Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described the Muslim Brotherhood as a "largely secular" organization with "no overarching agenda." This was a rather unusual characterization of a group whose motto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." If that is secular, what might the religious be?
In this struggle for power, some people will win; others will lose, but it is important enough that both sides are willing both to take and to lose lives to reach their objectives. Tut-tutting on the sidelines makes the United States appear ridiculous. Instead of just deploring violence, we should be appraising the character of the moral principles animating the two sides in this conflict and supporting the side that more closely comports with our own. And yes, that may require the choice of a lesser evil.
Unfortunately, the German military did not move against Adolph Hitler when he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Had they done so, Europe and the United States would have been spared a world of woe. Had that happened, would the American government have tried to intervene at the time, insisting on a restoration of Hitler, who had been democratically elected by a plurality of the German people? Would we have insisted that our democratic creed required us to do so? These questions answer themselves. We would have been grateful to the German military for doing so. We should likewise have some appreciation for what the Egyptian military has done to save its country and, by the way, preserve U.S. strategic interests in that area of the Middle East.
All that assumes (must .. resist .. Godwin) that we would have had the foresight, in 1933, to know what we knew about Hitler by 1942. A few among us then did but they were roundly ignored. Recall that both Bolshevik socialism and national socialism had claims on American attention spans and admiration then. Ditto in Europe. Had the German army moved on Hitler (and with what, they were still very much in disarmament mode) Hitler's SA might have stopped them. European powers might have stopped them. Hitler might have ended up stronger than ever.
#1
Here's a theory. If Churchill had let Poland go, then Hitler would have achieved his election promise of restoring pre-Versailles Germany. France and the UK would not have been attacked--this only happened after they declared war on Germany. There would have been war in the east between Hitler and Stalin, but the West would have largely sat that one out.
#2
To restore Germany to pre-WWI borders Hitler would have wanted Alsace-Lorriane back. The French would not have been obliging (then again, they did cough it up for about four years).
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/20/2013 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If Churchill had let Poland go, then Hitler would have achieved his election promise of restoring pre-Versailles Germany.
LOL. Yep, it's a wonderful theory. If Churchill had only thrown one more bone, seriously that's all the leader of the Folk wanted, really. :)
#4
Could also have eyeballed the low countries, wanting more ports nearby the German industrial areas, which would have placed a large navy presence uncomfortably close to Britain.
Germany was already mingling in Spain at any rate. Say they get them organized and demanding Gibraltar for Spain, do they let that go?
Such an influx of material via Suez and a lack of a Western Front could have made the difference in attacking Russia. The operations leading to Dunkirk were a disaster, but they kept Germany honest and forced them to divert resources which would have otherwise ended up going east, such as the bombing campaign vs. Malta.
Then Hitler would have been able to keep all his secret promises, such as people burning and ballistic missiles with nuclear devices.
Didn't keep his promise with Stalin, but to be fair that goes back to Teutonic times. The attack on France was very coordinated, not an "Oh Sh!t whaddwe do now?" No, one more Chamberlain victory would have been a bone too far.
#5
If Churchill had let Poland go, then Hitler would have achieved his election promise of restoring pre-Versailles Germany.
And then if Hitler had attacked the USSR, and the US had stayed neutral, he might have won the Eastern Front. And then France, the Low Countries, and maybe even Britain could have followed. A European Union 50 years earlier! And Judenrein, to boot, with no Israel. What would the Palestinians do without an Israel to blame for all their woes?
#6
"If Churchill had only thrown one more bone, seriously that's all the leader of the Folk wanted, really."
Yep - "Peace in our time."
Pfui.
Posted by: Barbara ||
08/20/2013 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Hitler, who had been democratically elected by a plurality of the German people?
Actually no. The NSDAP didn't have a majority when Hindenburg appointed Hitler on January 1933. And even the (no longer exactly democratic elections) did bring him the hoped for absolute majority.
No it was the infamous Enabling Act of 1933 that brought Germany down. Since a two third majority was needed for this in the Reichstag, the non-coalition parties could have prevented the Act. In that case it's quite likely that Hitlers government would have collapsed within months. Because the Reichspräsident Hindenburg still had the power to simply fire Hitler.
Maybe that would have meant civil war. We don't know. But Hitler knew very well he neeeded the well organized German Reichswehr, not his SA goons to survive. And they made the deal with the Devil.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
08/20/2013 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
FWIW - Mannstein in his bio points out that when France declared war Hitler had to dust off a 20 year old contingency plan to invade, and had no plan at all for invading England. Doesn't sound like either had been on his to do list.
"America's whimsical attitude towards Egypt is not a blunder but rather a catastrophic institutional failure. President Obama has surrounded himself with a camarilla, with Susan Rice as National Security Advisor, flanked by Valerie Jarrett, the Iranian-born public housing millionaire. Compared to Obama's team, Zbigniew Brzezinski was an intellectual colossus at Jimmy Carter's NSC. These are amateurs, and it is anyone's guess what they will do from one day to the next."
#1
Key point from the article that none of US MSM is remotely aware of:
China has a profound interest in Saudi security. It is the largest importer of Saudi oil. America might wean itself of dependence on imported oil some time during the next decade, but China will need the Persian Gulf for the indefinite future.
...and well it should. Most here have issues with large expanding government. Most of which can be traced to the role America assumed at the end of WWII. Even the broad New Deal acts by FDR largely were ineffective in selling the Big Government model. It was the accomplishment of WWII and being left with chaos or commitment by the US that sold the expansion of government that today finally bears the fruit of 'national security' for the destruction of basic constitutional rights. It was the very centralization and concentration of power that was the intent of the writers of the Constitution sought to avoid. They understood at the core of human history was the constant thread for the accumulation of power. They also understood that at the heart of all evil that humans had perpetrated was the exploitation of such power. They choose inefficiency of the division of power over the threat that concentration of power would present. We pay the price for the worlds sins. Let the world pay for their own. If it is a direct threat to us, deal with it. Otherwise, care for your own. Everybody else does.
#4
I fully concur. Time for us to 'go Swiss' for a few years and simply watch the madness. If they get too close, say nothing and take their heads off.... followed by a return to watching.
#5
Build Prompt Global Strike. Keep improving BMD. Build a good follow on to Blackbird. Build nextgen surveillance sats. Shred most of the rest and come home. This will be hugely unpopular in many budget centers, but it is the way to go.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/20/2013 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Oh, I wouldn't mind continuing to help and look after our friends.
So long as they remain our friends.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/20/2013 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#7
To paraphrase Walter Russel Meade, the US canÂ’t get other nations to love us. The US also canÂ’t insulate itself from the world by walking away (no matter how tempting.)
The US has problems to solve and interests to maintain. Like it or not, aspects of both are beyond its borders.
Re-defining those interests would be a good start.
#10
China has a profound interest in Saudi security. It is the largest importer of Saudi oil. America might wean itself of dependence on imported oil some time during the next decade, but China will need the Persian Gulf for the indefinite future.
The US should frak, frak, frak and let the Chinese have a turn at keeping peace in the mad house and getting crap for their wasted blood and treasure.
Islam currently represents a backward, aggressive, and violent force. Must it remain this way, or can it be reformed and become moderate, modern, and good-neighborly? Can Islamic authorities formulate an understanding of their religion that grants full rights to women and non-Muslims as well as freedom of conscience to Muslims, that accepts the basic principles of modern finance and jurisprudence, and that does not seek to impose Sharia law or establish a caliphate?
A growing body of analysts believe that no, the Muslim faith cannot do these things, that these features are inherent to Islam and immutably part of its makeup. Asked if she agrees with my formulation that "radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution," the writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali replied: "He's wrong. Sorry about that." She and I stand in the same trench, fighting for the same goals and against the same opponents, but we disagree on this vital point.
My argument has two parts. First, the essentialist position of many analysts is wrong; and second, a reformed Islam can emerge.
An interesting development, given that Mr. Pipes has been at the forefront of the argument that Islam is causing problems.
But Ms. Ali has an insider's mind on this one, and I'm beginning to think that she's got the better argument. I'd like Mr. Pipes to be right but I fear he isn't.
The real question then being not "Can this happen," because anything can happen, but "What are the odds that it will?"
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/20/2013 0:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yes. But only after everyone that is part of the faith is tired of the killing. The Christians came to that point at the end of the 30 years war and millions of dead.
#3
No, its not. There are specific parts in the Koran that prevent reinterpretation, as well as cultural and other things built into the system. And unlike the Christian reformation, there is no central church that has authority to change things, or against which reform can be leveraged and with whome theological reform can eventually be codified -- no equivalent to the Vatican and Pope in Islam, just factionalism that promotes the most radical of beliefs as the "strong horse" prevalent in Arab culture and the cradle and center of Islam.
#4
If the only muzzies left are those in Morocco, I suspect the 'tone' would change. Given that the 'claim' is that the family running the place has a lineage going back to the man, there's a gamblers chance that some evolution might happen. Then again the next asteroid will probably hit sooner.
#7
the more interesting question is whether Pipes actually believes what he is saying about moderate Islam being the solution or if this is just a premise for the sake of politeness or emotional sanity
the evidence of the horror that is Islam is so overwhelming that many people, when confronted with the evidence just can't handle it; they have to make stuff up, pretend, etc.
Posted by: lord garth ||
08/20/2013 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#8
No. Next question?
P.S. Actually maybe. But only with nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina. And Tehran. And Karachi. And Islamabad. And Peshawar. And what are the odds of that? (Zero.)
The latest date for the crucifixion of Jesus is 33 AD. The Christians endured persecution until 323 AD, when they united under Constantine at the battle of the Milvian Bridge. They were running from lions, so to speak, for about 290 years. Contrast with Islam, when the Flight to Medina in 620 AD, the conquest of Mecca in 630, the death of Mohammed in 632, and the Battle of Tours in 732. Quite a compressed time line, and NO, it is NOT due to them having faster camels: It was due to Mohammed devising a religion specially designed to prey on Judaism and Christianty, the latter of which had largely succeeded in turning the Mediterranean Sea into a reasonably pacifistic society without a stout military presence in North Africa from Egypt to Spain (and was Dr. Victor Davis Hanson's main criticism of Christianity in his book "Carnage and Culture")
My thesis, in fact, is that Christianity evolved from a peaceful religion into a militaristic one due to the need to respond to Islam. I regret I cannot find the link to an online video where a scholar cataloged all the Islamic slaver attacks in the Mediterranean by location and date between 700 and 1100 AD, and then shows a time lapse video of the order and location of the attacks on a map: enlightening and, to be honest, frightening. To blame Christianity for the Crusades as unprovoked is to refuse to see the world as they saw it back then, a selective "objectification" of vision to avoid the truth. It is during that response that the position and power of the Popes and church increased to the point that it attracted the corrupt and the secular (sound familiar?). The protestant reformation started in 1517, and the 30 years war started in 1618. (By the way, this is not noised about a lot, but Martin Luther the reformer penned a protest agains the Crusades because it was being used as an excuse to get rid of German Barons sympathetic to the Protestants by suggesting they were less than loyal to the Holy Roman Emperor if they didn't participate personally.)
Now, part of the problem in talking about the reform of Islam versus the "reform" of Christianity is that Leftist history has tried to paint Christianity as violent from the beginning as Islam, when the facts don't state it. Instead, they use indignation, verbal abuse, make mountains out of molehills, and selectively ignore the facts that don't support their case (sound familiar?).
Don't get me wrong: Christianity NEEDED a reformation, but it needed that reformation because it was DEFORMED and needed REFORMING. There is NO indication that Islam GOT DEFORMED and thus needs to be "REFORMED" back to where it was originally. And my take is that that deformation came as a side-effect of having to deal with Islam (sound familiar?)
Now, an even more fundamental problem is not Leftist history, but that some who are opposing Islam have bought into that history and are unaware that they are thinking based on premises, information, and pre-suppositions that have been developed by Leftism to promote their agenda. The Constitution is not a sacred document, but a secular one, and Pipes has argued that our "interpretation" of the Constitution has changed, and so the problem is "One of Interpretation". I hate to break it to you, but the current crisis in America is precisely that the Constitution has been "re-interpreted" in the way Pipes wants the Koran and Hadiths to be "re-interpreted".
How has THAT been working out for ya?
Let me illustrate the problem by telling you of a different problem: In a nuclear power plant, we must use parts with known specifications because those specifications were used in analyses of designs to establish the safe operating limits of plant equipment. Counterfeits are a serious problem since they rarely meet the design specifications of the genuine article because those specifications are hard to duplicate and raise expenses as well. The point of the counterfeit is to cost cheap while commanding the prices that only the genuine merit.
When a nuclear plant encounters a counterfeit, it is obligated to report the discovery to the NRC, who issues bulletins to the entire industry warning of the counterfeits (known as "a part 21 notification"): this notifies the supply chain so that proactive efforts to avoid purchase of deficient counterfeits for use in nuclear equipment. Careless distributors have lost business to the entire industry, and deliberate manufacturers and distributors knowingly distributing counterfeit parts as genuine to the nuclear industy ("because that's where the money is.") have been prosecuted by the federal government. And convicted.
But it doesn't end there. The industry is required to be able to track everything from purchase through inventory to issuance to use to field PRECISELY so they can do a search of their parts records to determine if any of those counterfeits were installed in the field, for the precise purpose of going out there and ripping the stuff out of the plant.
I regret to inform y'all that some of you, and some conservative commentators as well, appear to me to have notyet issued a personal "part 21" on ALL ideas, teaching, and pre-conceptions coming from the Left that you have absorbed. They have been at work since the 1800's debauching the field of ideas. Anyone who disagrees with Leftists in one field of ideas or practice, while embracing what they teach in other areas, is going to run into problems with reality and thus have to deform their reasoning and their knowledge of the facts to remain consistent. YOU CAN'T. Not possible. Look at Charles at Little Green Footballs, and be warned.
Now, a personal note: I"ve been offline at my website precisely because I believe Leftism has fatally contaminated the Christian religion, and have been working for the past five years to do that "part 21" on my thinking. It has been extremely difficult to dig up the origins of my thinking, re-evaluate them, and sift the wheat from the chaff. The best methodology, I have found, is to read the New Testament biblical text as literally and straightforwardly as I can, then soundly question deviations from that literal reading.
#10
Many claim to have "reformed" just before execution time. I think that's the model that will be followed in this case...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/20/2013 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It has been extremely difficult to dig up the origins of my thinking, re-evaluate them, and sift the wheat from the chaff. The best methodology, I have found, is to read the New Testament biblical text as literally and straightforwardly as I can, then soundly question deviations from that literal reading.
I haven't found it that hard. I've trained myself to look for presuppositions and unspoken assumptions in all forms of reasoning. A core element [presupposition / assumption] of modern Leftist thought is hatred of Christianity & Judaism and a desire/goal to see them both destroyed. Hence the Left's alliance with jihadi Islam.
The question of whether or not it is possible for Islam to reform itself is not particularly relevant to non-Muslims. It's up to them, if they want to get ahead at the risk of losing their own [heads].
#12
Yes. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" meets ride the tiger meets feed the alligator in hopes of being eaten last. Leftists get it all wrong all the time...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/20/2013 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#17
From what I understand there are branches within Sunni islam and some are more violent and others are more introspective. The introspective folks were out of Turkey, the violent are the Wahabi and wtih the oil money and promises of glory and such they are dominant now.
US should have been pumping money into the less violent one on Sept 12, 2001 while we were shifting to a nuclear economy to undercut the Wahabi cash flow.
Do you mean the whirling dervishes, the Sufis, rjschwarz? Sure, they're mystics, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily nonviolent. See here, for instance.
[IsraelTimes] To a Mohammedan like myself, Islam has passed me by the day a Mutawya'ah (Saudi inquisitors religious police) caned me for refusal to pray in the Grand Mosque of Riyadh, but it has become a target of my criticism just last week when the Islamists in Zanzibar doused two innocent British girls with acid. The straw of that incident broke my back.
My criticism of my religion is long overdue. Out of respect for my family, peers and friends, I delayed the inevitable because of my overflowing optimism. I cannot and will not glue this broken glass.
If we Mohammedans do not speak about our own ills, who will?
Consider for a moment any of the five possible reasons why the Zanzibar Islamists viciously attacked Katie Gee and Kirstie Trup, both 18-years old.
According to The Daily Beast, which dispatched Margot Kiser to investigate the matter, the attack could have been motivated by a Mohammedan woman who slapped one of the girls, two days earlier, for singing Western songs. It is possible she would have instigated men in her family to carry out the attack.
Alternatively, the attack could have been motivated by local boys whose advances Katie and Kirstie spurned.
Or, it could have been motivated when the girls reported missing funds at the Catholic School where they worked.
Or, it could have been motivated by the fact they were not appropriately dressed in accordance with local customs
Or, the girls were singled out because they were Jewish.
Good grief, where do I start?
For singing or playing your music, we will mutilate you.
For not satisfying our sexual urges due to our own religious repression, we will mutilate you if you do not submit to our hormonal rage.
For stealing from your employer, we will mutilate you if you report it; meanwhile, if you steal from us, we will cut your limbs one by one.
For not wearing the Hijab, we will mutilate you; meanwhile, Western societies permit Mohammedan women the freedom to select between customs.
For just being Jews, we will mutilate you. You are guilty even when innocent.
Is Islamism sick or what?
Do you find the silence by our Mohammedan leaders as intolerable as I do?
If you do, please voice your concerns. The first step to fixing our ills is for the world to stop treating us like royalties by bending before us or bending its rules to please us.
The West must hold those responsible, directly and indirectly, accountable. It is not just about the two Islamists who attacked Katie and Kirstie, it is, also, about the deafening silence of those Arab and Mohammedan leaders the West mistakenly holds in high regard.
Enough is enough.
Farid Ghadry is the co-founder and President of the Reform Party of Syria. He manages THE PAXGAMES, a celebration of worldwide peace to be hosted in Italy in 2014.
#3
There may be 10 million like him, but they'd never find each other because they don't have an Al Jazeera. Or a brotherhood of their own. They have neither networks nor, well, networks.
#3
Democrats are not your friends. Look deep into Nancy Pelosi's eyes and see the competence, and the love.
Look deep into Barack Hussein's eyes and Pledge allegiance to the Flag. Ever wonder WHY Obama never gives one of his Lincolnesque historic speeches to a room full of Colonels?
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.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described the Muslim Brotherhood as a "largely secular" organization with "no overarching agenda." This was a rather unusual characterization of a group whose motto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." If that is secular, what might the religious be?
