I believe that unless Iran's Ayatollah's are taken out, Sunni Arabs will make a temporary alliance with the Shiites and eliminate Israel through missile extortion and the voluntary depopulation of Jews that said extortion would cause. As you can see in the attached article, Sunnis have leverage over the US. Shiites have none, and harass US troops in Iraq while Iran's Ayatollahs have threatened the US Homeland by claiming an ability to destroy strategic locations that are essential to US security. That threat will be more realistic, when Iran develops n-bomb capacity. The Iran-Card as played by Russia, China and India, would likely devolve into a strategic alliance, if indulgence of the Ahmadinejad tyranny continues. Israel cannot co-exist with either an Iran-Syria or Sunni-Shiite alliance. In his last State of the Union message, the President placed "America's love of the automobile" above moral considerations. The destruction of Shiite power and harsh security measures against the Shiite danger to Iraq oil infrastructure would serve both US and Israeli interests.
"...The misguided post-September 11 policies promoted by the Bush administration have reinforced the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim stance of most Americans. A recent Gallop poll suggests four out of 10 Americans feel "prejudice" toward Muslims.
These attitudes are nothing short of a slap in the face to Arab nations that have invested trillions of dollars in the US economy and consider themselves Washington's strategic partners..."
#1
I should have clarified a point on Muslim unity. Hadith references to future strife among Muslims is taken as permission to form sects, but the issue of apostasy is to be decided by war at the "end of days." Saudis permit enemy Shiites to participate in Haj. Al-Sadr attended last year, and accepted an invitation to a personal meeting with the Saudi king. If clerics at Qom, Islamic University (Medina) and al-Azhar (Cairo) fatwah on unity, then a common missile placement strategy will put Israel in peril.
Within the article posted, the author claims that the "50,000" Americans who reside in the Arab countries is the largest expatriate community. That figure is distorted by Shiite Americans who reside in Lebanon, and use American citizenship for convenience. Mexican states of Baja (both), Sonora and Sinaloa alone have more Americans than live in Arabia. Over 15,000 Americans live in a tight community around Lake Chapala in Jalisco. Thousands more live in Colima and elsewhere.
As for putting morality over economics, Jimmy Carter tried that with predictible results.
Analysis by Bobby. Can I get a Master of the Obvious picture, please?
Earlier this week, the MSM announced the Marines had a shortfall for deployment to Iraq. I posted the article. This caused some consternation with Mrs. Bobby, and no doubt, many other family members. Nimble Spemble found some more specific information:
Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, estimated that there is a current shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming deployments.
Some of the military needs, he said, include engineers, intelligence, military police and communications.
This morning, as I woke up, it hit me. The Marines were short in a few specific categories - specific to the phase of the specific war we're fighting at this specific time. When my son went, he was trained to be a truck driver, because they were short of truck drivers at that specific point in time (fall, 2004). (And he volunteered to be trained so he could go with the majority of his reserve company.)
The Fifth-Columnists in the media, however, spun the information into something that suggested that the Marines were running short of ...well, Marines - trigger pullers. Maybe they're all just Marine automaton baby-killers to the simpleton press, but I think they consciously shaped a trivial bit of news into something that fit their agenda - the war is hopeless, no one wants to fight it, and the military is not only ignorant, but can't effectively organize a war. I had a call Thursday from a friend who believes that, and wondered about my son being recalled.
Of course they spun it; why didn't I see it Tuesday?
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/27/2006 07:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
This article is apparently a complete excerpt which is available only to digital subscribers of NR. The posting of this excerpt may be in violation of NR's copyright, and may be removed momentarily. Read it while you have a chance.
I think religious belief makes people behave better, he {a Muslim taxi driver driving Dalrymple somewhere in Britain} said. Provided no one tries to compel anyone else or uses violence.
Amen to that: I agreed with him, though secretly I thought the chances slender of a religious revival among debauched British youth. {Dalrymple has elsewhere described himself as either an atheist or agnostic.} The driver was a kindly, well-mannered man, and the classic immigrant success story: His children had progressed without difficulty into the professional middle class. He was, then, the archetypal moderate Muslim, whose public representatives Mr. Blairs government so persistently seeks, in the forlorn hope that they will do the security services work for them.
Despite my liking for the driver as an individual, whom I adjudged sincere in his moderation, I could not entirely disembarrass myself of a residual prejudice against him: He was, after all, a Muslim, and I recognized in myself something discreditable that has become visceral, not under fully conscious control, namely a distrust of more than a billion people because of their religion.
Because of post 9/11 events and because of multiple polls showing tacit support by Muslims in the west toward suicide bombers,
non-Muslims begin to grow suspicious of even the most decent of the Ummah. And this feeling of mistrust is bound to have grown because so many of the bombers and would-be bombers appeared for a long time to be perfectly integrated into British society. A man with a friendly manner and a pleasant expression, a conscientious teaching assistant by day, turns out to be a suicide bomber by night, ready to die so long as he takes as many complete strangers with him as he can. If he could not be trusted, if he was harboring such murderous hatred in his heart despite all outward appearances, which Muslim can be trusted? ...
{the Islamist movement} will destroy the possibility of normal human contact of the kind that inhibits prejudice and mollifies hatred, and sow only suspicion and violence in the hope of attaining a total and final victory after some kind of {Islamist-inspired} apocalypse. In the end, however, I dont think the strategy will work in the modern world, Islam itself is too much of an intellectual nullity, just as Marxism was, for it to triumph. Moreover, diseases tend to decline in virulence as epidemics wane. Short-term, I am pessimistic; long-term, which is perhaps to say after my death, I am optimistic.
#3
{the Islamist movement} will destroy the possibility of normal human contact of the kind that inhibits prejudice and mollifies hatred, and sow only suspicion and violence in the hope of attaining a total and final victory after some kind of {Islamist-inspired} apocalypse.
That old taqiyaa thingie has gotta go for Islam to be genuinely reformed.
Please check your brain and take the first available seat. Hang onto your ticket stub. You are now entering The Globe's own Bizarro World, aka GloboWorld. Please keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle. Remain seated at all times and do not drink beverages while inside. Thank You.
George W. Bush has been faulted in some quarters for taking an extended vacation while the Middle East festers. It doesn't much matter; the man running the country is Vice President Dick Cheney.
When historians look back on the multiple assaults on our constitutional system of government in this era, Cheney's unprecedented role will come in for overdue notice. Cheney's shotgun mishap, when he accidentally sprayed his host with birdshot, has gotten more media attention than has his control of the government.
Historically, the vice president's job was to ceremonially preside over the Senate, attend second-tier foreign funerals, and be prepared for the president to die. Students are taught that John Nance Garner, Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, compared the job to a bucket of warm spit (and historians say spit was not the word the pungent Texan actually used).
Recent vice presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore were given more authority than most, but there was no doubt that the president was in charge.
Cheney is in a class by himself. The administration's grand strategy and its implementation are the work of Cheney-- sometimes Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, sometimes Cheney and political director Karl Rove.
Cheney has planted aides in major Cabinet departments, often over the objection of a Cabinet secretary, to make sure his policies are carried out. He sits in on the Senate Republican caucus, to stamp out any rebellions. Cheney loyalists from the Office of the Vice President dominate interagency planning meetings.
The Iraq war is the work of Cheney and Rumsfeld. The capture of the career civil service is pure Cheney. The disciplining of Congress is the work of Cheney and Rove. The turning over of energy policy to the oil companies is Cheney. The extreme secrecy is Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
If Cheney were the president, more of this would be smoked out because the press would be paying attention. The New York Times' acerbic columnist Maureen Dowd regularly makes sport of Cheney's dominance, and there are plenty of jokes (Bush is a heartbeat away from the presidency). But you can count serious newspaper or magazine articles on Cheney's operation on the fingers of one hand. One exceptional example is Jane Mayer's piece in the July 3 New Yorker on Cheney operative David Addington.
Cheney's power is matched only by his penchant for secrecy. When my colleague at the American Prospect, Robert Dreyfuss, requested the names of people who serve on the vice president's staff, he was told this was classified information. Former staffers for other departments provided Dreyfuss with names.
So secretive is Cheney (and so incurious the media) that when his chief of staff, Irving Lewis Libby, was implicated in the leaked identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, reporters who rushed to look Libby up on Nexis and Google found that Libby had barely rated previous press attention.
Why does this matter? Because if the man actually running the government is out of the spotlight, the administration and its policies are far less accountable.
When George W. Bush narrowly defeated John Kerry in 2004, many commentators observed that Bush was the fellow with whom you would rather have a beer. It's an accurate and unflattering comment on the American electorate -- but then who wants to have a beer with Cheney? The public may not know the details of his operation, but voters intuitively recoil from him.
Bush's popularity ratings are now under 40 percent, beer or no, reflecting dwindling confidence in where he is taking the country. But Cheney's ratings are stuck around 20 percent, far below that of any president.
If Cheney were the actual president, not just the de facto one, he simply could not govern with the same set of policies and approval ratings of 20 percent. The media focuses relentless attention on the president, on the premise that he is actually the chief executive. But for all intents and purposes, Cheney is chief, and Bush is more in the ceremonial role of the queen of England.
Yet the press buys the pretense of Bush being "the decider," and relentlessly covers Bush -- meeting with world leaders, cutting brush, holding press conferences, while Cheney works in secret, largely undisturbed. So let's take half the members of the overblown White House press corps, which has almost nothing to do anyway, and send them over to Cheney Boot Camp for Reporters. They might learn how to be journalists again, and we might learn who is running the government. You made it! Please exit the vehicle and use your ticket stub to claim your brain at the booth on the right. Thank you for visiting GloboWorld.
#4
Kee-rist, I got whiplash reading the damn thing. I just wish that for once, the nutbuckets could agree on who is running the White House. Sometimes it's the Eeeeevilll George Bush. Other times he's too damn dumb to do anything but mouthbreathe, and it's Karl Rove. Then it's Cheney, and occasionally Rummy.
But the biggest headscratcher was calling MoDo "acerbic". I always thought of her as more along the lines of "incoherently bitchy with a penchant for cut and paste".
By now your reverie over Ned Lamont's victory has faded. You'd not be human if you hadn't spent a day or two basking in the afterglow of Ned's performance that night, surrounded by his pals Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, with the Greek chorus chanting, "bring them home" in the background. The only thing missing on that stage was Barbra Streisand. It must have brought to mind the Wellstone funeral-cum-campaign rally of 2002, another milestone in the Democrats' self-destruction.
As RNC Chairman, you're surrounded by a swarm of consultants, who are probably feeding you reasons to play it safe. That advice is wrong because some in the media will do anything to defeat your candidates, and if you don't deal with that threat, they'll succeed. It's not that Republicans face certain disaster at the polls. To the contrary, if you study a few ground truths, and follow my dad's prescription for everything -- planning, a little luck and a lot of work -- you might even gain seats in the Senate.
The first ground truth is that the liberal media, not the Democrats, are the party standing in opposition to the Republicans. The Democrats ran out of ideas the night Bobby Kennedy died, and since then the media have become the primary source of Democrat ideas and policy.
The second truth is that the media are more than just the Dems' think tank. In fact, some of the biggest media outlets are the source of thinly veiled attack ads aimed at your candidates just like the so-called "527 Groups," those huge soft-money peddlers supposedly independent of the candidates they support. Think of what George Soros could do if he had a global news network that could produce multi-million dollar attack ads every day, and then you'll know what some mainstream media outlets have become. Rightly or wrongly, given their history with CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and lately, AP, some conservatives classify them among the worst offenders.
The "527 Media" -- and that's what you should be calling them -- are essentially political activists. They are in the campaign business nearly as much as they are in the business of reporting the news these days. They will be tossing October surprises at Republicans all day every day from September 5, when Katie Couric takes over at CBS, until the election returns are certified.
The third truth is that you Republicans have badly misjudged the American people. Some Republican Bob Shrum has convinced you guys to not even fight for Blue State America. There are lots of middle-of-the-road Blue State Americans who only hear what the "527 Media" wants them to, because your team doesn't even try to reach them. Political consultants used to say Republicans could never win in the South, either.
The next truth is that the Republican base is practically begging to be fired up about the "527 Media's" political activism. They know something is badly wrong with the guys, but they can't quite put their finger on it. The problem began in the Clinton years when the media gave the administration a pass on the growth of terrorism, on Iraq and on the mountains of non-Monica corruption the Clintons lived in. By turning a blind eye to the Clintons' problems, the "527 Media" became intellectually corrupt, more interested in political success for the Dems than the truth.
Americans knew they'd heard something important last year when Washington Post editor Marie Arana said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness ... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." Tell America that it's a media culture, not a conspiracy.
The last truth is the lesson of the John Thune senate race. Media involvement in the Dems' campaigns is something Americans sense but can't pin down. It's a fact of life that, if exposed, works wonders for Republican candidates.
Lawyers and consultants will tell you that free advice is worth what you pay for it. But they would, wouldn't they? Here are a few suggestions on how you can find the pony in this pile of macaca:
· Renounce any idea of using the power of the government against the press. The New York Times should be publicly ridiculed, not prosecuted. Remember the best lesson we can learn from Rush Limbaugh: You can do much more political damage with humor than with insults.
· Produce a series of television ads going after the "527 Media." Expose who they are and show how the typical newsroom is more like a dysfunctional, liberal family than a business run by adults.
· It's time for the Vice President to give a speech taking the press to task. He should name names. If Pinch Sulzberger wants to be a political activist instead of a publisher, why not call him on it?
· Organize a group called the Swift Veteran Reporters for the Truth. Every time one of those contrived stories comes out, make sure your team, experienced reporters all, can access the facts and get them out -- fast -- on blogs, talk radio and everywhere else.
· Get Republican congressmen and senators to write letters to their local papers and local network TV affiliates. Ask how they can pretend to be fair if they have nothing but liberals in the newsroom? Why did Clinton crony George Stephanopoulos get a big show on ABC? Culture, not conspiracy.
· Establish a media hotline for disgruntled reporters to call in about the contrived stories, connivance with the Dems and the bias they face in their newsrooms. Hire a couple of old-time conservative journalists to run it, guarantee anonymity, and then publish what the whistleblowers say.
· Get your best joke writers to study everything they can about the worst of the 527 Media and let 'em rip. I can just hear Mr. Cheney tut-tutting about the New York Times' stock collapse and comparing it to the dividends of, say, Halliburton.
All of this can (and will) be great fun for most of us but not for you. It's the most serious challenge you'll face this year and in 2008. Americans are aching for someone to take on the media and do it in a way that will relieve some of the daily stress we all feel. So Katie Couric and Brian Williams walk into a bar, and the bartender says...
Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a contributing editor to The American Spectator and author of Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States (with Edward Timperlake, Regnery 2006) and Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think (Regnery 2004). Babbin Rulez.
#1
· Renounce any idea of using the power of the government against the press. The New York Times should be publicly ridiculed, not prosecuted. Remember the best lesson we can learn from Rush Limbaugh.
Hmmm...Rush isn't responsible for national security. He can play that game. In the end everyone from an elected President down the to common citizen has to be accountable. Law applies to all of us or none of us.
If the government wants to take on the press, the press itself has provided the means. Its call the Interstate Commerce Act and has provided for regulation of businesses that cross state lines. Since the press has been the agent pushing for accountability and 'perfection' in the products and services of all other businesses and services, they too should be subject to the same standards. That means they are sued, fined, and regulated for the creation, handling, and delivery of inferior products known to be defective or fraudulent in their nature. Just as any other business is responsible for any of their products, products of their subcontractors or the outright misrepresentation of their product to the public, so should any product of the 'press'. Fraud is fraud. Hey, boys, turn around is fair play. And since the 'press' has a standard of perfection, that is the standard they themselves are to be adjudged.
#2
I also disagree with not-prosecuting disclosure on national security secrets. They willfully do harm to the American people's security, and should be prosecuted. The fact that they do so for ideologic agenda is what you don't prosecute for. Their motivations need to be brought ainto the sunlight, and the rest of the MSM surely won't do it. That's where Cheney would be invaluable. He's a great hit man and should be used. He also fires up the base
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2006 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Just contemplating this being turned to fact scares the living shit out of me. This bothers me as much as the discussion above about the growing presence of Muzzies in the US. Both these groups should cause fear in the brains of any thinking man, woman &child.
#1
The guy wrote a lot of books. Shows how hungry America is for fantasy.
This brief blurb fails to present the need for intelligence based actions. There is also little mention of the lack of correlation engines for the collected 'intelligence'.
The data points are collected into fact cells. Groups of facts become information. Information is used to steer existing strategy. Too little is known of the longterm(one or more generations) strategic intent to secure this nation. We each have a clear view of 'what we would do' but too often this is founded on the isolated groups of facts, surmise and bluster we are fed on a daily basis. This only serves a very shortterm strategy, often no longer than hours.
#3
I think he's right. I'm sick of people blaming the intelligence community's "failure" for 9/11 etc etc.
Intelligence can't infiltrate fascist Islamist cells because a) they aren't related, socialised and brought up under Islamist doctrine and
b) to be really trustworthy and one of ours, they can't be.
We can forget infiltrating al-Qaida ain't gonna happen. You'll just be asking for a triple spy.
What you CAN do is bite the bullet declare war on fascist Islam - which Bush has done, he's named the enemy and it's fascist Islam - and start reforming, isolating or fighting hostile cultures.
Start profiling at airports.
All the intelligence in the world won't help if you don't target the enemy within.
Start bugging mosques, monitoring mullahs, spying on Islamic schools: ensure they teach peace and moderation.
Soon the problem will dry up if you wither it at the root.
But most of all we should stop blaming ourselves sometimes horrible acts can't be stopped.
Instead blame Islamofascists who planned them and carried them out.
Headline-grabbing stories about a British-based Muslim academic's public support for "martyrdom" last weekend missed a key detail: His mentor and frequent collaborator is a high-profile scholar who has been consulted repeatedly by the FBI, Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University.
Mr. Esposito has long courted controversy most recently when the Georgetown-based center he founded in 1993 accepted $20 million last year from (and took the name of) a notorious Saudi prince. Yet, the professor has somehow been able to maintain a relatively high reputation in academic and government circles alike. That Mr. Esposito is still largely respected owes to the subtlety of his apologism. He acknowledges that there is radicalism in Islam, and he generally avoids defending the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. Even as he argues for engaging Islamists, he does so without overtly endorsing their worldview. But Mr. Esposito skillfully downplays the threat posed by radical Islam, and as demonstrated by his close affiliation with Azzam Tamimi, who told a massive crowd in the UK on Sunday that "dying for your beliefs is just," he willingly associates with avowed cheerleaders of Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Esposito's defenders and there are many claim that his critics conflate his practical advice that Islamists cannot simply be ignored with apologism for radical Islam. While such an answer may be appealing for those who believe in giving the benefit of the doubt, it simply doesn't square with the facts. Although Mr. Esposito is less transparent than most apologists for radical Islam, he is more than a mere apologist. He defends supporters of Islamic terrorism. He even mentors them. Mr. Esposito has lavished praise on two prominent advocates of Islamic terrorism: former University of South Florida professor (and convicted terrorist) Sami al-Arian, and al Jazeera phenomenon Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Continued on Page 49
#2
If you take dirty money from dirty Saudi hands, nothing but undercutting of our culture will occur. That's why Guiliani does deserve some praise, although I don't generally support him. The look on the Saudi's face when he rejected his check was priceless and should be remembered by all Americans. These universities who are being undercut by dirty money need to be outed and put in the headlines for their continued double dealing.
Whatever his personality and past, Nawab Bugtis death is bound to become part of the heroic lore of Baloch history of resistance against the state since 1947 and strengthen the separatist emotion in the province. Since much of the Baloch struggle had combined with the all-Pakistan campaign against such phenomena as military rule and the cruel centralism of One Unit, it will find resonance with most Pakistanis especially in the smaller provinces. His death will put an end to the case building by the government before going for the kill on Saturday. The case built by the state against the rebellious sardars was not incredible: their insurgents were blowing up public assets and carrying out attacks against state personnel, they had organised farari camps where Baloch warriors were trained and, finally, they were recipients of large sums of money, possibly sent in by India through Afghanistan. But now all this will sound like so much unconvincing history.
Baloch nationalism is based on a number of factors recognised by the textbooks but the most significant component is tribal resistance and honour. The sardari system provided leadership to this nationalism by upholding Baloch honour. While the Baloch politician developed flexible political skills, the Baloch sardar outshone him in the eyes of the Baloch people because of his inflexibility and an implacable assertion of Baloch rights. Of course, the Bugti-Marri-Mengal triumvirate of Baloch nationalism that developed over the years had its internal tensions and there was a tacit struggle for supremacy among the three. Needless to say, only the most radical could have won. It is in this framework that Nawab Bugtis final choice of death has to be seen. And it is here that Islamabad has erred most grievously and might have to pay a high price for it. It has let Nawab Bugti win the final battle. He will now be the all-Balochistan symbol of resistance to Islamabad. If there is external interference in Balochistan it will only be strengthened.
President Musharraf inherited a whole raft of flaws of the state when he was called upon to put Pakistan straight after 9/11. After almost 20 years of jihad the state had developed tolerance for many centres of power the politicians were forced to accept in the 1990s. The central problem that he faced was the lack of the writ of the state in most parts of the country, although certain territories were traditionally accepted as exempt from normal state jurisdiction. We know how he has failed to solve the problems of the Tribal Areas in the face of the Taliban and Al Qaeda threat in the context of a growing vacuum of political support. But the situation in Balochistan has been the prickliest for him to grasp politically. The province is the countrys lifeline for the gas it produces and a guarantor of its future because of the gas reserves it holds for future exploitation.
Balochistan has also been a legal grey area. Most of it is B category, meaning that there is no police and no proper enforcement of the law of the land. It also remains the most economically backward area despite the rich natural resources it possesses. Its history of struggle against the centre sets it apart from the Tribal Areas where Islamabad is face to face with a new type of Talibanism. President Musharraf was mistaken in discovering that past governments had been too soft on Nawab Bugti and mistakenly wanted this flaw of the state sorted out. The PMLQ government intervened and tried the political path with Bugti, resulting in an agreed document, which was in the process of being implemented _ albeit very slowly and in the eyes of the Baloch, not at all. But the military establishment overruled the politicians and went for Mr Bugti.
At this point Nawab Bugti was provoked into taking the final plunge to put on record his reaction to what Islamabad was doing to Balochistan. The pressure he felt came from the increased aggression of state policy, the bringing back of the sub-tribes he had driven out of the Bugti territory and the bombing of his residence complex. But his decision to go down fighting has transformed his death into martyrdom to the cause of the Baloch. His two grandsons have died with him; so have a number of Marri tribesmen, including possibly a son of Khair Bux Marri, the most intransigent of the sardari triumvirate. This will inspire many youngsters among the new generation of Baloch to seek revenge. Sardar Ataullah Khan Mengal has already reacted in such terms. In Quetta, mobs have come out and damaged public property. But Balochistan is not a place for mass demonstrations; it is a territory of acts of revenge. How will the government tackle the Baloch backlash? Political support to the Musharraf establishment and the PMLQ government is at its lowest ebb. Balochistan will be ready to ignite at any time in the future. A pall of gloom has descended over Pakistan that will not lift in a hurry. This is the biggest blunder committed by the military since the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 21:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
Indian reactions to the detention by Dutch authorities of 12 Muslims from Mumbai last week would be amusing if they did not provide evidence that we continue to be in denial about the transformation of ordinary, supposedly moderate Indian Muslims. Instead of being upset that Indian garment exporters should have disobeyed flight attendants, the media spoke almost in one voice to condemn racial profiling.
Television channels competed to show us family members who complained that the detained men were good, god-fearing businessmen. Nek, namazi were the words used. Alas, so is Osama bin Laden. He fights us infidels only because he believes that Allah has sent him to Earth to either turn us into believers or finish us off. If you watched Christiane Amanpours documentary on CNN last Thursday you would have seen that both Osama and his lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, repeatedly warn the West that it can save itself only by converting voluntarily to Islam. This is what the jehad is about, and its warriors are all nek, namazi in the eyes of believing Muslims.
Europe has just begun to wake up to the reality that it is already almost Eurabia. European countries have allowed Muslim immigration in such large numbers that, according to some estimates, in a few years every fifth or sixth person in Western Europe will be Muslim. It is hard to find a European city that does not have several mosques. It is to these mosques that many nek, namazi Muslims flock daily to hear their Imams tell them to resist the corrupt, decadent culture of the West and instead remain true to the values and lifestyle given to them by the Quran. It is from these mosques that they hear that there is only one true religion, Islam, and only one true Prophet, Mohammed.
No room for discussion or compromise. It is in these mosques that Londons suicide bombers (manque) found the inspiration to blow up transatlantic airliners. And, what were they going to use? Liquid explosives and mobile phones and iPods as detonators. Is it surprising that airline marshals on the Northwest flight to Mumbai should have panicked when they saw a group of Muslims refusing to turn off their mobile phones?
By the time you read this the garment exporters will be reunited with their families, but our Islamist problem will continue and grow unless we confront the truth that Indian Muslims have changed in recent years. Our political leaders and we of the ultra-liberal media refused to accept that we have an Islamist problem till the train bombers in Mumbai turned out to be Indian and not Pakistani. We have still not registered how serious the problem is or we would not have allowed the recent controversy over Vande Mataram. Muslim preachers like the rabid Imam of Delhis Jama Masjid have used nationwide television to stir Muslims up against a song that is patriotic and not religious. The word vande does not necessarily mean to pray, it can also mean to pay tribute, which is what the song does. After A R Rahman turned it into a wonderful, modern song, you would have thought that Muslim objections to singing it would have died, but they have not. So the Minister of Human Resource Development had to declare that Muslim schoolchildren did not have to sing it when we celebrate its centenary next month.
This is not the only thing that Muslims are encouraged by myopic leaders to use as a point of difference between us and them. They are also encouraged these days to veil their women and send their children to madarsas whose mindset and curriculum has not changed in 1400 years. They are being encouraged to think of themselves as part of the larger brotherhood of Islam which, they are told, is in grave danger from crusaders, Jews and us idol-worshippers. So from Kashmir to Kanyakumari these days you meet ordinary, nek, namazi Muslims who have started looking towards Arabia for their cultural roots. This is not just silly but sad because in doing this they are gradually forgetting the richness of our own culture and their immense contribution to it.
They forget that it was possible more than a hundred years ago for Ghalib to write, Khuda key vaastey purdah na Kaabey sey utha, zahid, kaheen aisa na ho yaan (yahaan) bhi yahi kaafir sanam nikley. (For Khudas sake, priest, do not lift the veil that hides the Kaaba, be careful that you do not find there this same Heathen God). Would any Indian Muslim poet dare write this today?
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 12:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
John, as you rightly point out, India has been dealing with the Muzzies for centuries. Periodic uprisings by Muzzies have caused much death and destruction there. India has contended for hundreds of years with what Israel only now (50 years) faces. Frankly, I'm surprised, though I'm not familair with India at all, that India did not demand that all Muzzies leave their territory once Pakland became a reality. That way, you would know the locus of the target. This way, they are still among you causing trouble daily and scheming at all times on the newest ways to overthrow your government. At least, I suppose Indians can look on this worldwide uprising of the ummah, and say, we could have told you what to expect.
#4
If it wasn't for Gandhi's candyland fantasy view
Actually the great majority of Indian leaders were like minded... Nehru, Patel, Azad.. all wanted a secular state, all wanted muslims to stay.
Even today, even someone like LK Advani, who some have written as being "more right wing than Genghis Khan", even Advani talks wistfully of his days in Karachi. Even he would not expel muslims.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
On the bus from Delhi to Lahore early this year, I chatted with an elderly Muslim man from Delhi who was travelling to Pakistan to visit his relatives. He identified himself as a socialist. I dont want to go to Lahore but my wife insists I should, he said to me frankly. I get so bored there. I can hardly find any like-minded people to talk to, he went on. Youll soon discover, he warned me, that the level of intellectual discourse is so limited in Pakistan. Quite awful actually.
I thought the man was exaggerating, but I was soon to discover that he was not entirely wrong.
In my interactions with a wide cross-section of people in various places that I visited in Pakistan during my one-month visit I was shocked at the pathetic state of intellectual discourse that seemed to pervade the country, which I often unconsciously contrasted with the situation in India. There are, I discovered, less than half a dozen good bookshops in the whole of Lahore, once considered to be the intellectual capital of India, that stock books in English. The vast majority of these books are, curiously enough, published in India, a few in the West and the rest, a very small proportion, are local Pakistani publications. Books on Pakistani society, based on empirical realities, are almost impossible to find, although the number of titles on the so-called two-nation theory and the history of the Muslim League, as well as on elite politics in Pakistan, run into the hundreds. So do books on Jinnah and Iqbal, the two major ideological heroes of Pakistan, after whom a vast number of public institutions throughout the country are named. As a Lahori friend of mine quipped, The intellectual scene in Pakistan is so bad that our rulers think we have almost no one else to name our institutions after.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 10:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Punjab University in Lahore, the largest university in the country, I discovered, does not possess a single bookshop
But it has 3 mosques on the campus. No wonder they need Cuban scholarships.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I could not help contrast this to what I had been reared on in the five years that I spent at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, where almost every day we were treated to a talk or a seminar by intellectuals, politicians, journalists and social activists on a whole range of pressing social issues
In other words the author was himself brainwashed for 5 years.
JNU faculty is dominated by marxists. Many of the maoists in Nepal are graduates.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What we have here is a marxist trying to make commmon cause with islamists and being terribly disappointed when the reality of islamist life hits him in the face.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Intellectual Discourse in Pakistan"
What intellectual discourse?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/27/2006 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The author is right for all the wrong reasons, as usual when some communist writes something interesting. Stopped clocks and all that.
Fixed beliefs have been hammered into the heads of our children, leaving them unable to differentiate between fact and fiction
As a loving and caring father you always strive to send your child to a good school. You see to it that he remains healthy in his body and soul. He speaks the truth. His attitude towards the world is positive. You aim at bringing him up as a bright young man imbued with courage and an ability to face the ordeals in life with fortitude. No father would desire his son to succumb to falsehood. He would like him to cultivate an intellect to distinguish between what is the truth and what is not the truth.
You would hardly come across a father who stops his son from speaking the truth. You would hardly come across a father who desires to see his son grow into a confused and a bewildered person. A misguided child on attaining manhood and maturity is often left baffled in life when he stands face-to-face with reality. As a reaction he revolts against his family, his teachers and society for having lied to him, and keeping him perpetually misdirected and ignorant.
Information technology has hardly left anything in ambiguity. Sooner or later a misguided child is bound to come in contact with truthfulness. He is bound to discover that the entire world fourteen hundred years ago was not as dark as his teachers and the parents had painted for him. The apostles and the saints, wise and virtuous like Moses, Abraham, Hammurabi, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rama, Krishna, Gotama Buddha and Jesus Christ, had already graced the world with the message of love, piety and tolerance. Instead of telling our children that the entire world was wrapped in darkness, the teachers should plainly tell the students that the Arab peninsula was surrounded by darkness and barbarity. The teachers should not confine our children to the ancient Arab civilization. They must inform them about the Greek, Indian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, and other earlier civilization.
Our young generations hardly know that the Muslims had held sway over Spain for a much longer time than their domination over India. The teachers and the textbooks do not divulge the history of fierce resistance the Muslims had to face from the Spaniards. They do not tell the tales of ignominious exit of Muslims from Spain. Our textbooks have not been specially designed to create hatred for Spain and Spaniards in the mind of our children. But when it comes to India, the teachers and the textbooks inject hatred for India and Hindus in the mind of our children. Many young men interpret Two Nation Theory as acute dislike for Hindus. It is horrendous.
Our succeeding generations since 1947 have been brought up on hate-India syndrome. Hatred ignites a fire that consumes you from within. It leaves you burnt up, empty and hollow. Purely from an academic point of view, let us look at the fixed beliefs that have been hammered in the head of our children.
Myth of sacrifice: The children of today and of yesteryears, now in their forties, fifties and sixties religiously believe that Pakistan was created after great sacrifices. It is a totally an incorrect and misleading impression. Nowhere in the entire documented record of Pakistan Movement is implied that unless a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand Muslims offered their neck at the guillotine, Pakistan will not come into being. However, in the wake of partitioning of India, the world saw one of the most horrifying riots in the history of mankind in which hundreds of thousands of men, women and children were butchered in the Subcontinent. Unfortunately, dying in riots hardly qualifies to be accredited as qurbani (sacrifice).
The Hindus mercilessly killed the Muslims: Our children have been systematically brainwashed. They believe that in the aftermath of the partitioning of India, the Hindus went on a killing spree of the Muslims.
It is a very bad example of the poisoning of the mind of our children by giving them a one-sided story. In the ensuing riots, both the Hindus (including Sikhs) and the Muslims were butchered. Like Muslim women, countless Hindu and Sikh women were abducted, raped and then were either slaughtered or converted to Islam. I would recommend to my young readers to go through at least two books to capture the feel of the terrifying year of 1947. One book is, A Train to Pakistan, by Khushwant Singh, and the second book is Ghaddar by Kirshin Chandar. The year 1947 augmented an extremely tragic chapter in human history. It should not be exploited to anyones gain or glory, or for creating hatred for Hindus or for the Muslims.
Crux of Two Nation Theory: I am afraid our mutilated Constitution refrains us from the analysis of Two Nation Theory, the basis for the creation of Pakistan. We will keep a safe distance from it in the concluding paragraph.
Our children have been convinced that the Hindus and the Muslims are different people. Their religion, their culture, their traditions and their festivals are different. Therefore it was not possible for the two communities to live together. Thus, a separate homeland was essential for the Muslims of the subcontinent.
It is playing havoc with our children. How are we to satisfy a child if he found out that far more Muslims live in India than in Pakistan! What would be our answer if a child asked, The Christians and the Muslims too are two different people. Why didnt they launch a movement for the separate homeland for the Muslims of Spain instead of an unceremonious exodus?
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 09:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Our children have been convinced that the Hindus and the Muslims are different people. Their religion, their culture, their traditions and their festivals are different. Therefore it was not possible for the two communities to live together. Thus, a separate homeland was essential for the Muslims of the subcontinent.
The big lie. Necessary to justify partition and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
But john, would I be correct in thinking that Pakland was not nearly enough, and that the sons of Allan look covetously at the entire subcontinent and plot for the day they may claim India too?
#3
J.N. Dixit, the Indian National Security Advisor wrote of going to dinner at the home of some Pakistani friends during his stint as Ambassador to Pakistan. While he and his wife waited for dinner to be served, a young child entered the room. Her parents told her that "uncle and aunty are from India".
The little girl got immensely excited and began "dancing around them gaily, singing Hindu Kutta, Hindu Kutta, Hindu Kutta much to the embarrassment of her parents."
(Hindu Kutta = Hindu Dog)
Dixit pointed out that while Indian textbooks bent over backwards to encourage secularism and tolerance of minorities (India having the second largest population of muslims in the world), Pakistan was bringing up its children to hate India and Indians. The trouble with the peaceniks, he said, with their Pollyanna approach to foreign policy, is that they forgot that the mindsets were not the same on both sides of the border.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
sons of Allan look covetously at the entire subcontinent and plot for the day they may claim India too?
Indeed.. the most rabid of the islamists actually opposed partition. They saw it as hindering the triumph of islam. The Ulema of the Jammat Islamii called Pakistan "the work of the devil".
Imam Sayyid Maududi.. whose writings (along with Sayyid Qutb) provide the intellectual foundation for islamo-fascism opposed Pakistan. Only afterwards did he migrate, finding fertile soil there to inculcate his poison.
Incidently, in one of the early Osama videos, where OBL's Kalasknikov is propped up against a bookcase, the books of Maududi and Qubt are prominent.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
India was a peaceful home to Hindus a thousand years ago until Mooselimbs invaded and conquered and slaughtered. They were only overturned by the armies of Genhis Khan who basically slaughtered all Mooselimb men, women, and children they could find. Hindus were able to regain prominence, but did not follow thru and exterminate the remaining Mooselimbs. Like the rat pack they are, they have bred their way back to near prominence again. They intend to fully recover "their" territory, the entire subcontinent. I really don't know how the Hindus have accomodated this horde over the centuries. Nothing but ongoing misery from these subhuman nihlists.
#6
Actually the descendents of Genghis, when they invaded India were already muslim. They spread Islam further.
The Mughal Emperors styled themselves "the house of Timur" - Timur or Tamerlane was a direct descendent of Genghis Khan.
The Rajput kings, the Marathas and the Sikhs all fought muslim rule.
Some historians speculate that their reconquest would have succeeeded, driving islam out, but for the arrival of the British East India compnay and the Raj.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The pre-Moghul Hindus weren't exactly lovers of peace and harmony, despite a religion that calls for falling in caste in the next reincarnation for acts of violence or harm. As I recall, the caste immediately below that of the Brahmin priests is that of the warriors, who generally didn't sit in full lotus meditating on the oneness of all.
The simple back-and-forth of war can create the illusion that both sides have a legitimate point to make even when this is not so, and it is clear that Hezbollah's cause has greatly benefited from war's "equalizing" effect. This Shiite militia seems to have known that merely fighting Israel would gain legitimacy for its cause. A cease-fire would make it a "partner" in peace. The Goliath Israeli military would make it a David whose passion proved the truth of its cause. But amid all the drama of this war there has been very little talk of exactly what Hezbollah's cause is.
And, of course, it is not just Hezbollah's cause. There is Hamas, one more in a family of politicized terrorist groups spread across the Muslim world. Beyond these more conventional groups there is the free-floating and world-wide terrorism of groups like al Qaeda. In Europe, there are cells of self-invented middle-class terrorists living modern lives by day and plotting attacks on modernity by night. And around these cells there is often a nourishing atmosphere of fellow traveling outside these cells, too -- the muslim street, both in the east and west. Then there are the radical nation-states in league with terrorism, Iran and Syria most prominent among them. From nations on the verge of nuclear weapons to isolated individuals--take the recent Seattle shootings--Islamic militancy grounded in hatred of Israel and America has become the Muslim world's most animating idea. Why?
I don't believe it is because of the reasons usually cited--Israeli and American "outrages." No doubt Israel and America have made mistakes in the Middle East. Certainly, Israel was born at the price of considerable dislocation and suffering on the part of the Palestinians. And yes, there will never be a satisfying answer for this. Yet every Israeli land-for-peace gesture has been met with a return volley of suicide bombers and rockets. Palestinians have balked every time their longed-for nationhood has come within grasp. They have seemed to prefer the aggrieved dignity of their resentments to the challenges of nationhood. And Hezbollah launched the current war from territory Israel had relinquished six years earlier.
If this war makes anything clear, it is that Israel can do nothing to appease the Muslim animus against her. And now much of the West is in a similar position, living in a state of ever-heightening security against the constant threat of violence from Islamic extremists. So here, from the Muslim world, comes an unappeasable hatred that seems to exist for its own sake, a hatred with very little actual reference to those it claims to hate. Even the fighting of Islamic terrorist groups is oddly self-referential, fighting not for territory or treasure but for the fighting itself. Standing today in the rubble of Lebanon, having not taken a single inch of Israeli territory, Hezbollah claims a galvanizing victory.
All this follows the familiar pattern of a very old vice: anti-Semitism. The anti-Semite is always drawn to the hatred of Jews by his own unacknowledged inadequacy. As Sartre says in his great essay on the subject, the anti-Semite "is a man who is afraid. Not of Jews of course, but of himself." By hating Jews, he asserts that his own group represents the kind of human being that God truly wants. His group is God's archetype, the only authentic humanity, already complete and superior. No striving or self-reflection is necessary. If Jews are superior in some ways, it is only out of their alienated striving, their exile from God's grace. For the anti-Semite, hating and fighting Jews is both self-affirmation and a way of doing God's work.
So the anti-Semite comes to a chilling place: He easily joins himself to evil in order to serve God. Fighting and even killing Jews brings the world closer to God's intended human hierarchy. For Nazis, the "final solution" was an act of self-realization and a fulfillment of God's will. At the center of today's militant Islamic identity there is a passion to annihilate rather than contain Israel. And today this identity applies the anti-Semitic model of hatred to a vastly larger group--the infidel. If the infidel is not yet the object of that pristine hatred reserved for Jews, he is not far behind. Bombings in London, Madrid and Mumbai; riots in Paris; murders in Amsterdam; and of course 9/11--all these follow the formula of anti-Semitism: murder of a hated enemy as self-realization and service to God.
Hatred and murder are self-realization because they impart grandeur to Islamic extremists--the sense of being God's chosen warrior in God's great cause. Hatred delivers the extremist to a greatness that compensates for his ineffectuality in the world. Jews and infidels are irrelevant except that they offer occasion to hate and, thus, to experience grandiosity. This is why Hezbollah--Party of God--can take no territory and still claim to have won. The grandiosity is in the hating and fighting, not the victory.
And death--both homicide and suicide--is the extremist's great obsession because its finality makes the grandiosity "real." If I am not afraid to kill and die, then I am larger than life. Certainly I am larger than the puny Westerners who are reduced to decadence by their love of life. So my hatred and my disregard of death, my knowledge that life is trivial, deliver me to a human grandeur beyond the reach of the West. After the Madrid bombings a spokesman for al Qaeda left a message: "You love life, and we love death." The horror is that greatness is tied to death rather than to achievement in life.
The West is stymied by this extremism because it is used to enemies that want to live. In Vietnam, America fought one whose communism was driven by an underlying nationalism, the desire to live free of the West. Whatever one may think of this, here was an enemy that truly wanted to live, that insisted on territory and sovereignty. But Osama bin Laden fights only to achieve a death that will enshrine him as a figure of awe. The gift he wants to leave his people is not freedom or even justice; it is consolation.
White guilt in the West--especially in Europe and on the American left--confuses all this by seeing Islamic extremism as a response to oppression. The West is so terrified of being charged with its old sins of racism, imperialism and colonialism that it makes oppression an automatic prism on the non-Western world, a politeness. But Islamic extremists don't hate the West because they are oppressed by it. They hate it precisely because the end of oppression and colonialism--not their continuance--forced the Muslim world to compete with the West. Less oppression, not more, opened this world to the sense of defeat that turned into extremism.
But the international left is in its own contest with American exceptionalism. It keeps charging Israel and America with oppression hoping to mute American power. And this works in today's world because the oppression script is so familiar and because American power cringes when labeled with sins of the white Western past. Yet whenever the left does this, it makes room for extremism by lending legitimacy to its claim of oppression. And Israel can never use its military fire power without being labeled an oppressor--which brings legitimacy to the enemies she fights. Israel roars; much of Europe supports Hezbollah.
Over and over, white guilt turns the disparity in development between Israel and her neighbors into a case of Western bigotry. This despite the fact that Islamic extremism is the most explicit and dangerous expression of human bigotry since the Nazi era. Israel's historical contradiction, her torture, is to be a Western nation whose efforts to survive trap her in the moral mazes of white guilt. Its national defense will forever be white aggression.
But white guilt's most dangerous suppression is to keep from discussion the most conspicuous reality in the Middle East: that the Islamic world long ago fell out of history. Islamic extremism is the saber-rattling of an inferiority complex. America has done a good thing in launching democracy as a new ideal in this region. Here is the possibility--if still quite remote--for the Islamic world to seek power through contribution rather than through menace.
Mr. Steele, research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, is the author of "White Guilt" (HarperCollins, 2006)
#1
Thanks Dan. Good stuff and to the point. Mr. Steele analyses the problem correctly.His solution of democracy is off the mark. Democracy cannot be forced. It must be craved. democracy will always be anathema to the Death Cult. the way to deal with the Death cult is to extinguish it.
#2
A revised version of Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" might apply here. The Industrial Revolution did begin in the Protestant majority states for a reason.
Not real, of course.
Just hours after Iran opened a new plant capable of making plutonium for peaceful purposes, U.S. President George Bush assured his Iranian counterpart that any B-2 bombers that appear over Tehran in the near future would also serve peaceful purposes.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cut the ribbon on the new heavy-water nuclear plant Saturday as part of a month-long Iranian tribute to the effectiveness of the United Nations.
Mr. Bush hailed Irans transparent diplomacy and said, I called President Ahmadinejad today to congratulate him, and I told him that if he happens to notice one of them Stealth bombers going over his town at about 600 miles per hour, he can be assured that the pilot has only the best intentions in his heart for world peace.
Theres nothing like the B-2 when it comes to giving peace a chance, Mr. Bush added.
By Dr. Abd el-Aziz Jar-Allah el-Jar Allah
Saudi Arabia - Al-Riyadh - Original Article (Arabic)
Translated by Jonathan Levine
"The (Saudi) Kingdom is on its guard against those who throw the accusation of terrorism or fascism at Muslims without considering the glorious history of Islamic civilization that stands against the labels being hurled at Islam today, such as fascism, which itself is, primarily, a Western cultural product." This is the Kingdoms reply, which was published by local newspapers last Tuesday in response to portrayal of Islam as fascist by the American administration, after the foiled use of aircraft in a terrorist act.
President Bush used the expression "Islamo-fascism," and American media has tried to switch around the phrase to read "fascist Islamists." Since September 11, the American administration has focused on blaming everything on Islam, both as a religion and as an ideology, rather than a particular sect of Muslims similarly in Britain, which while disingenuously toying with expressions such as "religious tolerance," "mutual interest," and "religious co-existence," and so on, in reality it behaves completely opposite of this, agitating against Islam and coming to Americas defense by openly opposing Islam as a religion and an ideology, rather than simply taking action against Muslims who are terrorists
From the very beginning, the [Saudi] Kingdom has striven to differentiate between Islam as a religion and the acts perpetrated by the impetuous, revolutionary anti-colonialism of some Muslims. The Kingdom believes it is its duty to correct the erroneous conceptions of Islam held by some Westerners and, in particular, the American administration, which has begun failing to differentiate between Islam and the behavior of certain Muslims. Rather, the American administration has proceeded to link the behavior of radical individuals or groups to the religion and the doctrine of Islam, and is now trying to market this idea to subject Islam and Muslims to global criticism, perpetual sanctions, and the big stick of the United States, the Atlantic alliance and U.N. resolutions.
The West still deals with Arabs and the Islamic world with the mindset of a colonizer with guardianship over Arab land for if we conclude that America simply looks upon the [Arab or Persian] Gulf and Iraq as oil fields with abundant natural resources, then how to explain Washington's attention to Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Somalia, and Sudan, for are these producers of petroleum or other strategic economic commodities? Unfortunately, the attitude of the Western colonizer toward the Arab world remains, and this is what drives U.S. behavior; this is what has motivated America and Britain into a headlong rush to the East
I would not say that this is merely a religious war; in actuality, it is a colonial war and struggle, since it was Britain and France that divided up the Arabs like they were a piece of cheese after the two world wars into triangles and squares, states, pseudo-states and regions. But this division never appealed to America. Not satisfied by the European cheese-cutting of the Arab east and looking down at the Arab world from the gates of Israel and now from the gates of Iraq - and perhaps soon from Sudan and Somalia America wants to enter the cheese kitchen by herself to redraw borders into new triangles and squares. It seeks a country overlooking the Mediterranean, a second on the Atlantic Ocean, a third on the boundaries of the Red Sea, a fourth state on the waters of the Gulf, and a fifth country, landlocked and desert-like, such that its waters are neither from a sea or river but only shallow salt lakes and winding dry river beds RealVideo [SEE MAP, left]. And to enable it to do its deed and cut up the cheese, the cake, and the pies, it is issuing a mighty attack against the Islamic religion and faith, by characterizing it as fascistic, terrorist and criminal, and the people that practice this religion as killers and criminals.
All Islamic peoples must awaken to action in partnership with the Kingdom to defeat the idea of "fascist Islam," circulated politically and through the media by America and when we say that Islamic peoples, governments and institutions must confront these declarations, we mean that these must oppose American attempts to make Islam out as the enemy of non-Muslims and mobilize countries against Islam and its children.
Posted by: john ||
08/27/2006 20:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Muslims must unite against fascist Muslims, first.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2006 21:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
this POS totally overlooks the Arab penchant for screwing themselves over. I think it'll reach critical mass someday, and open-season will be declared on Islamists and their families worldwide. Not a pretty picture
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2006 21:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The only thing original islam can claim credit for is the homicide bomber.
If only the Muslims in Europe -- with their hearts focused on the Islamic world and their carry-on liquids poised for destruction in the West -- could behave like the well-educated, secular and Americanizing Muslims in the United States, no one would have to worry.
So runs the comforting media narrative that has developed around the approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States, who are often portrayed as well-assimilated and willing to leave their religion and culture behind in pursuit of American values and lifestyle. But over the past two years, I have traveled the country, visiting mosques, interviewing Muslim leaders and speaking to Muslim youths in universities and Islamic centers from New York to Michigan to California -- and I have encountered a different truth. I found few signs of London-style radicalism among Muslims in the United States. At the same time, the real story of American Muslims is one of accelerating alienation from the mainstream of U.S. life, with Muslims in this country choosing their Islamic identity over their American one.
A new generation of American Muslims -- living in the shadow of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- is becoming more religious. They are more likely to take comfort in their own communities, and less likely to embrace the nation's fabled melting pot of shared values and common culture.
#3
Muzzie behavior is the same everywhere. They have too small a base here YET. Look to Dearborn where they are a concentrated population mass. They already demand their own rules. They have already cowtowed that imbecile Dingell. We need to immediately stop any further entry of Mooselimbs into the US. Then, we need to closely monitor and deport any of the ones here who cause any problems at all. For me, this would be marching in our streets carrying Hezbollock flags. That group should ahve been surrounded and deported.
#5
"The men and women I spoke to -- all mosque-goers, most born in the United States to immigrants -- include students, activists, imams and everyday working Muslims. Almost without exception, they recall feeling under siege after Sept. 11, with FBI agents raiding their mosques and homes, neighbors eyeing them suspiciously and television programs portraying Muslims as the new enemies of the West.
Such feelings led them, they say, to adopt Islamic symbols -- the hijab , or head covering, for women and the kufi , or cap, for men -- as a defense mechanism. Many, such as Rehan, whom I met at a madrassa (religious school) in California with her husband, Ramy, also felt compelled to deepen their faith."
Good grief. What complete utter nonsense. Lessee...
"I feel under seige so I think I'll set myself apart, accentuate my Muslimness, choose backward misogynistic misanthropic madrassah training over a liberal education, make myself clearly identifiable with the perps, and prove I don't belong here by giving my allegiance to the shithole ideology I dragged in with me."
Yeah, that makes perfect Muzzy Sense. Go piss up a rope, puddlehead.
#6
TU6270, Yep, muslim immigration is a clusterfuck in progress. Unfortunately things will have to get a lot worse before anyone is prepared to deal with the problem.
#8
The problem with the title of this article is that I don't think Muslims in the US are all that assimilated. Sure, some are. But probably 90% aren't.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/27/2006 8:14 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As long as they cannot leave i-slam, there is no real assimilation possible but a sort of make belief assumption.
You'll never have such a problem with any other immigrants outside this uncompromisingly cultish creed on the matter of assimilation because their credos don't teach eternal animus with yours in such a complete manner as i-slam - not even stale commies can't change.
#10
Madrasas bring trouble. In 2001, there was only 1 Madrasa in Canada and it brought trouble. On Jan. 5, 2002, the National Post (Toronto) reports that the "mufti sahib" of the "Islamic Center of Ajax" was charged after sexually assaulting boys. Not in my neighborhood please.
#14
There's six million Muslims now? That's amazing since according to the census bureau, there were only 1.104 M out of an adult population of 207.980 M adults in the USA in 2001. This is obviously Islamist propaganda.
#15
The fact that they live by the creed of pursuing demographic warfare(breeding like rats lemmings on the quiet) is clearly suggestive of the desire to dominate and NOT assimilate in any Western democratic host countries. Remember the famous words of Ibrahim Hooper, expressing this fact? Wanna take all mundane power and influence, not share....all true to form and tradition of a devious intent.
#17
"The fact that they live by the creed of pursuing demographic warfare is clearly suggestive of the desire to dominate and NOT assimilate in any Western democratic host countries."
Demographic warfare is no joke. They will use our freedoms as a cover to protect their ultimate jihadi aims. Remember about a year ago when there were articles here about Moslems building Moslem communities within America--with Moslem schools, mosques, community centers, etc.? It is an invasion. And the jihadiis will seek to convert the "Americanized" moslems who are already here to beef up the "army."
#18
Here's CAIR's "logic" for 6 million U.S. Muslims:
"Researchers called the nation's 1,209 known mosques and interviewed leaders at 416 of them. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of people involved in their mosque in any way. The average response was 1,625 participants. Multiplying that figure by the 1,209 mosques, lead researcher Ihsan Bagby determined there were two million 'mosqued Muslims' in the United States.
"Bagby, a professor of international relations at Shaw University in Raleigh, N.C., multiplied that number by three to account for people who identify themselves as Muslims but might not participate in mosque activities. He calls this multiplier an educated guess based on years of observation of the Islamic community."
At the NASCAR race at Bristol, there was 160,000 fans in attendance, in a town with a population of 25,000. Using Cair's method, I estimate that 650% of Americans are Nascar fans, roughly 1.4 billion Americans. See? It does work
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2006 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Personally, I'm not too worried about "Muslims" that don't participate in mosque activities. They're about as dangerous as Democrats who don't vote.
Not all terror is mosque based. Many US terrorists have been associated with the Muslim Students Association, which runs Friday Prayer/jihad incitement at public expense in most US colleges and universities. Also, Internet incitement enables creation of terror cells, without directly advocating terror. In his Book of Jihad, Averroes distinguished front line fighting from financing it from a home base. Muslims who intentionally finance terror, by sending money to jihad fronts, are as guilty of terror as those who carry it out. Denial and persecution BS are CAIR weapons of war.
#26
It's absolutely a one way street affair in ALL matters with 'em, heh.
And it's up to us to make sure that one way street leads straight to hell.
Personally, I'm not too worried about "Muslims" that don't participate in mosque activities.
You'd better be, Darrell. In many locations where there are no mosques, people set up "home mosques". This has proven to be a definite source of trouble in that radicalized Muslim groups who shun publicity will avoid a mosque with Moderate doctrine so as not to attract notice.
Do you think that all members of the SDS or ELF vote?
#28
#7 Why am I not surprised that America's first madrassah is in San Francisco?
Posted by Swamp Blondie
Swamp Blondie: San Francisco is one large Madrassah! Look for example, this clown lives there! In his recent appearance on the Laura Ingram show, the clown advocated that the US should close all its overseas bases.
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.
