I've been reading Rantburg for a while now, was this site set up specifically for WoT? Or do I have WoT set up as default, I appreciate the fresh news and views you bring but I have to trawl through the WoT stuff to get to it.
Posted by: Special Brew ||
07/16/2007 18:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If I may speak for those of us who have been coming here for years, the focus is on the WoT, although the folks here seems to agree that we are actually fighting a mohammedean holy war or "jihad" where they are trying to turn us into their slaves (dhimmi) and we don't like the idea.
#3
WOT is Fred's focus. Those of us with attention deficit disorder have drifted the page numberings....
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/16/2007 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Most of us came here originally for the War on Terror focus. The Rantburg Defender-Scimitar & Times-Picayune has its own fan group, however, not all of whom are mere devotees of female pulchritude through the years. I, myself, frequently manage to appall those who've so gallantly shared of their expertise and experience. They don't call this place Rantburg U. for nothing, after all. ;-)
#5
The Rantburg Defender-Scimitar & Times-Picayune has its own fan group, however, not all of whom are mere devotees of female pulchritude through the years
hummm.. Ima a Dr. of Pulchritude.. but didn't know it!
Khudayr Taher, an Iraqi Shi'ite writer living in the U.S. and a regular contributor to the liberal Elaph website, had a quite illiberal suggestion - he asked why Europe and America shouldn't deport their Muslim populations. He wrote:
"Countries have the right to defend themselves and assure their citizens' safety from terrorism. Likewise, it is clear that the source of the terrorist crimes in Europe and America is the Muslims who live in these countries.
"The security services cannot know people's intentions and sort out who is the noble immigrant and who is a terrorist criminal. [But] wherever there are Muslims, their presence has produced crimes of terrorism and murder.
"Among those Muslims in Europe and America who do not practice terrorism, most of them do not have loyalty and sincere attachment to these countries that have offered them all of the means of life in dignity - housing, studies, work, and citizenship
"The legitimate question is this: Since the security services cannot sort out the good immigrant from the bad terrorist why don't these countries deport all Muslims, of all races, from Europe and America, and [thus] find rest from the danger of terrorism, and protect their peoples?
"I, as an Arab Muslim immigrant, sincerely call on the countries of Europe and America to deport all Muslims from their territories - including myself, despite my love and my sincere attachment to the U.S "
Posted by: wxjames ||
07/16/2007 10:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Straight from the horse's mouth with ZERO irony:
Khudayr Taher, an Iraqi Shi'ite writer living in the U.S. and a regular contributor to the liberal Elaph website, had a quite illiberal suggestion - he asked why Europe and America shouldn't deport their Muslim populations. He wrote:
"Countries have the right to defend themselves and assure their citizens' safety from terrorism. Likewise, it is clear that the source of the terrorist crimes in Europe and America is the Muslims who live in these countries.
"The security services cannot know people's intentions and sort out who is the noble immigrant and who is a terrorist criminal. [But] wherever there are Muslims, their presence has produced crimes of terrorism and murder.
Here, a Muslim himself confirms what I have long maintained. Due to taqiyya, Western agencies have absolutely NO WAY of distinguishing between "good" and bad Muslims. They bring this upon themselves in a twofold respect. First, by condoning taqiyya. Second, by not cleaning house themselves. The West once and for all must get over the idiotic notion that we have any obligation to clean Islam's house for them. If Muslims have no inclination to do so then they have no place in Western society. Period.
"Among those Muslims in Europe and America who do not practice terrorism, most of them do not have loyalty and sincere attachment to these countries that have offered them all of the means of life in dignity - housing, studies, work, and citizenship
Islam continues to be nothing but a seditious political ideology. Until that changeswhich requires total abandonment of shari'a law and pursuit of a global caliphateit must be banned in Western nations.
"The legitimate question is this: Since the security services cannot sort out the good immigrant from the bad terrorist why don't these countries deport all Muslims, of all races, from Europe and America, and [thus] find rest from the danger of terrorism, and protect their peoples?
"I, as an Arab Muslim immigrant, sincerely call on the countries of Europe and America to deport all Muslims from their territories - including myself, despite my love and my sincere attachment to the U.S "
Khudayr Taher, deserves a medal for his unmistakable sincerity. He is the pluperfect example of the Islamic baby being necessarily thrown out with the jihadist bathwater. Yet, he himself is the one advocating this. What does that tell you? Personally, I'd like to see him be given a sinecure as an overseas advisor to American foreign policy.
America will never get a more clear or honest message on this topic. I would proudly shake Khudayr Taher's hand and, yes, then deport him along with all other American Muslims. There are few better examples of how preciousand precariousAmerican security is at present. Once terrorism is roundly defeated, I would have little problem with Taher seeking citizenship in America. For now, he represents one of the sacrifices that must be made in order to assure our Nation's well-being.
#2
There's no denying that one of the strenghts that have made possible this islamic re-awakening is the mass-migrations of muslim into non-muslim lands, and the tremendous influence it give islam. This would have been unthinkable only a few decades ago, but now, this is a defining factor in what will eventually unfold, for good or worse. Compared to that, the whole "terror" aspect of the WOT is peanuts... not to belittle the harm done to the victims everywhere, of course, but Britain or France could live basically unchanged even after a successful bombing string (which would be much more difficult to pull without the terrs being able to blend into their community and having to be "imported" from their homelands), whereas mass-immigration of muslims into their national territory changes deeply their ethnic, cultural, moral (breaking down of civility and western values) and religious make up, even assuming the muslim integrate (note nobody is asking for their *assimilation*, which would certainly prove very difficutl due to islam) and this will be VERY HARD to correct.
#3
And mass-immigration, though of different natutre, is also a factor in the USA, which WILL change you, if left unchecked, make no mistake aboput it. Is non-latino white birthrate even at replacement level?
#5
Even if Western countries did deport all Muslim immigrants (which ain't ever gonna happen), there would still be millions more who were born here. The horses have bolted, it's too late to slam the stable door.
#6
2000 US Census fertility rates:
All races: 2.054
White: 2.019
Black: 2.124
American Indian: 2.503
Asian: 2.275
Hispanic: 2.911
One unknown is whether babies born to illegal alien mothers (380,000 each year) are counted, increasing the perceived Hispanic fertility rate. Either way they are US citiznes and will have the right to immigrate with their parents and siblings when of age.
Posted by: ed ||
07/16/2007 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
When enough people have died, you will find the Constitution can be interpreted quite flexibly, assuming vigilantes leave any to deport.
Posted by: ed ||
07/16/2007 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Even if Western countries did deport all Muslim immigrants (which ain't ever gonna happen), there would still be millions more who were born here.
Once Islam has been banned as a seditious ideology its practitioners will face some very serious consequences. As ed noted, those who willingly become traitors to the state can be shorn of their constitutional rights in a New York minute.
Both Germany and Britain already have begun to make noises about internment. A single terrorist nuclear attack should be about all it takes to make the civil rights of American Muslims vanish before the devil can get his shoes on.
#9
Dhimmis like to point to so-called benign sects within Islam. Sufis - like anti Wahabi Sheik Kabbani - appear non-violent. However, the bloody "Dervish Wars" in the Sudan were carried out by Sufis. As for the Islamis, the Assassins arose from that sect. And Muslims can change sects. In fact, Kashmir was largely Sufist, until Wahabist and Deobandist elements recruited locals to terror. After the 7-7 terror the parents of the murderers expressed surprise at the secret conversions. Al-Qaeda was never set up as a formal organization; it is an emulation model, that was meant to exist in cell form. It is in cell function, where most terror arises. Although certain groups arise out of the Saudi financial and moral support groups.
#12
How about changing it to "those who willingly break the social contract", Zenster?
Works for me, gg. For any group to award themselves the exclusive right to subjugate all others is a violation of the social contract. Taqiyya is a similar violation. Unequal treatment of women is another such violation. The list is nearly endess and Islam's name is at the bottom.
In a month, August 20 and 21, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will sit down together in Montebello, Quebec to discuss making the borders between these three nations disappear. They will discuss progress on a vast highway project passing through America to link Mexico with Canada.
So far, no one has asked the citizens of these three nations whether they want to do this. It is not up for a vote in Congress and, indeed, Congress has no supervision over the gnomes in the U.S. Department of Commerce who are busily harmonizing the laws under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
This, were told, is not a treaty so Congress has no constitutional oversight obligation. I guess its more like a nice big handshake between the presidents and prime minister of these three nations who, lets face it, just know better than the rest of us. I mean, do Canadians really think theyre in charge of Canada? Americans should have a say about programs affecting America? Or has anyone asked Mexicans if they want to be part of some harmonized configuration not unlike the European Union?
Last time I checked, the European Union lacked a constitution because some of its member states, notably France, had rejected the one that was offered. The Constitutions of the United States, Canada and Mexico are about three sovereign states determining their own regulations and laws. So far, fourteen U.S. States have passed resolutions in their respective and sovereign legislatures directing the federal government to abandon further activities involving SPP.
Part of the opposition is directed at what is generally called the NAFTA Superhighway; an exceptionally wide corridor that would include rail lines, freeways, and pipelines from Mexico to the Canadian border. The Texas legislature passed a law intended to slow down the highway project with a two-year moratorium. The vote in the Texas House was 137-2. The Texas Senate passed it with only four votes in opposition, but the Governor vetoed it in late June, thus opening the door to the seizure of the private property needed for the Trans Texas Corridor (TCC).
Turns out that Texas had already signed a 50-year lease with a private Spanish company named Cintra, one that permits for no competition by way of building new government roads or improving existing ones going in the same direction.
Why are we not surprised to know that SPP was kicked off in 2005 by a meeting in Crawford, Texas of the then-presidents of the three nations hosted by President George W. Bush, a former Governor of Texas?
Bush has been a leading proponent of the immigration reform legislation that more than two-thirds of Americans polled say they do not want. Tucked into those reforms were provisions to advance SPP. A Teddy Kennedy amendment to S. 1348 asserts that, It is the sense of the Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced immigration. Oh, yeah? And here I thought the economic well being of Mexico was the job of the Mexican government.
As this is written, the President and the Congress have the lowest popularity ratings ever. Perhaps it has something to do with a secretive process involving the highest levels of government and a consortium of multinational corporations who are eager for the nation-busting North American Union and the superhighway?
Indeed, secretive is the mode of operation for SPP from the beginning. Last year, from September 12 to 14, a gathering sponsored by something called the North American Forum, brought together some very powerful people, but the media was not informed about it, nor has a list of attendees been available. One Canadian commentator has written that, There is no better indication that these meetings and the SPP itself, constitute a parallel governing structureunaccountable to any democratic institution or the public.
This is not the way America, Canada, and presumably, Mexico, is supposed to be governed. The public outcry against the proposed immigration reform bill was enough to kill it in its present form.
In his book, The Late Great U.S.A. ($25.95, WND Books), Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., warns that, There are movements afoot in Mexico, Canada, and the United States, similar to those in Europe that led to the formation of the European Union that, if left unchecked, will erode U.S. sovereignty and lead to a North American Union.
Perhaps when Congress begins to raise our taxes, authorize a superhighway, and offer yet another amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, the American people may take notice and want to do something about it. By then, however, it will be too late.
Thats what President Bush is counting on. Meanwhile, he has a big calendar counting down the days to January 20, 2008 when he can start cashing in on having sold out the rest of us.
#1
Although I feel there are several legitimate grounds for impeaching Bush, this surely rises to the top of the heap. Talk about High Crime against the Republic. Totally undermining all precepts of our Constitution certainly qualifies. It's amazing what the elitists think they can get away with right out in front of the public, due to their abiding interest in Paris Hilton's latest troubles.
#2
the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will sit down together in Montebello, Quebec to discuss making the borders between these three nations disappear.
So far, no one has asked the citizens of these three nations whether they want to do this.
Christalmighty! These traitors better not try to give away our soverneignty. They need to quit being stuck in the stupid mode. First it was the amnesty bill, now this $hit.
#3
January 20, 2008 is a year early.
Just saying.
It would have been nice to know which 14 states have passed resolutions.
Here they are, courtesy of a site called "Vive Le Canada" (Is that like a Canadian John Birch Society or something? A John Maple Society?)
Idaho represents the 14th state to introduce anti-NAU and SPP resolutions. The other states include Arizona (S.C.M. 1002), Illinois (H.J.R. 29), Georgia (S.R. 124), Missouri (S.C.R. 15 and H.C.R. 33), Montana (H.J.R. 25), Oklahoma (S.C.R. 10), Oregon (S.J.M. 5), South Carolina (S. 416 and H. 3185), South Dakota (S.C.R. 7), Tennessee (S.J.R. 88), Utah (H.J.R. 7), Virginia (S.J.R. 442 and S.J.R. 387), and Washington (H.J.M. 4018 and S.J.M. 8004).
I'm stunned, as a former resident, to see Illinois in the list. (Who knows whether it passed in Springfield after introduction?)
#5
Personally, I would have little opposition to an expanded USA. However, that would mean the USA taking control of additional land in North America. If the Canadians and Mexicans don't mind, we should submit a timetable for induction
of specific parcels of land.
First, however, I would consider the addition of such states to our body politic. To ease this transformation, I would be sure to include equal parts Canada and Mexico with enough time to complete each expansion. Also, in order to keep the Senate within manageable size, smaller states would have to consolidate to free up Senate seats.
I expect Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to join upstate New York as a state. Mass, Rhode Island, and Conneticut would become another state, Long Island, New York City and the lower counties of New York could join New Jersey, while West Virginia would rejoin with Virginia and the rest of that area, once Maryland and Delaware would be called Pennsylvania. That would give us 16 Senate seats to fool with. And sinse most of the Senators from those states are useless assholes anyway, it would be a fine move.
It's the president however who is the big fool in this case. One party hates him, the other party has lost respect for him, so he goes off site to trade what is not his for acceptance and recognition.
Mr. President, sir, go 'F' yourself with a chainsaw.
#6
This is pure black helicopter stuff. In the US, treaties and other foreign agreements have only the force of the domestic laws implementing them If you don't like any particular policy, you can kill it here; there's no shadowy super-law that can stop you.
Improved trade infrastructure makes perfect sense, and is not inconsistent with securing the borders.
#7
JSU: The very basis of such efforts is predicated on evading such restrictions. The EU was slapped together in much the same manner. It uses a three-pronged approach of gradualism, incrementalism, and a strict avoidance of any democratic process that could derail it, to overcome resistance.
First they start by introducing "frameworks" for "economic union", in this case, NAFTA and the FTAA, which gives other nations access to each other's legal systems. This allows say, a Mexican company to sue a US company in US court, if the US Congress or President decides that they can't merge.
These paper agreements are then augmented by creating transportation and business systems that transcend the borders, such as the Mexico-US-Canada super corridor.
The really extreme stuff is poo-poo'ed early on: "We have no intention of introducing the single currency of the Amero (Euro)", or eliminating border controls, or having a single parliament (like the European Parliament) take sovereignty away from the national governments."
Importantly, they believe that if they can just build up enough momentum, then eventually they can steamroller over the opposition, as they did and continue to do in Europe.
It was a tremendous mistake for them to allow the hoi-polloi to vote on their constitution, and you see what it got them. So quickly they have decided to have their constitution anyway, just not call it that, and to heck with what the masses think.
The biggest irony of all is that the entire thing was based on a flawed axiom: that national borders really have to intrinsic meaning. The light never dawned that such borders arose for very, very good reasons, and that those reasons still remain.
The EU still exists. As did the Holy Roman Empire, its progenitor, the Holy Roman Empire. And there is a good chance that the EU may collapse as a governing body, as did the HRE, yet continue to survive, as a powerless and ineffectual joke, for another 900 years.
#8
The vote in the Texas House was 137-2. The Texas Senate passed it with only four votes in opposition, but the Governor vetoed it in late June, thus opening the door to the seizure of the private property needed for the Trans Texas Corridor (TCC).
Doesn't Texas allow for a veto override? Or was the 137 to 2 vote just fer fun?
#9
I suggest that GWB do some serious thinking before trying any of this sh$$, if it's indeed on the menu. Our military swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution", not the government or the President. There are also some 200 million firearms in this country, and people that know how to use them. Trying to force this down the throat of the people would definitely result in another revolution - one far more deadly than the last one.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/16/2007 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Might not be so bad if I could buy a house on the beach in Acapulco but I just can't believe that I would ever be safe under the Mexican legal system. I'd worry about drinking the water too.
#11
You people really are gullable. how do you get from a public works project that would benifit three countries to the U.S. giving up our rights to ???Mexico???
#12
I dunno, Cyber Sarge. That whole amnesty deal really soured a lot of people. I mean, how was that "right for America"? What in the hell was he talking about? And look at Europe. Pretty weird.
#1
Look, he's a Muzzie, a lawyer and a democrat. He is only worth those amount of words.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/16/2007 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
When Ellison was elected, some of his supporters shouted Allahu akbar! at his victory party, while the victor himself looked on with obvious embarrassment.
What, no AK-47's available at the 7-11?
#4
Has anyone ever made a list of prominent people who've compared Bush to Hitler? I'll bet it's friggin huge.
And I'll bet not one of them has been rounded up and put into a camp...
#5
The difference between the burning of the Reichstag and 9/11? The bodies of Muslims were at the controls of the aircraft. Where were the bodies of the "communists" at the Reichstag.
What this Muslim is saying in a very round about way is that since Bush was not a good Dhimmi, Muslims to do this. So it is Bush's fault. That is the twisted mind of a criminal. Don't take the blame. Find a way to blame it on the victims.
The following article by Khairi Abaza appeared in the Lebanese English-language daily The Daily Star on July 4, 2007.(1)
"Arabs Will Not Progress Before They Face The Truth About Their Own History"
"As the current situation in Palestine worsens, let Arabs not forget their past. Events that are portrayed as victories by Arab politicians are not always victories for the Arab people. Last month, the Arab world remembered one of its greatest defeats of the 20th century: the June 1967 war, which marked the end of the hope to wipe out Israel and the loss of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights.
"Despite the memory of those losses, Arab media, from Al-Jazeera to Dubai TV, still tried to find an honorable excuse for the Egyptian president in 1967, Gamal Abdel-Nasser. This same distorted logic has been applied to movements such as Hizbullah and Hamas, whose defeats are often transformed into victories. No independent commission has ever assessed any of Abdel-Nasser's, Hamas's, or Hizbullah's declarations of victory. The Arab people must dig for the truth in the statements and behavior of these leaders or groups. We have allowed politics in the Arab world to be defined by slogans, not results. Our judgment of leaders can only be truly determined by what they do not just what they say.
"Arabs will not progress before they face the truth about their own history. In memorializing the 1967 defeat, Arab media organized numerous talk shows, documentaries, and interviews. But none clearly defined who was responsible for the Arab loss.
"Instead, the media tried to remind us how Abdel-Nasser gave Arabs a voice and pride. They failed to remind us that because of his bluff and provocation, in June 1967 Israel was able to win a devastating war. They failed to remind us how Abdel-Nasser encouraged King Hussein of Jordan to take part in the war only hours after he knew that Egypt had been defeated providing Israel with a reason to occupy East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And they never mentioned that in 1970 Abdel-Nasser was considering accepting the Rogers Plan for a peace settlement with Israel, with terms less favorable than the Camp David agreement later signed by his successor, Anwar Sadat. Instead, Arab media tended to stress that it was Abdel-Nasser who had planned the October 1973 war, which took place three years after his death, removing all credit from Sadat, who had truly led the battle.
"Some claim that while the June 1967 war was a military loss, the spirit of armed Resistance endured. They believe that Resistance is still the strategic choice of Arabs. We have seen the results of the strategic choice of violent Resistance by Hamas: an ugly Israeli barrier depriving Palestinians of ever more land that has made their lives even grimmer. The slogans of Resistance may incite support, but the consequences of these very slogans cannot be accepted by the Arab public. No one in the Arab world today would accept that Hamas' actions were a large part responsible for the Israeli barrier. There has not been and nor will there be independent assessment of Hamas' strategy. Slogans continue to trump the actual results of actions.
"The same strategic manipulation of public opinion can be seen in Hizbullah's 'victory' against Israel in summer 2006. But what was this victory? A victory that left around 1,200 Lebanese dead, led to billions of dollars in damages and losses in tourism income, and the entry of United Nations troops in Southern Lebanon? With such a balance sheet, how could Hizbullah and its Arab supporters mislead the Arab public and claim victory? Was any inquiry made? Where is the independent commission that studied Hizbullah's actions? Yes, the party's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was left standing, just as Abdel-Nasser was. But is that enough when their nations and people were left battered?
"When Will Arabs Have Independent Commissions to Look Into Their Mistakes and Evaluate Them Transparently"
"How can Arabs improve their lot if they do not face up to their truths? Why is it that Arabs have such a propensity to live amid lies? Why is it that so-called 'free' or 'independent' Arab media are apologists for those who mislead the Arab public? When will Arabs have independent commissions to look into their mistakes and evaluate them transparently?
"Don't expect any of the authoritarian Arab states or their client organizations to produce such commissions. Independent intellectuals and experts in the Arab world should work to create these uncontrolled commissions as a first constructive step in any broad Arab action to improve transparency and accountability. We deserve to understand our history and to learn about the realistic options for our future. Victories in the Arab world must reflect reality not derive from hollow slogans."
#3
We have allowed politics in the Arab world to be defined by slogans, not results. Our judgment of leaders can only be truly determined by what they do not just what they say.
Sounds like somebody finally got gobsmacked by Mr. Cause & Effect.
Where is the independent commission that studied Hizbullah's actions? Yes, the party's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was left standing, just as Abdel-Nasser was. But is that enough when their nations and people were left battered?
The author inadvertently identifies the real problem. Namely, that Nasrallah was left standing. This twisted maggot will lead Lebanon, Hezbollah and anyone else who follows him straight through the flaming gates of Hell without a backward glance.
Why is it that Arabs have such a propensity to live amid lies?
Its the only way that any of them can possibly ignore how Islams much vaunted moral purity has led to over a thousand years of comprehensive cultural and economic stagnation. One might as well declare a flat baked empty plain of desert as having greater purity than a well-run metropolitan city because it represents the original state of Gods creation. Islam lives a constant lie and kills anyone who has the audacity to point it out.
Independent intellectuals and experts in the Arab world should work to create these uncontrolled commissions as a first constructive step in any broad Arab action to improve transparency and accountability.
This last statement contains numerous oxymorons. Independent intellectuals are more frequently put to death than given any public prominence in Muslim lands. Were it remotely otherwise, by now Islam might have undergone even a minor degree of reformation. The functions of critical thinking and analytical reasoning are violently discouraged by a culture that consistently rewards rote memorization over free thought. Similarly, the idea of "uncontrolled commissions" is in direct opposition to the authoritarian nature of Islam's theocratic rule. It is likewise with any vestiges of Arab transparency and accountability. Such notions demand a level of intellectual integrity that high context societies like Muslim cultures simply cannot endure. The rampant corruption, graft, bribery and selective legal enforcement enjoyed by Islams privileged elite could not survive legitimate scrutiny.
That which taints Islam is not a superficial blot upon it but a stain that permeates through all levels. It is dyed-in-the-wool and inseparable from the warp and weft of Muslim culture. Islams clerical aristocracy would no sooner abandon these crippling ethical deficiencies than they would convert to Christianity.
Posted by: ed ||
07/16/2007 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Deception and death are built into the islamic religion and culture. Islam is the only religion that implies in it's scriptures that it's ever permissible to lie--Taqiyya.
Islam tries to sell itself as the religion of WINNERS. Any thought that a godly man may suffer in any way is strictly forbidden. The Koran itself is full of re-writes of bible stories that amount to sanitation: Jesus never died on the Cross, Joseph was never unjustly imprisoned, Moses didn't smash the first set of the 10 commandments when he saw the Israelites dancing around the golden calf, and Abraham didn't "sacrifice" Isaac, but Ishmael. No account in the Koran has any "true" Muslim sinning, losing, or being defeated. As such, it is an infantile religion incapable of hardening its adherents tot he realities of life.
Victory in war is held up as being the proof of Islam. The one loss they suffered is whitewashed as due to poor strategic planning: do it right, and Allah will always give victory.
The 1967 war is more, in their eyes, than just a defeat of Arabs by Jews: it was a REFUTATION of Islam's veracity, using THEIR OWN MEASURE OF VERACITY. Thus, the spin, spin, spin to maintain the illusion that Islam has not been refuted by repeated military defeats.
Islam does not prepare its adherents to handle defeat, setbacks, or problems. In my opinion, Islamism is, partly, a coping mechanism to handle the disjunction between what the Koran tells the Muslim their place is in the world, and what reality tells the Muslim. "The defeats are due to the fact that you are not practicing a pure enough form of Islam." is the message, "return to the fundamentals of Islam and imitate Mohammed in word and deed, and you will have the same success as Mohammed had."
Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam. Islam's self-identity is that it is the authentic and ideal expression of monotheism. Muslims are raised with the view that Islam is God 3.0, Christianity is God 2.0, Judaism is God 1.0, and Hinduism is God 0.0.
Part of what seems to be going on with these young Muslim males is that they are, on the one hand, tempted by Western society, and ashamed of being tempted. On the other hand, they are humiliated by Western society because while Sunni Islamic civilization is supposed to be superior, its decision to ban the reform and reinterpretation of Islam since the 12th century has choked the spirit of innovation out of Muslim lands, and left the Islamic world less powerful, less economically developed, less technically advanced than God 2.0, 1.0 and 0.0.
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/16/2007 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
All the points above prove to me that Islam is completely incompatible with modern societies and is doing its best to destroy them so it doesn't have to compete (and get beat). Islam needs a reformation or it will be destroyed.
#10
There is a Lasarus Long's sayin that IMHO, mutatis mutandis,fits the current situation.
"I don't understand gangster mindset---I just know what to do about gangsters."
Ed West talks to the American writer whose blog on militant Islam is read by a million people a month but ignored by the mainstream media
Academics dont write books with titles like The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the Worlds Most Intolerant Religion and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) without expecting some harsh criticism, and Robert Spencer has heard it all.
The major death threat came from Adam Gadahn of al-Qaeda, he says. In a September 2006 video Gadahn invited Spencer and various other Zionist crusader missionaries of hate and counter-Islam consultants to abandon their unbelief and repent and enter into the light of Islam and turn their swords against the enemies of God.
That is, in the gang mentality of fundamentalist Islam, an offer you cant refuse. The problem is, inviting me to join up is a veiled threat in itself, Spencer explains. According to traditional Islamic law, the invitation to Islam, if refused, becomes a mandate to wage war against the one who refuses.
He turned down the generous offer and instead suggested that Gadahn accept the Bill of Rights, but Spencer is now no stranger to FBI patrols outside his home.
Since 2001 Americas leading Catholic scholar of Islam has written a series of studies that have, despite almost total media silence, sold in enormous quantities. These titles include Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics (with Daniel Ali) and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West. Both The Truth About Muhammad and the Politically Incorrect Guide reached the New York Times bestsellers list. He has also amassed an enormous following on the website Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org), a monitor of global Islamist activity that receives a million visitors a month.
Being a leading expert on Islamist violence, Spencer is understandably cautious about discussing his personal life or background in print. What is known is that he hails from a partly Greek Orthodox background and began his study of the Koran in 1980 while finishing his MA in Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. He was studying Patristic Christology but was in spiritual search mode when he stumbled upon the Muslim holy book.
I got to be friends with Palestinians and Saudi Arabians, who strongly encouraged me to read the Koran from a proselytising direction, he recalls. My interest had to do with my own family. I had heard stories of my grandparents in the Ottoman Empire, but I didnt read it with any negative preconceptions. In fact, I was quite positive about the whole thing.
But reading the Koran for the first time was certainly an eye-opener. I was surprised to see that there was indeed religiously sanctioned violence in it, as well as some others things which I found disturbing. But it was all intriguing, because I was entranced by the shorter, poetic chapters. I thought it very striking that this beauty could co-exist with clear mandates for warfare and violence against unbelievers.
During the 1980s and 1990s Spencer was a low-key expert on the Koran, during a period when Europe and America slept through Islamisms adolescence. He watched as attacks on American targets escalated, from the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993 to the attacks on the USS Cole and the embassies in Africa. None of that surprised me, he says. I thought it was the playing out of something that was clearly intrinsic to Islam.
I never intended to do this work publicly, he points out; still, while most specialists dream that their chosen subject takes centre stage. Spencer was put in an uncomfortable position when, one Tuesday morning, the Wests interest in the religion of peace rocketed.
I was invited to write this first book Islam Unveiled after 9/11. I agreed, then I was surprised by how well it did, that there was this great thirst for this perspective. People realise they are being lied to in the mainstream.
Spencers popularity would not be possible without that other great fixture of our age: the internet.
The percentage of internet sales for my books are significantly higher than most, he says, many bookstores dont sell them and people are afraid to talk about it, but theres this whole underground on the internet that I would liken to that in the Soviet Union. Whenever theres a straightjacket that stifles freedom of thought, people are going to react. The internet has shifted public opinion because its given the opportunity for the truth to be known.
Jihad Watch, launched in 2003, has allowed him to answer his critics, and especially charges of Islamophobia, a label he dismisses. Its a fictional, trumped-up political term, there to deflect attention away from the violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Victim status equals privileged status in the West. People know they can be free from criticism and ordinary scrutiny.
The best way to counter genuine hatred of Muslims would be for the Islamic community to end their support for the ideology of violence.
His greatest critics come from that element of the Left supportive of Islam against the West, a marriage seen by renegade liberals and socialists as the most ill-conceived alliance since a distinctly non-Aryan Japan sided with Nazi Germany.
To Spencer it makes perfect sense. There is a deep ideological affinity between the Left and the jihadists. Whenever the hard Left gained power they instituted a reign of terror in order to create what they envisage as a just society, brought about by force. Islamic law works in much the same way: utopia created by force.
Other critics suggest that by presenting jihad as the authentic voice of Islam, Spencer undermines the religions more moderate strains. One opponent even suggested he was a one-man recruiting agent for al-Qaeda.
I have never said that anyones view of Islam is correct, but what I do say is that the jihadists constantly portray themselves as the true voice of Islam, and the moderates have never mounted an adequate comeback, he argues. There is no true Islam, there is no pope of Islam, but the eight classical schools of Islam all teach warfare against unbelievers. We deceive ourselves if we think [violence] is just something thats manufactured by the Wahhabis and not present in Islam in general. They teach it but they certainly didnt invent it. A chief recruiting ground is secular Europe, where the decline of Christianity has created a dangerous vacuum. No doubt about it, young men feel rootless, they feel that life doesnt have any purpose. Against the West, which they have come to despise, [jihad] is attractive. It offers adamantine certainties.
Spencer subscribes to the growing view expressed in books such as While Europe Slept, Eurabia and Mark Steyns America Alone that the contrasting birth rates between Muslim immigrants and secular Europeans will lead to catastrophe.
There will be civil war in Europe, he says. The European citizenry, for the most part, are not ready to accept Islamic law and there will be armed conflicts. Across Europe there seems to be one opinion among the elite and one among the people; the mainstream political parties are going to have to start representing this, otherwise theyre going to be shunted aside by the neo-fascists.
In the running of Jihad Watch Spencer is actively helped by a Jew and an atheist, an example of the sort of cooperation that he feels is needed now. Secular Europe is already over, but Im happy to stand with secularists against the Islamicisation of Europe and of America, he says.
Above all, we shouldnt fight among ourselves, but against global jihad. If were consumed with each other then we dont stand a chance.
Fascism lasted 25 years, Communism for 75; Islam is 1,400 years old, the imperative to make war against unbelievers is 1,400 years old and they believe they are fighting a 1,400-year-old struggle. And jihad will destroy us if we dont do anything about it.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC ||
07/16/2007 11:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
The math here is off. Fascism has lasted 1,400 years.
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.
The following article by Khairi Abaza appeared in the Lebanese English-language daily The Daily Star on July 4, 2007.(1) 
Ed West talks to the American writer whose blog on militant Islam is read by a million people a month but ignored by the mainstream media
