Nicolas Sarkozy made headlines this week by telling his diplomatic corps that "an Iran with nuclear weapons is for me unacceptable." But the French President did more in his speech than name the gravest current threat to global security, itself a feat of clear thinking. He also signaled that France means to be something more on the international scene than an anti-American nuisance player.
That's worth applauding at a time when the conventional wisdom says the next U.S. President will have to burnish America's supposedly tarnished reputation by making various policy amends. In Germany, under the conservative leadership of Angela Merkel, foreign policy views have been moving closer to the Bush Administration's, not further away, while new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made clear he will not depart significantly from the pro-American course set by Tony Blair.
But it is Mr. Sarkozy who, true to his reputation, has been the boldest in stepping up to his global responsibilities. On Afghanistan, he told the assembled diplomats, "the duty of the Atlantic Alliance as well as that of France," is to "increase efforts." He then announced he would be sending additional trainers to assist the Afghan Army. On Israel, he said he "would never budge" on its security. He warned about Russia, which "imposes its return on the world scene by playing its assets with a certain brutality," and he cautioned against China, which pursues "its insatiable search for raw materials as a strategy of control, particularly in Africa."
It's hard to imagine Jacques Chirac, Mr. Sarkozy's predecessor, speaking this way. (Mr. Sarkozy has also reportedly described French diplomats as "cowards" and proposed "[getting] rid of the Quai d'Orsay." Imagine the media uproar if President Bush mused about doing the same to Foggy Bottom?) No less a departure from past practices at the Élysée Palace is his stance on Iran. In January, Mr. Chirac had mused that an Iranian bomb would "not be very dangerous." Mr. Sarkozy, by contrast, has previously insisted on the need to "leave all options open" when dealing with Iran's nuclear programs.
In his speech this week to the diplomats, Mr. Sarkozy warned of the need for tough diplomacy, including "growing sanctions," to avoid the "catastrophic alternative: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran." That doesn't sound far from Senator John McCain's useful formulation that "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option; that is a nuclear-armed Iran." The important point is that Mr. Sarkozy has put on record that he won't let Iran develop a bomb under cover of feckless Western diplomacy.
One test of his resolve will be how much France assists the Bush Administration as it seeks to round up votes in the U.N. Security Council for a third round of sanctions on Iran next month. The Administration has had a hard time moving the diplomacy beyond symbolism in part because of the economic ties that other permanent members of the Council, including France, have with the Islamic Republic. The French say they've already pulled out some of their investments in the country, and in recent months France, Germany and other European countries have in fact cut back their export credits to Iran.
Mr. Sarkozy could now demonstrate real seriousness by forcing French energy giant Total from its $2 billion investment in the huge South Pars natural gas project. A corruption probe into the decade-old project could give him the leverage to do so, as could rising pressure in the U.S. Congress to start enforcing sanctions against companies that do business with rogue regimes.
Whatever Mr. Sarkozy does, however, he has plainly set a new tone for French foreign policy. That's not to say we agree with him on every point: He reiterated France's opposition to the war in Iraq and called for a "horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Yet even that puts him well to the right of every U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate. And he warned against the "risks of an antagonistic multipolar world," the very world Mr. Chirac seemed to strive for by opposing the U.S. at every turn.
In a speech last year in New York, Mr. Sarkozy noted that "I've always favored modest effectiveness over sterile grandiloquence. And I don't want to see an arrogant France with a diminished presence." With his remarks Monday, Mr. Sarkozy has given the best evidence to date that his presidency will attempt to enhance French influence not by opposing the U.S. but by working with it.
#1
And I don't want to see an arrogant France with a diminished presence
Excellent news Sarko! Now back it up with "A Little Less Talk and A Lot More Action!" Send us the 1st REP to replace the doubting Thomas tea sippers down south in Basra.
#3
Sarkozy has seen the increasing fanaticism of his imported and home-grown Islamist and knows that France cannot stand by idly and watch their culture go down the proverbial drain. He is not an appeaser as Chirac was. He knows from history that that doesn't work. Expect to see more intense internal security performance and more support both political and militarily but don't be surprised that he will suffer internally from all the Mitterand and Chirac holdovers in the Secuite and Military. Much like how the State and CIA have back-stabbed Bush and therefore the country.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/29/2007 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Ima thinking French national sweepstakes for southern Med vacations. Every muslim a winner.
Posted by: ed ||
08/29/2007 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
Frontpage Interview's guest today is Robert Spencer.
Spencer: For six years now, almost invariably when I would talk about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, people would respond by referring to violence in the Bible and the sins of Christianity. Over time I came to see that the all-pervasive sense of guilt and self-hatred that blankets the West in this age of the dominance of multiculturalism is the single greatest obstacle keeping us from meeting the ideological challenge that the jihadists present. Insofar as Westerners are ashamed of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and so many are, they will not defend it.
This is not a matter of faith. Whether or not one is Jewish or Christian, Judeo-Christian civilization has given the world numerous ideas of human rights that the jihadists directly challenge: freedom of conscience, the equality of dignity of men and women, equality of rights before the law for all, and more. Islamic Sharia offers a radically different model of society. We in the West need to recognize this and stand up for our own civilization, culture, and heritage. If we are too paralyzed by guilt and consumed with self-hatred to defend our own civilization, we certainly won't keep it.
FP: Ok, so let's build on these themes. Can you talk a bit about why the lib-Left wages war on Christianity and keeps quiet about Islam? This is a pathology in the context of Islamic jihadists being the real threat to free societies.
Spencer: Well, Jamie, this phenomenon is so all-pervasive that I thought it deserved book-length treatment. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said it well to a Leftist interviewer in Canada a few weeks ago: "You grew up with freedom, and so you think you can spit on freedom." They take it for granted, without realizing how severely it is imperilled. Would Leftists prefer to live in an Islamic society rather than in one that is or was Judeo-Christian? If they would, they will be, eventually, quite unpleasantly surprised: they will discover that many of the liberties they enjoyed were made possible by core assumptions of the Judeo-Christian civilization they helped to subvert, and that those liberties are not upheld under Islamic law.
FP: I disagree with you in the sense that I think that the Left realizes very well how severely imperilled our society is in the face of radical Islam. Just like in the days of communism, the Left venerates tyranny and yearns for submission under it. The Left knows exactly what it is doing when abetting and supporting an entity that it knows it itself will be consumed by. There is a logic to why leftist intellectuals support societies that butcher intellectuals, why leftist feminists support societies that mutilate women and why leftist homosexuals and minorities worship societies that barbarize homosexuals and minorities. It's a death wish based on self-loathing. But perhaps this deeper discussion between us belongs in another forum.
Let's continue: in what ways is Christianity a religion of peace and Islam not a religion of peace?
Spencer: In terms of your disagreement with me, I think you have a fascinating thesis, and I think it is well worth exploring. It is noteworthy, as you yourself have pointed out elsewhere, that both the Left and the jihadists envision an earthly utopia enforced by terror: the Left has demonstrated this every time it has gained power, and Sharia is a recipe for a totalitarian reign of terror in the name of justice and right, as the Taliban showed. I look forward to discussing this further with you and getting your thoughts on this.
So getting back to Christianity and Islam: Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. This is found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as in Islamic jurisprudence. Many like to point to violent passages in the Bible as an alleged equivalent to this, but actually the Bible contains no open-ended, universal command for believers to wage war against unbelievers, as does the Qur'an (9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193, etc.). The violent passages in the Bible are also spiritualized by most exegetes, while mainstream Muslim commentators going back to Muhammad's first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, and including many modern authorities (such as Imran Ahsen Khan Nyazee of the International Islamic University and many others) see the Qur'an's violent passages as taking precedence over other, relatively peaceful passages.
Jesus taught, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44). The Qur'an tells Muslims to be "ruthless to unbelievers" (48:29). When one commits violence in the name of Christianity, he is transgressing against Christ's teachings, but the jihadists make and sustain the case among their fellow Muslims that they are the believers who are being truly faithful to Islamic teaching. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
08/29/2007 09:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
That's not the way I see it. And I work for CNN. We know what is best for you not you.
For those who analyze the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the events of the last year have been remarkably revealing. The drive towards consolidation of power and influence by predominant insurgent organizations has created unprecedented internal friction and has demonstratedquite vividly at timesthat the Sunni militants at war with the U.S. and Iraqi governments are far from a monolithic threat. Indeed, these groups often are markedly distinct from each otherstructurally, ideologically, and politically. Under public pressure from fellow Sunni insurgents, Al-Qaidas network in Iraq has been forced into constantly attempting to justify and defend its use of suicide bombings and foreign fighters. The growing backlash against Al-Qaidas network in Iraq represents the first real crack within the Sunni insurgency, and is likely the best available opportunity to leverage homegrown Iraqi Sunni nationalism against the countervailing forces of transnational Salafi jihadists. Yet, at least as of now, it is still not clear if the U.S. and Iraqi governments fully understand this opportunity, nor if they are doing their utmost to take advantage of it. To successfully end the insurgency in Iraq, the U.S. must reach an understanding with not only tribal elements, but local Sunni political and religious forces as well.
It should be understated that while there is currently strong animosity between Al-Qaida and the IAI, they still share enough in common thatalbeit under limited circumstancesthe two groups could nonetheless reconcile in the future and even resume cooperation with each other. The IAI has taken pains to limit its criticisms to Al-Qaidas regional franchise in Iraq and emphasize its continuing political support for Usama Bin Laden and the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. On May 14, the IAI-led Reformation and Jihad Front issued a statement paying their respects to the martyred military commander of the Taliban, Mullah Dadullah. Dedicating poetry in his honor, the RJF called Dadullah a knight among knights and blessed Afghan lion: he fought well and [his life] represents a wonderful example in sacrifice and jihad.133 A week after declaring its June truce with Al-Qaida in Iraq, the IAI issued a second statement reassuring its supporters, the peace agreement between us and Al Qaida in Mesopotamia is still standing and effective and we are holding fast in safeguarding the blood of the mujahideen.134 As long as Sunni insurgents in Iraq face an existential external threat, either in the form of encroachment from the U.S. or neighboring Iran, they will tend consolidate their joint efforts together with Al-Qaida. The IAI has complained bitterly about the U.S. handing control over the whole region to the Persian [Shiite] monster Yes, Bush has achieved remarkable success for the Persian Iranian strategy and the area has become an easy prey for the Persians!135 Facing an impossible choice between Iranian domination or else a distasteful partnership with Al-Qaida, even the IAI would likely feel compelled to make certain compromises for the sake of Sunni unity.
Conversely, once that external threat becomes overshadowed by the typical fanatical excesses of Al-Qaida, then the focus will gradually turn back towards internal Iraqi politics. Even the most trivial of issues can become potential fodder for heated words and sharp divisions. A former faction of the 1920 Revolution Brigades known as Hamas in Iraq (nominally associated with the Muslim Brotherhood) has recently attracted the ire of Al-Qaida supporters by issuing an official statement congratulating the Iraqi national soccer team in their victory in the Asian Cup in late July 2007.136 In an open letter to the American people, the IAI has emphasized the comparatively reasonable nature of its political demands and has insisted, our message to the [U.S.] Congress was clear a long time ago: to pass a law requiring the withdrawal of your forces within a specific duration, making it an obligation and hand over the country to its real people, not to Iran and its agents The American administration has deceived its nation and has claimed that Iran is a strong country, but the truth is that [Iran] was helped by Bush instead of weakening it.137
Regardless of its ultimate outcome, the recent infighting between Al-Qaida and more mainstream Sunni insurgents has shed significant light on the debate over the fictionality of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and the extent to which the Islamic State of Iraq is nothing more than a virtual organization on the Internet. Despite harsh language and specific public warnings, both the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) and the 1920 Revolution Brigades continue to refuse to refer to Al-Qaida by its self-appointed title as the Islamic State. The same two groups have repeatedly shown little personal respect whatsoever for ISI Amir al-Mumineen Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, despite his elite sanctified status. The IAIs repeated allegations about the ISI should be considered as admissions against their own natural interests and have arguably caused irreversible damage to Al-Qaidas reputation and credibility in Iraq. Yet even the actions of Al-Qaidas own professed allies create doubt over the legitimacy of the Islamic State of Iraq. Despite having ample opportunities to do so, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army continues to uneasilyand seemingly inexplicablyabstain from officially joining the ISI. In the face of this mounting evidence, one cannot help but conclude that the ISI still represents more of an aspirational political cover for Al-Qaidas terrorist operations than a functioning reality on the ground.
Resolving the Sunni insurgency and returning peace to Iraq will require a more nuanced solution than either simply increasing levels of military forces or, conversely, an unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. Above all else, there must be an energetic effort to coopt local Sunni leaders and negotiate their participation in a thoroughly-reformed and more equitably-shared Iraqi government. As long as a majority of Sunnis continue to suspiciously regard the regime in Baghdad and its litany of security services as corrupt beyond redemption, it will be nearly impossible to convince Sunni fighters to lay down their weapons as a basic matter of self-defense. Needless to say, withdrawing from Iraq without first achieving a stable balance of power between Sunnis and Shiites will not only lead to the collapse of the current Iraqi government, but moreover, it could potentially spark a desperate and bloody sectarian war pitting Sunni insurgents against Shiite militiamena war in which only the ruthless fanatics from Al-Qaida would stand to gain.
#3
They got an air force yet? Any armor? Any ships for their "navy"?
You know how strong they are? They're strong enough to subjugate their own people. And right now that's probably good enough for them.
Non-Muslims occasionally raise the idea of banning the Koran, Islam, and Muslims. Examples this month include calls by Geert Wilders, a political leader in the Netherlands, to ban the Koran (which he compares to Hitler's Mein Kampf) and two Australian politicians, Pauline Hanson and Paul Green, demanding a moratorium on Muslim immigration. What is one to make of these initiatives?
First, some history. Precedents exist from an earlier era, when intolerant Christian governments forced Muslims to convert (notably in sixteenth-century Spain) and others strongly encouraged conversions, especially of the elite (as in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Russia). In modern times, however, with freedom of expression and religion established as basic human rights, efforts to protect against intolerance by banning the Koran, Islam, or Muslims have conspicuously failed.
In perhaps the most serious contemporary attempt to ban the Koran, a Hindu group argued in 1984-85 that the Islamic scriptures contain "numerous sayings, repeated in the book over and over again, which on grounds of religion promote disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and incite people to commit violence and disturb public tranquility." The taking of this demand, known as "The Calcutta Quran Petition" to court prompted riots and deaths in Bangladesh. The case so alarmed New Delhi that the attorney-general of India himself took part in the proceedings to oppose the petition which, not surprisingly, was dismissed.
This early petition set the standard in terms of collecting objectionable Koranic verses. Other efforts have been more rhetorical and less operational. The most consequential was by Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands to end Muslim emigration. Had he not been assassinated in 2002, he might have ridden his issue to the prime ministry.
Roberto Calderoli, coordinator of Italy's Northern League, in 2005 wrote that "Islam has to be declared illegal until Islamists are prepared to renounce those parts of their pseudo political and religious doctrine glorifying violence and the oppression of other cultures and religions."
British MP Boris Johnson pointed out in 2005 that passing a Racial and Religious Hatred Bill "must mean banning the reading - in public or private - of a great many passages of the Koran itself." His observation prompted a Muslim delegation to seek assurances (which it received) from the Home Office that no such ban would occur. Patrick Sookhdeo of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity in 2006 called for prohibiting one translation of The Noble Koran: a New Rendering of its Meaning in English, because "it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them."
Other Western countries witnessed lesser efforts: Norway's Kristiansand Progress party in 2004 and Germany's Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen sought to prohibit the Koran in 2006, arguing for its incompatibility with the German constitution. "Stop the Islamification of Denmark" demanded in early 2007 the prohibition of parts of the Koran and all mosques, calling them unconstitutional. Australia's Catch the Fire Ministries argued in 2004 that because "The Koran contradicts Christian doctrine in a number of places and, under the blasphemy law, [it] is therefore illegal."
Elsewhere, individual writers have made these same demands. Switzerland's Alain Jean-Mairet is the strategist of a two-part plan, popular and juridical, with the goal that "all the Islamic projects in Switzerland will prove impossible to fulfill." In France, an anonymous writer at the Liberty Vox Web site wishes to ban Islam, as does Warner Todd Huston in the United States. The 2006 movie V for Vendetta by the way, portrays an England in the future in which the Koran is banned.
My take? I understand the security-based urge to exclude the Koran, Islam, and Muslims, but these efforts are too broad, sweeping up inspirational passages with objectionable ones, reformers with extremists, friends with foes. Also, they ignore the possibility of positive change.
More practical and focused would be to reduce the threats of jihad and Shari'a by banning Islamist interpretations of the Koran, as well as Islamism and Islamists. Precedents exist. A Saudi-sponsored Koran was pulled from school libraries. Preachers have gone to jail for their interpretation of the Koran. Extreme versions of Islam are criminally prosecuted. Organizations are outlawed. Politicians have called for Islamists to leave their countries.
Islam is not the enemy, but Islamism is. Tolerate moderate Islam, but eradicate its radical variants.
Posted by: ryuge ||
08/29/2007 08:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Precedents exist from an earlier era, when intolerant Christian governments forced Muslims to convert (notably in sixteenth-century Spain)
He shpuld get his facts straight. For centuries Chritian's policy in liberted areas of Spain towards Muslims was "Leave or else...". That after being repeatedly stabbed in the back by Muslims allowed to remain.
So allowing Muslims to remain in Spain after the fall of Granada provided they converted was a step towards tolerancy by the Catholic Kings. This leniency was rewarded by a bloody insurrection where the new "converts" perpetrated hoorendous crimes againt priestd and nuns in addition to teh usual burning or desecration of churches. It took over one hundred years of uprisings and support given to Turk and Berberic raids before the "intolerant" Spaniards resigned to expel families of Muslim oridin out of Spain.
Also, let's remind that over a century later in enlightened Germany the rule was "Cujus regio, equs religio" ie if your prince was protestant you had to abjurate catholicism nad viceversa.
And yes Islam is teh enemy not islamism: islamists merely follow Muhammad's message. The "moderates" are such because they are bad Muslims.
#2
My take? I understand the security-based urge to exclude the Koran, Islam, and Muslims, but these efforts are too broad, sweeping up inspirational passages with objectionable ones, reformers with extremists, friends with foes. Also, they ignore the possibility of positive change.
From JFM: And yes Islam is teh enemy not islamism: islamists merely follow Muhammad's message. The "moderates" are such because they are bad Muslims.
Nice sentiments from Pipes: more PC, multiculti horse$hit. But I agree with JFM. Islam contains within itself the impulse toward violence and extremism. It must be defeated just as the other totalitarianisms of the 20th century were defeated. A good first step is to exclude Muslims ad Islam from the west.
#3
In modern times, however, with freedom of expression and religion established as basic human rights, efforts to protect against intolerance by banning the Koran, Islam, or Muslims have conspicuously failed.
Listing failures is helpful only for academic reasons or in so far as it points the way to a successful ban. It is not in itself an argument against the ban; this he leaves to his - as has already been pointed out - PC, multiculti, horsesh$t conclusion.
Minimally, their books should be burned, their people deported and their Orcish shrines converted to gambling dens, houses of ill repute and BBQ pig joints.
#4
Managed assimilation is generally a more effective tool than coercion.
That is, direct coercion takes of lot more effort than *preventing the religion* from being able to coerce its followers towards radicalism.
And if they can't coerce their followers, they lose their power over them, and they leave in droves or become far less radical. In turn, the real radicals and agitators become far easier to identify and separate from the majority.
An old Aesop moral is that "A tyrant needs no excuse". And neither does a fanatic. A fanatic can interpret the most banal text to justify his murderous radicalism. A moderate, conversely, can rationalize away the clearest call to radicalism to justify being peaceful.
But the radical cannot thrive unless he can do two things: radicalize others *and* coerce moderates into either following him or at least to not stand in his way. That is why radicals of all stripes see moderates in their group as their worst enemies, far more threatening than their real enemies outside the group.
So instead of condemning the Koran, attack the tools of coercion used by Muslims to control other Muslims. The wearing of the hijab or burkha. The madrassas for minors. Forced marriages and honor killings. Ghettoization in religious communities and non-assimilation into society. Sharia law. The exclusive use of a foreign language.
If Muslims aren't under the control of other Muslims, don't live in a tightly knit community of only Muslims, have to deal with non-Muslims on a daily basis, have to speak the local tongue, etc., in short order (note: NOT instantly, however), they will become more moderate.
Then there is the final selling point to moderation: the better mousetrap. Western civilization is full of efficiencies that Islam does not have. And if Muslims have a comparison in front of them, it will be a lot harder to do things the Muslim way, "just because".
Assimilation takes some time, and radicals do have to be policed up, but it takes far less energy to let it happen naturally than to try and force it.
#6
Don't ban it, just move the covers closer together. Half a page thickness (between covers) should do...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/29/2007 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The book should be retained and read as a warning. Banning the book won't stop Islamists from attacking us any more than banning Mein Kampf would have stopped the Germans from attacking Poland.
#9
Roberto Calderoli, coordinator of Italy's Northern League, in 2005 wrote that "Islam has to be declared illegal until Islamists are prepared to renounce those parts of their pseudo political and religious doctrine glorifying violence and the oppression of other cultures and religions."
At some point Western civilization will need to draw the line on what constitutes acceptable conduct and a reasonable degree of societal integration. Islam fails so dismally in both respects that its admission to civilized society does not even qualify for discussion.
More practical and focused would be to reduce the threats of jihad and Shari'a by banning Islamist interpretations of the Koran, as well as Islamism and Islamists. Precedents exist. A Saudi-sponsored Koran was pulled from school libraries. Preachers have gone to jail for their interpretation of the Koran. Extreme versions of Islam are criminally prosecuted. Organizations are outlawed. Politicians have called for Islamists to leave their countries.
Pipes is entirely off base. So long as kitman and taqiyya are admissible Koranic doctrine there is simply no way to distinguish between so-called "moderate Muslims" and their jihadi co-religionists. Islam intentionally sets it up this way so that Islamists are free to swim in the umma's ocean of ostensible peacefulness.
So instead of condemning the Koran, attack the tools of coercion used by Muslims to control other Muslims. The wearing of the hijab or burkha. The madrassas for minors. Forced marriages and honor killings. Ghettoization in religious communities and non-assimilation into society. Sharia law. The exclusive use of a foreign language.
'moose, by suggesting the elimination of shari'a law you areby extensionessentially banning the Koran. The two are inextricably intertwined. Additionally, in order to "attack the tools of coercion" we would have to monitor all mosques on a 24/7 basis for subversive preaching. There is little if any way to disconnect the radical and putatively "moderate" components of Islam. You can try to minimize exposure but there is no way to guarantee or measure any success in doing so. This remains the most dangerous and unacceptable aspect of Islam.
The Koran forbids any competing form of religion or government. There is simply no way to get around it. Furthermore, fewif anyMuslims will aggree that the democratic process is superior to theocratic rule. Allah's laws will always trump those created by man and to assert otherwise is apostasy. Separation of church and state is a direct and lethal affont to all forms of Islam. Theocracy is a fatal toxin to liberty and individual freedoms. They are immiscible. Wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
If Muslims aren't under the control of other Muslims, don't live in a tightly knit community of only Muslims, have to deal with non-Muslims on a daily basis, have to speak the local tongue, etc., in short order (note: NOT instantly, however), they will become more moderate.
Again, how are we to monitor or measure any putative progress towards so-called moderation? There is no way possible way of doing so. Period. Andonce againthis is precisely what makes Islam so dangerous. Are we to assume that Muslims are successfully moderating only to find a major metropolis leveled in a terrorist nuclear attack? All because we were idiotic enough to hope that Muslims might abandon such incredibly powerful ideological tools as kitman and taqiyya for the sake of coexisting with their avowed enemy?
Islam has awarded itself every single unfair advantage imaginable. In the name of self-advancement it condones the absolute worst forms of deceit, treachery, mass murder and crimes against humanity. What is so beneficial about such a tyrannous ideology that makes it at all worthwhile to incorporate into Western society?
Islam's granting itself moral and ethical carte blanch makes it the enemy of all civilization. Adhering to Western values and simultaneously attempting to integrate Muslims into our society is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. We are tactically disarmednot by any inherent weakness or flaw within our own system but insteadby Islam's willful violation of any and all aspects of the social contract.
We can neither permit nor countenance such abject perfidy.
#13
There's this little thing called the internet?
I always wanted to read The Procols of the Elders of Zion (yeah, I know the history) but you can't get it at mass market chain bookstores. It *is* available on-line. After a couple pages, I got bored; never read the whole thing. All praise the Interweb!
Personally, I think more people should read the Koran. They would be appalled.
#14
The most consequential was by Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands to end Muslim emigration. Had he not been assassinated in 2002, he might have ridden his issue to the prime ministry.
This one example alone goes to disprove Pipes' point. We (the west) have bent over backwards in trying to be "tolerant" and "understanding" of Islam. The problem is, Islam is the problem in it's fundamental form. The irony of the above example seems to miss Pipes' brain completely. Here you have a politician in arguably the most *tolerant* nation on earth trying to control the jihadis within via the democratic/political process, and what does he get? Off'd by a jihadi, that's what, in his own nation.
Eventually, this will come down to a big, gigantic p!ss!ng match between "real" Americans (or other Western nations) and the jihadis among us. My bet's still on the rednecks, but it'll be a lot of bloodshed, unless we get serious about rooting out the jihadis among us. Delay the inevitable is only gonna make things worse, especially for the MMMs.
Posted by: BA ||
08/29/2007 21:30 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Personally, I think more people should read the Koran.
They are. And they are liking what they read. That's the problem.
Posted by: ryuge ||
08/29/2007 08:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
No one sane would convert to this lunacy voluntarily; even Scientology offers more internal coherence. That leaves reproduction using female slaves, forced conversion and murder and, perhaps most important, death to anyone trying to leave the cult. This is not history. It is biology.
#2
When Whittaker Chambers left the Communists, the left denounced him but at least they didn't threaten him with death.
One of the remarkable things about Islam is that, because of the death threats, etc., not a single Moslem in any country with an active moslem population, can be said to be a true believer.
#3
The vast majority is saying that Mohammad Hegazi must be killed as an apostate. Only a small part dares to quote the Koran which states that there is no compulsion in religion and states its support for his freedom.
So, where are all the "moderate" Muslims who should be exclaiming about how "there is no compulsion in religion? Instead, it is "the vast majority" who seek death for Hegazi.
There is the desire, on the part of certain administrative offices, to use their position to Islamize Christians, or simply an aversion to making such a change. This aversion is not due however to the inefficiency of Egyptian bureaucracy. The proof is that, going the other way, there is never any difficulty in changing the identity card of a Christian who wants to become Muslim: this gets done right away!
A crystal clear example of why theocratic Islam must be crushed and ground to dust under the West's boot heel.
It is in fact a step that should bring the state to a certain neutrality vis-à-vis religions.
What a dreamer. The Islamic state and church are mutually reinforcing and neither would have it any other way.
The Islamic world is truly obsessed with conversions. At least 7 Islamic countries apply the death penalty to those who convert from Islam: Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Mauritania. But in other states, like Egypt, converts are condemned to prison, not as apostates but for contempt of Islam
All of the above countries should be economically boycotted and disqualified for any foreign aid, even in times of disaster. I don't give a damn about Saudi oil. I'll pay $10.00 a gallon for gasoline but this shit's gotta end.
According to government daily Al-Massa, all imams are unanimous on the need to kill the apostate Hegazi. They say that sharia (not the Koran) must be enforced and it calls for the death penalty.The more moderate say: if the apostate hides his conversion, does not broadcast his decision, then it is not necessary to kill him; he can live. If he lets it be known, then he causes scandal (fitna) and must die.
Note just how deeply kitman and taqiyya run in Islam's blood. Even an apostate is allowed to utilize this moral and ethical crime to hide his apostasy. You could cut the irony with a knife.
In any case, 3 famous imam have pronounced themselves against Hegazi. The first is Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a big expert in his field, who cites dozens of references from the first centuries and concludes that Hegazi has to be killed because the group is in danger and the group takes priority over the individual.
Remember Qaradawi is widely regardedinside and outside of Islamas a "moderate" Muslim for advocating that men should beat their wives "lightly". No one mentions how Qaradawi almost singlehandedly issued the series of fatwan that were used to justify the martyrdom of homicide bombers.
Islam's overarching insecuritylike that of an easily spooked horsemakes it a danger to itself and everyone around it. Long ago, such worthless dray animals were put down and turned into petfood. A similar fate needs to await Islam.
#2
I just can't see this happening before the 2008 elections regardless of Iranian rhetoric or actions. If they continue an escalation of arms materiel and personnel to Iraq to de-stablize the "surge" and progress there, then yes, we might be forced to take action. If they appear to fill the Basra void left by the Brits, then, yes, a limited enegagement including strategic bombing of camps, staging areas, ordanance depots, border crossings, etc. Let them reprise then hit the reprising elements. But an all-out juggernaut? Doubtful to improbable. Let Fred, Rudy, or God forbid, Hillary handle the big bang.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/29/2007 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The hand wringers are hoping the internal pressure will end the problem. Hope is not a plan.
Name one first generation leadership of a 'revolutionary' sort which has fallen to purely internal pressure? The mad mullahs are hoping the US will do something to give them a distraction to the mess they've created. Unless you clean the whole plate, they'll use it as an excuse to liquidate or purge even more of their internal threats. They and their dogs have no problem killing heretical muzzies. That's everyone who doesn't submit to those self appointed leaders who carry the word of Allah.
#5
Theorem 1: When in a hole and you want to get out, stop digging. Corollary: When you want to put someone in a hole, don't stop them while they're digging.
#8
I hope there is a clear end game on how the politics will be forward and plans for an insurgency.
Posted by: Boss Craising2882 ||
08/29/2007 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
the President is coasting out his term without incident.
The same way he coasted through the first six years. This problem will not be handed to his successor in the same state in which it currently exists. Misunderestimated again.
#11
Just floating this... What if the British withdrawal from southern Iraq is a premeditated move to get out of the way of a Shia response once Iran is attacked? Not that I trust the British government or the MOD to take this sort of rudimentary foresight into account in fleeing the field but there it is.
#12
What if the British withdrawl is so the US can move in in anticipation of hostilities with Iran. The US can put a lot more water on any fire that breaks out in response to whacking Iran. Having the Brits casually exchange positions with US doesnt show our hand as much.
#13
NO STRIKES. Let Ahmadi-nejad continue to make mistakes. He is on the verge of collapsing the economy there and inspiring mutiny in the Army. Continued fiscal pressure, seizure of political ahcks banking, and a few well planned "accidents" can have far more impact - and are not likely to rally the peopel around him and the Mullahs the way a punitive airstrike would.
#15
WOT > WAR TO THE DEATH, WAR FOR THE WORLD, FUTURE OWG-NWO-SWO, etal. By definition, NO SIDE/CAMP CAN OR WILL ENGAGE ONLY IN "LIMITED ENGAGEMENT" SAVE TO PRECLUDE MUTUAL DESTRUCTION.
Radical Mullahs have already indic that many Islamists are willing to escalate unto GLOBAL MUTUAL DESTRUCTION IFF NEED BE FOR ISLAM = ISLAMISM - for these, the GWOT IS AN EPOCH/APOCALYPSE EVENT as far their ideo is concerned. The USA is not gonna leave the ME until democracy is firmly emplaced in Nations-Societies that support Terror - Radical Islamism for its part will resist becuz the former means that its ideo = version of Allah-Heaven has failed in favor of foreign andor non-Islamist ideas and agendas, etc. WHETHER A US-IRAN CONFLICT OCCURS BEFORE OR AFTER "11/08" OR NOV 2008", etc. THE USA WILL HAVE TO TAKE ON THE ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD WHETHER IT WANTS TO OR NOT. US-IRAN CONFLICT > the USA de facto rules the future OWG-NWO, or it does NOT [USA will instead be ruled over by anti-US Entities]. No more "Here-OR-There" or "Here-NOT-There", will be "Here-AND-There" - EVERYWHERE, ANYWHERE,
EVERYBODY. PCORRECTNESS WON'T BE ABLE TO HIDE IT.
#18
Basra won't be an issue - British w/drawal is phase one, Badr vs. Sadr is phase 2, there may not be a phase 3 and if there is it won't involve Iran, they'll be otherwise distracted per RWV's premise.
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.
That's worth applauding at a time when the conventional wisdom says the next U.S. President will have to burnish America's supposedly tarnished reputation by making various policy amends. In Germany, under the conservative leadership of Angela Merkel, foreign policy views have been moving closer to the Bush Administration's, not further away, while new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made clear he will not depart significantly from the pro-American course set by Tony Blair. 
For those who analyze the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the events of the last year have been remarkably revealing. The drive towards consolidation of power and influence by predominant insurgent organizations has created unprecedented internal friction and has demonstratedquite vividly at timesthat the Sunni militants at war with the U.S. and Iraqi governments are far from a monolithic threat. Indeed, these groups often are markedly distinct from each otherstructurally, ideologically, and politically. Under public pressure from fellow Sunni insurgents, Al-Qaidas network in Iraq has been forced into constantly attempting to justify and defend its use of suicide bombings and foreign fighters. The growing backlash against Al-Qaidas network in Iraq represents the first real crack within the Sunni insurgency, and is likely the best available opportunity to leverage homegrown Iraqi Sunni nationalism against the countervailing forces of transnational Salafi jihadists. Yet, at least as of now, it is still not clear if the U.S. and Iraqi governments fully understand this opportunity, nor if they are doing their utmost to take advantage of it. To successfully end the insurgency in Iraq, the U.S. must reach an understanding with not only tribal elements, but local Sunni political and religious forces as well.
