or 'kill all the infidels' crowd(s). Try to stay out of that particular boat. Not all Californians are Dianne Feinstein.
/sermon
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/18/2006 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
As I said before neither Bush nor Clinton were portrayed in any good light. The reason behind that is because they were both part (if not opposing sides) of one great big bureaucratic cluster f***. Richard Clark was painted as a leader of terrorism MEETINGS (not action), and the CIA guys in the field were seen as hamstrung by the CYA crowd in Washington (including Clark). When it came time to make a critical decision they ALL acquiesced to the status quo of not attacking them directly. I found it a very good portrayal of how things actually work in the high-level bureaucracy that is still the foundation of our government. I would add that the adoption of the short-sided and downright DUMB 9/11 commission suggestions hasnt made us any safer. It just added another layer of political hacks that will filter every decision (yay).
#8
I never blamed 9/11 on Clinton or Bush. But like Cyber Sarge says "bureaucratic cluster f***."
But I can blame Clinton, Albright, and Berger, for worrying more about thier image, than helping understand how we allowed 9/11 to happen, and give us a chance to learn how to stop the next one. that can't be done without knowing the truth.
Thank you for the letter Nowrasteh. It takes guts in your position in the industrry you are in to just tell the truth as you see it. Which is all the rest of us want.
#10
I'm know psychoanalyst, but when people like Billary, Halfbright, and Sandy Burglar jump guilty, that tells me there is reason for their guilt.
When the donks jump guilty on national security issues, even when they are not being explicitly cited, then there is reason for their being defensive.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/18/2006 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Mr. Nowrasteh can write.
I disagree. His script was ham-handed and simplistic. That's regardless of the truth of the events depicted.
If Clinton is portrayed as more culpable than Bush, it's only because he was in office for the previous eight years (rather than eight months), and because the filmmakers chose to begin their story with the 1993 bombing of the WTC. They could have started with Gulf War I, and bashed George H.W. Bush.
It is funny that the movie portrayed the Clinton administration as being more concerned with passing the buck and covering their asses than with fighting the terrorists. And how did they respond to that charge? By passing the buck and covering their asses.
#12
You know what the great part is? The general public are such sheep that one "made for TV" movie could swing the elections in Nov. Why do you think the Donks are howling for this guys blood?
A Marine Intel Officer in Al Anbar Shares Some Thoughts
(Courtesy of former Cpl Denny Argall, USMC) Via e-mail from a retired Army Colonel friend of mine. I LOVED "The Best Chuck Norris Moment" but all of it is interesting.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
All: I havent written very much from Iraq. Theres really not much to write about. More exactly, theres not much I can write about because practically everything I do, read or hear is classified military information or is depressing to the point that Id rather just forget about it, never mind write about it. The gaps in between all of that are filled with the pure tedium of daily life in an armed camp. So its a bit of a struggle to think of anything to put into a letter thats worth reading. Worse, this place just consumes you. I work 18-20-hour days, every day. The quest to draw a clear picture of what the insurgents are up to never ends. Problems and frictions crop up faster than solutions. Every challenge demands a response. Its like this every day. Before I know it, I cant see straight, because its 0400 and Ive been at work for twenty hours straight, somehow missing dinner again in the process. And once again I havent written to anyone. It starts all over again four hours later. Its not really like Ground Hog Day, its more like a level from Dantes Inferno.
Rather than attempting to sum up the last seven months, I figured Id just hit the record setting highlights of 2006 in Iraq. These are among the events and experiences Ill remember best.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/18/2006 09:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is good stuff from a duty Marine, but I still think the entire approach here is wrong. I don't want to democratize these loons, just eliminate them. I believe we would have been farther ahead by completely (100%) destroying Ramadi + Fallujah and virtually all of the populace in Al-Anbar as a lesson to these moonbats. We should only expend American blood to defend oilfields. Make no pretense. Simply tell them they will be destroyed if they don't comply. Then follow thru. We are not going to influence them to change. The only worth here is drawing them into the box of death, them cutting them down.
#2
Biggest Outrage - Practically anything said by talking heads on TV about the war in Iraq, not that I get to watch much TV. Their thoughts are consistently both grossly simplistic and politically slanted. Biggest offender - Bill OReilly - what a buffoon.
This isn't suprising in the least but I wasn't expecting O'Reilly to be at the top of the list. However, I could easily be missing something here, if not quite a bit more.
#3
If you want to do something for me, kiss a cop, flush a toilet, and drink a beer.
I'm sure Mr. Wife will drink that beer if I ask him to (yuck, beer), and the toilet is not problem, but I'm going to have to go looking for a policeman.
#10
AH9418, what don't you understand? Email me direct, and I'll try to explain. It all made perfect sense to me, but then I spent 26 years in AF intelligence, including the required tour to Vietnam. Too old for this war, damnit!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/18/2006 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
What matters now is not press reports about pieces of a German lecture by Benedict or the Musllim reaction. If we must answer yes to all, or any, of the following 23 questions about Islam, are we entitled, nay bound, to be very concerned indeed ?
1. Does Islam claim that every single word in the 6,234 verses of its Quran was not merely divinely inspired, or authorised, but actually dictated, in Arabic, directly by Allah Himself, and revealed over 22 years from 610 CE, and so is uncorrupted and unalterable ? It descended [nuzila] ready-made and complete from heaven.
2. Does Islam hold the Principle of Abrogation Nasikh - [Quran 2:106] whereby later verses always over-ride and replace or cancel the earlier ?
3. Are the 14 later [Medina] chapters and over 1,600 verses in the Quran, from 622 CE to 632 CE, thus supreme and unchallengeable when they contradict the earlier Mecca ones ?
4. Are there some 164 later Medina verses [from 24 Surah, between Surah 2 and 76] favouring violent Jihad, Jihad Bis Saif, by the sword, or Holy War [Qital Fi Sabilillah], not merely Jihad-e-nafs or struggle against desires ? See list, and full texts, on answering-islam.org.uk, including 9:5 slay the idolaters whereever you find them and take them captive. And see www.quranbrowser.com/ for 10 different English translations of any verse.
Jihad injures reason, for it honors a god who suffers no constraints on his caprice, unlike the Judeo-Christian god, who is limited by love. That is the nub of Pope Benedict XVI's September 12 address in Regensburg, Germany. It promises to be the Vatican's most controversial utterance in living memory.
When a German-language volume appeared in 2003 quoting the same analysis by a long-dead Jewish theologian, I wrote of "oil on the flames of civilizational war". [1] Now the same ban has been preached from St Peter's chair, and it is a defining moment comparable to Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri, in 1946. Earlier this year, Benedict's elliptical remarks to former students at a private seminar in 2005, mentioned in passing by an American Jesuit and reported in this space, created a scandal. [2] I wrote at the time that even the pope must whisper when it comes to Islam. We have entered a different stage of civilizational war.
The Islamic world now views the pontiff as an existential threat, and with reason. Jihad is not merely the whim of a despotic divinity, as the pope implied. It is much more: jihad is the fundamental sacrament of Islam, the Muslim cognate of the Lord's Supper in Christianity, that is, the unique form of sacrifice by which the individual believer communes with the Transcendent. To denounce jihad on theological grounds is a blow at the foundations of Islam, in effect a papal call for the conversion of the Muslims.
There is no Grace in Islam, no miracle, no expiatory sacrifice, no expression of love for mankind such that each Muslim need not be a sacrifice. On the contrary, the concept of jihad, in which the congregation of Islam is also the army, states that every single Muslim must sacrifice himself personally. Jihad is the precise equivalent of the Lord's Supper in Christianity and the Jewish Sabbath, the defining expression of sacrifice that opens the prospect of eternity to the mortal believer. To ask Islam to become moderate, to reform, to become a peaceful religion of personal conscience is the precise equivalent of asking Catholics to abolish Mass.
#2
To ask Islam to become moderate, to reform, to become a peaceful religion of personal conscience is the precise equivalent of asking Catholics to abolish Mass.
I'd phrase it a little differently. It would be the same thingas asking Christians to abolish the Atonement of Christ, or asking Jews to give up Yom Kippur.
Regarding Benedict XVI's statement that the characterization of the Prophet Mohammed did not reflect his "personal opinion": In 1938, at the peak of Stalin's terror, a Muscovite called the KGB to report that his [talking] parrot had escaped. The KGB officer said, "Why are you calling us?" The Muscovite averred, "I want to state for the record that I do not share the parrot's political opinions."
#1
the Popes choice of quote was a deliberate litmus test ahead of his crucial trip to Turkey, the first Muslim (and secular) state he is scheduled (perhaps) to visit. And the Turkish government fell for it by siding with the defenders of the Islamist camp and its profound religious identity.
Posted by: tired and beat down ||
09/18/2006 1:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They harm the Pope Islam will have that holy war they so badly want. They will rejoice then right before we incinerate them from above.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/18/2006 2:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They harm the Pope Islam will have that holy war they so badly want. They will rejoice then right before we incinerate them from above.
Turkeys Christians are horrified by the reaction out of proportion to the Popes university speech.
Well they should be. Their lives probably depend upon it.
Increasingly, people are wondering whether this reaction was planned by local mass media to reignite an anti-Christian diatribe that never truly died in the last few months.
Ummmm ... yes.
Short answer; Imams take special classes in how to do this.
Long answer: American newpaper editors and primetime newscasters take special classes in how to do this.
Turkish Christians appeal to moderate Muslims to have the courage to speak out and show, first of all, that Muslims have not lost their mind and are still capable to engage others in a rational dialogue without clashing and resorting to violence and threats like months ago over the Muhammad cartoons affair.
Good fucking luck. I've been waiting for them to end the Thundering Silence over the last five damned years.
For an important Turkish public figure, who chose to remain anonymous (which says a lot about the current situation), the Popes speech in Regensburg was no accident. Of all the thousands of quotes the Holy Father could choose why did he have to pick the one by Manuel II Manuel II Palaiologos on the links between Islam and violence?
Ummm ... because it was true?
Is the Pontiff an ignorant and arrogant provocateur as the Turkish press continues to characterise him today? Or is there something more? There are in fact some who think otherwise.
Yes. We in the West call them "sentient".
As a sharp scholar and theologian, it is not possible to think that the Holy Father did not take into account that his choice of quote would not provoke an uproar in a world like ours, in this very global village, where every little word, especially by a prominent leader, is scrutinised, its resonance amplified, its meaning extrapolated and distorted by the mass media.
Don't stop short with "the mass media". Islam is doing its level best to distort beyond all recognition every morph and phoneme of the Pope's speech.
For the aforementioned anonymous Turkish public figure, the Popes choice of quote was a deliberate litmus test ahead of his crucial trip to Turkey, the first Muslim (and secular) state he is scheduled (perhaps) to visit. And the Turkish government fell for it by siding with the defenders of the Islamist camp and its profound religious identity.
Yes they did and I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the Pope will not back down from visiting, no matter how much this situation escalates between now and November. Much more likely will be Turkey's government prohibiting Pope Benedict's entry for the sake of some such sop as "his personal safety" or, more likely, "prevention of public unrest".
Should Turkey get cold feet over this, I can guarantee you that any further discussion of their entry into the EU will largely consist of polite or not-so-polite versions of "fuck off".
Turkey threw itself head first in the media war
Just like how a drunk dives headfirst into an empty swimming pool's deep end.
Turkish politicians didnt pull any punches.
No, but they didnt land any either. The scorecard makes that quite clear. Benedict in the second round by four thousand points.
In so doing though they lost a golden opportunity to demonstrate that their country was truly committed to the separation of state and religion, to democracy and against ideological fanaticism and political radicalism.
We already knew that.
First act in this play was the intervention by Turkeys minister of Religious Affairs, Ali Bardakoglu, who, as if he had any authority in the matter, called for the cancellation of the apostolic visit.
Of course. The Popes visit might have driven whole portions of Turkeys population into demonstrations of why theyll be allowed into the EU somewhere around the time when our sun explodes.
Then Prime Minister Erdoðan slammed the Pope for his ugly and inappropriate words without looking into the overall meaning of the Popes speech and who failed to see that the Pope was calling for a dialogue between faith and reason against all forms of violence and preconceived ideology.
Pencil in 1,000 points on Ergodans score card and about +500,000 for the Pope.
Under the circumstances where was Turkeys secularism? Where are the moderate Islamists who make Turkey so proud?
Ill let .com field that one. If hes not available, perhaps the crickets will provide some scathing commentary
What is apparent is that a process is underway that is eroding the foundations of the secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. As the Kemalist veneer is removing the ever-present but hitherto hidden religious substratum is re-emerging.
If something so insubstantial as accreted sewage can be called a substratum.
For Bishop Luigi Padovese, vicar apostolic to Anatolia, Turkish society is going through a transition; it changing from a solid to a liquid state.
Yeah, that pretty much confirms my assessment of Turkeys substratum.
Western influencewhich is trickling into the country through trade, tourism, the mass media and especially the desire of much of the population and the government to join the European Unionis seen as a threat to Turkeys highly nationalistic ethos whose advocates thought they could have democracy without pluralism
YJCMTSU!!!!!!!!!!!
at least in its ethnic and religious dimensions.
And a big Hellllllooooooooo Islam".
Atatürks secularism is losing much of its original character under changing political and religious circumstances. Turkish society is reverting back to a more fanatical religiosity based that equate being Turkish with being Muslim.
If it is possible to equate being Muslim with character.
All this is fuelling tensions and raising doubts about the Turkish governments ability to preserve the Turkish Republics secular, moderate and democratic character.
If it ever existed in the first place.
This raises another question. Is there a moderate Islam that can show the world that an Islamic democracy is possible?
One word: IRAQ
Is there no better time for moderate Muslims to speak up than now?
Other than from the grave no.
Why arent they distancing themselves from the sort of religious fanaticism that, like wildfire, is spreading irrationalism in response to a quote made by the Pope from some ancient source?
Oh boy, here we go. (Wheres Rob Crawford when I need him?)
A. Because the West continues to show an absence of deference to Islam.
B. Because we dont want to.
C. Because the Palestinian statehood crisis has yet to be resolved.
D. Because our imam told us not to.
E. Because the Pope refused to make nice after his ickypoo speech.
F. Because of some or the other un-named and obscure Zionist conspiracy.
G. Because we refuse to act unless Israel releases 1,000,000 imprisoned terrorists.
H. Because you eat pork.
I. Because you own dogs.
J. Because your women dont wear gunny sacks when out of doors.
K. Because people kiss on your television shows.
L. Because someone, somewhere, somehow faced Mecca and burped.
M. Because you refuse to cut off your uppity wimmens clits.
N. Because you wont install global sharia law.
O. Because you wont let us kill all the Joooooooooos
P. Because its the wrong phase of moon.
Q. Because we dont like you, so there!
R. Because your barbecued pork ribs smell too good.
S. Because Jesus made waaaaaaaay too much sense.
T. Because well kill you if you dont admit were the Religion of Peace.
U. Because we get ahead by cutting off yours.
V. Because we screw what we eat before and not afterwards. (HT .com)
W. Because you dont like us.
X. Just because
Y. Because, Because, Because.
Z. You and your little dog, too!!!
The harsh reactions by Turkish political leaders and mass media have surprised and saddened Christian authorities in Turkey. No voice trying to appease emotions has yet spoken out against this explosive and obnoxious cacophony.
This is commonly referred to as the Thundering Silence.
Mgr Padovese himself knows that there are the great many fair-minded people in Turkey. They should be the first to stand up against the fundamentalists, but instead they have no voice in chapter and are silent out of fear or as a result of intimidation.
Ummm My guess is none of the above, some of the above, all of the above. Take your pick.
Unlike his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI is no globetrotter
None of which prevented any expansion of his intellect.
, but he must have realised the importance of his visit to Turkey.
Ummm yes. Thats why hell most likely RISK HIS LIFE VISITING YOUR ISLAMIC SHITHOLE!
From the beginning of his pontificate, he stressed that ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue was one of his priorities.
So, what about his Regensburg speech? Speak up.
For this reason, if he does go to Istanbul on November 30 to meet Bartholomew I to discuss intra-Christian matters, and goes to Ankara to talk to Muslims, knowing that he is facing hard-nosed Kemalists like President Sezer and military leaders, and nationalist fringes like the Grey Wolves, he might have expected to rely on Erdoðan (who comes from the Nur or light movement), on Gülen whose Islam espouses clemency and mercy, and on the growing number of Sufi movements.
Yet shows not the least bit of cowardice. Any of you listening?
It is from this kind of Islam that the Pope could have expected support against terrorism in all its forms
But didnt. Just ask the crickets.
and found allies backing him in defending the principle that every life is sacred and that no intention, however, sacred, can justify and legalise actions against another human being.
Nice try. Ill just quote John Belushi, But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
What will happen now?
Ummm Ill take Burnishing the sands of Islam with stellar fire for $1,000, Alex.
Tomorrow the Bishops Conference of Turkey will meet in Istanbul. Its members were supposed to discuss routine matters about the final preparations for the Popes visit. Instead, they will now have to decide whether the Popes visit to Turkeys can go ahead in such a hostile climate.
Itd better, unless the Pope himself cancels it. Ill cheerfully bet the farm that he wont.
One thing is certain though.
Wait for it
The Popes trip is not the only thing at risk
Allow me to introduce you to the Twin Keys of Justice.
Turkeys secular character is as well.
For right now, well leave out your nation's potential role as Carpark of the Bosphorus.
#5
The man reads the book.
The man tries to live the life.
He knows his teacher faced certain death but choose his sacrifice for all of us.
He knows he may be asked to do the same thing.
He may do it for all of us.
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
#8
In a bow to prudence, I suggest the Pope shitcan the trip to Turkistan, and prepare another insightful soliloquy about the Death Cult. I suggest he review all of Orianna Fallachi's recent tomes as well as more historical underpinnings about the origin of and spread of the Death Cult through the Turkistan kingdom. That would be much more helpful, and a hell of a lot safer.
#9
In a bow to prudence, I suggest the Pope shitcan the trip to Turkistan
SOP35/Rat, I beg to differ. Obviously, my life is not at stake so it's easy to rail against the Pope changing his travel plans. Moreover, I'll certainly respect the man no matter what his final decision is.
That said, it is crucial that the Pope not back off in the face of Islamic threats. This is simple extortion writ large and neither Christianity nor any other non-Islamic faith will be the better for it if Islam is not faced down at this critical juncture.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, should the Pope be harmed by a Muslim it will forever rip away Islam's mask as the Religion of Peace [spit] and irrevokably brand it as the violent and irrational death cult it is. My darker side also hopes that massive retaliation would follow even an attempt on the Pope's life, though that is probably less than likely.
I believe firmly that the Pope knows this all too well and most likely does this with the explicit intent of calling Islam's bluff. I'm sure that Turkey is absolutely petrified at the notion of becoming a pariah state should the Pope come to harm on their turf during their watch. This is why I predict that Benedict's visit will probably be prohibited for reasons of state security.
#10
In a bow to prudence, I suggest the Pope shitcan the trip to Turkistan
Somehow I suspect the thought of what has happened and might happen in Turkey crossed the Pope's mind before he gave the speech. His organization's field manual contains this injunction; "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Taking such a risk demonstrates strong faith in a strong God, a faith not unlike that of the martyrs of the early church. If that's the sacrifice necessary, I'd bet he's prepared to make it. For the West as well as Islam.
Also at the Gates of Vienna, Dymphna writes a superb (and long) essay on what Pope Benedict said in his lecture. In her words, "Benedict didnt 'blunder.' He said what he meant and he meant what he said." This essay is good meat as we seek to counter the idiot MSM and their demands that Benedict grovel an apology to those who would kill us.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/18/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
JOURNALISTS SHOULD NOT criticise Pope Benedict XVI for his lecture at Regensburg. He has done only what every sub-editor on the Daily Mail does every day. Confronted with a long and closely written text, he inserted a lively quote to draw attention to the argument. We all do it. Sometimes the quote causes trouble, but more often it opens up an argument that is needed.
The question is not whether the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus is offensive: it is.
No it isn't. Palaeologus asks whether one can be compelled to come to God by violence and concludes that it is against God's will. Palaeologus notes that the early Qur'an prohibits compulsion but that later verses accept it. As the Pope notes, Palaeologus said, "Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...". In the Christian world, to compel faith through violence is against God's nature. In Islam God is absolute; he need not even be reasonable, and it's certainly acceptable to force people to accept him. That's the essential difference, and Benedict -- and Palaeologus -- are correct in noting it.
The question is whether the emperor is justified in what he said. His main thrust was at least partly justified. There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence.
The Popes actual quotation is not just a medieval point of view. It is a common modern view; even if it seldom reaches print; it can certainly be found on the internet. Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
Is it true that the Koran contains such a command, and has it influenced modern terrorists? The answers, unfortunately, are yes and yes.
The so-called Sword Verse from Chapter 9 must have been in the emperors mind: So when the sacred months have passed away, Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
And take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.
This does shock many Muslims: extremists are angered by the implied criticism of those who quote it, while moderates who cannot disavow the terms of the Koran prefer more evasive interpretations. The shock it creates shows the importance of the doctrine.
One man who does not question the meaning of the verse is Osama bin Laden ...the use of this verse (is) a central argument for jihad in Bin Ladens manifesto
One man who does not question the meaning of the verse is Osama bin Laden. His attitude is discussed at some length in Chapter 14 of an excellent new book, The Quran, a Biography, by Bruce Lawrence, who is the Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University, North Carolina. Lawrence observes the use of this verse as a central argument for jihad in Bin Ladens manifesto in 1996; that was a declaration of war against native and foreign infidels.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/18/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The so-called Sword Verse from Chapter 9 must have been in the emperors mind: So when the sacred months have passed away, Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
'And take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.'
This does shock many Muslims: extremists are angered by the implied criticism of those who quote it, while moderates who cannot disavow the terms of the Koran prefer more evasive interpretations."
While it might be true that some small percentage of Muslims form the extreme element, evidence supports the notion that a majority of the rest share the goal of a worldwide Muslim state and that said majority either give aid and comfort to the terrorist or contribute helpful denial/indifference. These less radical Muslims believe that the end result would not be the nightmare jihadi vision but a kinder, gentler one where they could do their slightly less fundamentalist thing and be in charge.
This parallels the left, which, while not largely of the violent Maoist strain, nontheless would not be upset if they were successful in subverting the West, thinking that in that situation power would devolve to a less virulent strain of the leftist philosophy.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/18/2006 5:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No it isn't.
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman...."
How could a Muslim not take offense?
The Pope poked them in the eye. Was it done deliberately? What could he have said that would be a worse insult?
Posted by: James ||
09/18/2006 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
# 2 - How could a Muslim not take offense?
Fear not, they do; AT EVERY FUCKING LAST MORONIC DAMNED STINKING IDIOTIC LITTLE PERCEIVED OR INTENTIONALLY MISCONSTRUED SLIGHT THEY CAN DREAM UP. Muslims are skinless people living in a sandpaper world. As Victor Davis Hansen said:
If a farthiccupsnifflebelchsneezecoughgiggle sentence, indeed a mere phrase can be taken out of context, twisted, manipulated to show an absence of deference to Islam, furor ensues, death threats follow, assassins load their beltseven as the New York Times or the Guardian issues its sanctimonious apologies in the hope that the crocodile will eat them last.
# 2 - The Pope poked them in the eye. Was it done deliberately?
You betcha. Benedict is out to expose Islam for the psychotic death cult that it is and Muslims are playing into his hands like a bunch of slavering rabid marionettes. When this is over, Benedict will be playing Islam like a violin.
# 2 - What could he have said that would be a worse insult?
Just about anything imaginable that was even slightly more truthful. Like:
1.) Islam practices abject gender apartheid.
2.) Muslims are responsible for the overwhelming majority of recent terrorist atrocities.
3.) Muslim-majority nations constitute a network of terrorist sponsoring regimes.
4.) Islamic jihad represents institutionalized crimes against humanity.
5.) Islam is an imperialist political ideology masquerading as a religion.
6.) Muslims singlehandedly seek to drag the entire planet back into the dark ages of illiteracy and feudal autocracy.
7.) Islam is the most violent major religion on the face of the earth.
8.) Muslims overtly or covertly seek to re-enact the Holocaust.
9.) Muslim majority nations are nothing more than cesspools of human rights abuse.
10.) Muslim majority nations routinely de-emphasize industrial development in favor of religious inculcation.
11.) Islamic governments are routinely among some of the world's most corrupt institutions.
12.) Islam is the new Nazism.
That's a clean dozen, straight off of the top of my head. I could come up with another dozen just as quickly if I felt like wasting more time. Is this clear enough or do I need to elaborate further, KBK?
Muhammad's mother was so fat, flesh melt off her like hot fudge on a sundae. So fat, that she actually had the capacity to bend light and time. I mean like Fat Bastard, fat...get in my belly, fat.
Like that? Not necessary. As many have said previously and to far better effect, the mooselimbs will find insult wherever they want to. All we need to is draw breath.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/18/2006 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#8
No. I mean like, "Your so-called prophet of your so-called god has brought only evil and inhumanity to this world." This is a somewhat stronger insult than, "Yo mama."
#9
teh very fact that they perpetrate violence, pedophilia, abuse of women and moon-God worship makkes that criticism valid. Fuck em if that offends them
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/18/2006 21:34 Comments ||
Top||
#10
KBK: Ahhh, good points all. Stronger argument...not as much fun. Also, I just feel that many a mooselimb would simply look such an insult as more a kin to ......oh say, a very nice resume.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/18/2006 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Okay, KBK, how about these:
Islam is dumber than a box full of Ka'bahs.
The only thing more violent than Islam is two Islams.
How do you know it's time for the Dhuhr prayer? Only one terrorist bomb explodes.
Why are dogs haram? Because they chase away the goats.
Why are pigs haram? Because they're much harder to catch than goats.
Mohammed's momma was so ugly, they invented the burqa just for her.
Muslims wipe with their left hand because they're so stupid that they have to use their right hand just to find their ass in the first place.
I can make up some more if those aren't enough.
Posted by: Homer ||
09/18/2006 23:08 Comments ||
Top||
The victor of the war on terror is far from clear, the historian Bernard Lewis told a Hudson Institute conference.
The British-born professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton said Monday that he was "more optimistic about the future of our struggle" in the early 1940s when the French had capitulated to the Germans, when Stalin was Hitler's ally, and when America was still neutral than he is today.
"Hitler would have won under these conditions," Mr. Lewis said, citing America's inability to clearly define the war on terror and exactly who its enemy is. The professor, whose vision of the future of the Middle East and knowledge of Islam has guided President Bush's foreign policy, also cited as challenges the multilateralism that hamstrings America's ability to fight the war and the strong political opposition to policies designed to defeat the enemy, such as detaining terrorists without trial.
During the darkest days of the fight against Nazism, Mr. Lewis said, he "had no doubt that in the end we would triumph." He does not "have that certitude now," he said.
Mr. Lewis told the center-right think tank's conference on the United Nations that he agrees with a former communist dissident and current Israeli parliamentarian, Natan Sharansky, that the only real solution to defeating radical Islam is to bring freedom to the Middle East. Either "we free them or they destroy us," Mr. Lewis said.
The contention, especially popular in diplomatic circles, that Arabs aren't suited to democracy and that the West's best hope lies with friendly tyrants shows an ignorance of the Arabs' past and contempt for their present and future, and is "demonstrably absurd in historical terms," Mr. Lewis said.
Mr. Lewis said a great deal of material exists from Arabs, from Persians, and from Turks that can form the basis for democracies in the region. He quoted from a 1786 letter to the king's court in France from the French ambassador to Istanbul explaining why the Ottoman Empire was slow in making decisions. The ambassador reported that unlike in France, where the king made a decision and that was it, "here the sultan has to consult" and so it "takes time to get things done."
Mr. Lewis said he places no hope in the United Nations being part of the solution. He "first realized the U.N. was hopeless" after the partition of Palestine, he said. Palestine was a "triviality" compared to the partition of India that took place a year earlier, in 1947, he added. Millions of refugees were created and yet India and Pakistan formed a working relationship and sorted out the problems.
The key difference, Mr. Lewis said, was that "in the partition of India, the U.N. was not involved. "The United Nations failed to act after the Arab states invaded Palestine, and then treated Jewish and Arab refugees differently, leaving problems that remain today, he said.
#2
Well, I guess we should just give up and turn muslim then.
How about f*ck them instead. One more good terror attack(and there probably will be another, we're getting slack) and the public may be ready to do some truly hardcore shit. It takes a reminder every so often to keep up worked up. The aspect I don't understand is why so many people want us to lose. The libs, the press, queers, nutjobs, all would have a pretty shitty life under the yoke of islamic oppression.
#4
In my opinion, an attack on Washington, DC would be among the best things that could happen to bring America together. Not because we citizens would rally around ole DC, but because the politicians would wake the phalk up. Well, some of them, anyway.
I forsee a day when we are shooting at mosques and our police are trying to stop an prosecute us.
We must declare Islam a non-religion. We must declare Islam a death cult, and outlaw the practice of Islam within the boundaries of the US. It wouldn't hurt to forge an alliance of countries who oppose Islam to fight side by side, including Israel, India, Australia, UK, Japan, etc. Ha, Mexico and Canada, ha ha ha.
#5
Mr. Lewis speaks with the wisdom of age about youth and the pessimism of age about the future. The current time is much more akin to the late '30s than 1940. Bush is akin to the Churchill a lone voice, preaching to the truth ineffectually than the Churchill vindicated, leading a resolved and united King in Parliament. I also agree with .com, (PBUH) about ending our internal differences, but I am confident that too shall come, though if not after another attack. There is little doubt in my mind who will emerge victorious.
#6
I've said it before many times, but we don't have to win the War on Terror, we just have to not lose it (somewhat like Britain in 1940).
I'm not big on historical determinism, but the ME will be modernized, its just a question of how how long it takes and the number corpses along the way. All we have to do is not lose in the interim.
#7
I can most definately disagree with him on at least one point.
He seems to be missing the fundamental point about democracy when he points to the Sultan's inability to act decisively as being an indication of some kind of consensus based government. The weakness of tyrannical rule is well understood; it needs to be backed up by a violent ideology, requiring a number of henchmen who may decide to overthrow you at any given point. This is completely removed from the "True Concept" of democracy/demoskratein (i.e. not the MSM/LLL idea of voting tyrants into govt==dhimmocracy) whereby the strength of the leader lies in his ability to act dynamically and decisively, being given a mandate to act within the framework of laws / constitutions currently in place. Restricting the scope of their power in temporal terms and absolute terms, whilst increasing the range of their power.
On top of which, making a comparison against French Monarchs sets the bar pretty low...
#8
Mr. Lewis is generally correct - but he is still being too PC. Like most of the elites, he is still ingoring the enormous friggin' elephant in the room.
Until we openly recognize and prosecute the war on the basis that our enemy is ISLAM - all of it - we will continue to just be "spitting into the hurricane."
Islam is a malevolant, violent, intolerant, hateful, pernicious, imperialistic cult - and needs to be destroyed at its core.
The common meme is "there are almost a billion Muslims in the world - that's too big a population to confront." Wrong. Right about the numbers - wrong about the inevitable permanance of the population. Think back to the American bison, or the passenger pigeon. Huge numbers can be reduced to handfuls - but you have to get started on the serious culling at some point.
My dream is: a world expunged of the Muslim scourge. As Martin Luther King once (profoundly) said: "Never give up on a dream, because of the length of time it will take to accomplish - the time will pass anyway."
#9
This is all part of the ritualistic cultural dance we go through before we release the self imposed bonds that keep the ugly beast at bay. Its necessary for the psychological cleansing that will follow the unimaginable destruction and violence.
#10
...the only real solution to defeating radical Islam is to bring freedom to the Middle East. Either "we free them or they destroy us," Mr. Lewis said.
It's certainly legitimate to propose that a major cause of the Muslim world's present state may be the tyrannical governments under which they've been living, and therefore that bringing freedom to the people of the Middle East MAY succeed in de-toxifying their culture. That is a testable hypothesis, and we are busy testing it right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But to say, absolutely, that democratizing the Middle East is THE solution, and take it on blind faith that it WILL work, seems both naive and sloppy.
It will either work, or it will not. Right now, from what I've seen so far, it seems prudent to prepare for the possibility that it will not.
The contention, especially popular in diplomatic circles, that Arabs aren't suited to democracy and that the West's best hope lies with friendly tyrants...
I think Lewis presents a false either/or choice here. Certainly we've learned over the last couple of decades that our best hope does NOT lie with friendly tyrants. But I think we're also learning, from present experience, that it's quite possible that Arabs may very well NOT be cut out for peaceful, responsible democratic self-governance. So far, it doesn't look to me like they've got much of a natural aptitude for it.
...shows an ignorance of the Arabs' past and contempt for their present and future, and is "demonstrably absurd in historical terms," Mr. Lewis said.
The Arabs' past is past. Their present is most certainly deserving of contempt. And their future, judging by the trajectory they appear to be following, is doubtful.
Frankly, I'm a lot less enamored of Lewis and his theories these days than I used to be. To me, the only sane and responsible way to view this "Middle East Democracy" experiment we are conducting is as just that: an experiment. And instead of taking it on blind faith that it WILL work, we should be observing the results of our efforts and honestly assessing, with eyes open, whether it IS working.
So far, I don't think it is.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/18/2006 10:01 Comments ||
Top||
but because the politicians would wake the phalk up. Well, some of them, anyway.
...Well, the survivors, anyways. If it happened while Congress was in session, those who were lucky enough to be back in their districts would almost certainly contract a severe case of Field Marshal's Psychosis - what happens when a civilian who previously considers himself and his country invulnerable or beyond the reach of the enemy suddenly faces an atack nose-to-nose. That's what happened to (IIRC) McGeorge Bundy in Vietnam when he was there on a fact-finding mission and the VC hit the base he was staying at. When he saw the burning wreckage of USAF aircraft the next morning, he went ballistic, made a phone call to LBJ, and convinced him to start ratcheting things up.
This time though it'll be demands to let the ICBMs fly, and they will - and once the dust settles, hang the surviving pols for letting us come to that point.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/18/2006 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#13
This is some media bullshit. He said he wasn't not certain, NOT that thought the US was going to lose.
#16
And might I add that as far as Hollywood villians go the Islamic horde just doesn't measure up to the Nazis. They're gonna have to clean up there act before they are relagated to the dustbin with the Austrio-hungarian Empire.
#17
"Hitler would have won under these conditions," Mr. Lewis said, citing America's inability to clearly define the war on terror and exactly who its enemy is.
The core problem. But then muslims are not Germans. I am not no much worried about outright losing. I am very worried that while diddling around, we are headed straight for nuclear war. A reasonable first strike with (say with short range missiles (500km, access to 70% of the population) launched from container ships off the 3 US coasts could be expected to kill 40 million Americans. Add 20 million more with longer ranged weapons. At that point the US can be overwhelmed by stronger powers. I think many people, including in the West, are hoping for just this and have not thought out the consequences to them of a real hegemonic power taking over.
When faced with such overwhelming destruction, their will be overwhelming temptation for the US to launch first and let missile defenses target the few (if any) surviving long range missiles.
Posted by: ed ||
09/18/2006 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I hope it never comes to that. The war should be fought by the military now in the military way, not with one arm tied behind their back, and then after losing much ground, allow the nuclear solution to decide the outcome. There is no honor in that. Fight now, like real men and kick the liberals in the ass. Beat the enemy on the field and cut off his lifeline and wear him down until he surrenders.
The way our left fights war is to wear us down until we hate them and all they stand for, a time quickly approaching.
#19
Lewis always goes wrong about democratizing these loonbats. Democracy cannot be forced, it has to be desired and demanded. If these f**kups wanted it, they had access to it before we did thanks to their Greek neighbors. With people like Lewis advising, we may lose. But, thanks to Pope Benedict and others, the rabid reaction of the Muzzie world is finally beginning to cause a few to look up and take notice of the insanity inherent in the Death Cult. This mental transformation takes time for most, unfortunately. Same as for Nazis and the militant Japanese during the 1920-30's. Everyone stood by with their thumb up their arse as things got progressively worse. Once incident after another. Followed by one atrocity after another. Finally, there was only fighting as the answer to preserve their way of life. Same thing now. We just have to wait for the stew to reach high boil before anything constructive can happen.
#22
The West has a large proportion of potential victims who love death -- their own and that of their civilization, like Chomsky and Kerry, and their legions of supporters. They will not defend themselves where and when it counts. Many will not even bother to propagate themselves. I think that is the weakness Lewis is referring to. The jihadis at some level are aware that Islam cannot survive in the modern world, and they love death also -- their own and the death of the modern world so that Islam can survive.
Somehow I am not worried about Islam triumphing and a new Caliphate. Neither do I believe there will be an overwhelming, angry response from the West under attack, resulting in the death of most Muslims in a one-sided nuclear holocaust.
The modern world is interdependent to a degree not seen since the Roman Empire between 300 and 500 AD. Our energy, food, pharmaceuticals and most other necessities of modern life depend on international cooperation. If enough holes are punched in the network, it will collapse, millions will die from loss of their life support systems (not from nuclear attacks, either, more like what happened in New Orleans after Katrina) and a new Dark Ages would follow. All the more reason to fight.
#24
The key difference, Mr. Lewis said, was that "in the partition of India, the U.N. was not involved.
It was involved in Kashmir though, which it probably why that festers to this day..
Posted by: john ||
09/18/2006 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#25
The Pope's comments and the reaction to it are starting to open some eyes, even on the left. Take a look at the quickie poll on SF Gate (www.sfgate.com).
The question: Is Pope Benedict's apology enough to defuse muslim anger?
The responses:
1. Yes, time to move on 2%
2. No, he won't live down disparaging quote 16%
3. Should be, but Mideast sensitivity knows no bounds 9%
4. He had nothing to apologize for 73%
Now SF Gate is the online version of the SF Chronicle. It is moonbat central. Yet 81% are of the opinion that the muzzie reaction is banannas. This is a huge shift from previous sentiments.
Each of these muzzie events forces those in the west to look, think and see the true nature of islam. The more people that look, think and see, the more that realize something serious must be done. Slowly but surely the blinds are coming off, and it is the muzzies themselves who are removing them.
#26
Interesting poll. Maybe there's hope for us yet...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/18/2006 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
#27
The problem with the spread of democracy in the muslim world is that their faith (Islam) is against it in any form. Everything must be done according to the Koran, and anything else is apostacy. Democracy cannot fluorish until Islam is destroyed for the death cult it is. The reason the Arabs are so far behind everyone else is that their idea of "education" is to memorize the Koran, and to judge everything in the world by the words of that document. Inquisitiveness, curiosity, mental exploration, are not just disapproved of, they're FORBIDDEN by their religion. Only blind obedience to the "faith" is allowed. The rest of the world has gone off on its own and discovered wonderful things. The only way the muslim world can get those things is to borrow (or steal) them. Even as a form of culture, Islam is a death cult. If a society cannot evolve to face the new challenges around it, it will eventually die. It's just taking too long for it to happen on its own.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/18/2006 22:20 Comments ||
Top||
#28
This seems to me to be far too pessimistic a view.
When Muslims will commit greater atrocities, even the cowardly Europeans and the american Dhimmicrats will at last open their eyes.
Then, the West will, at home, hunt for all Muslims, and, abroad, unleash its powerful weapons, destroying Mecca, Medina, and a lot of the cities of Islamic coutries.
But before that, a lot of people will have to die in western democracies.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A Marine Intel Officer in Al Anbar Shares Some Thoughts 
William Rees-Mogg
