Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 09/18/2006 View Sun 09/17/2006 View Sat 09/16/2006 View Fri 09/15/2006 View Thu 09/14/2006 View Wed 09/13/2006 View Tue 09/12/2006
1
2006-09-18 Terror Networks
U.S. May Lose War on Terror, Historian (Bernard Lewis) Says
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-09-18 04:34|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Wish I could disagree with him.
Posted by gromgoru 2006-09-18 05:08||   2006-09-18 05:08|| Front Page Top

#2 Well, I guess we should just give up and turn muslim then.

How about f*ck them instead. One more good terror attack(and there probably will be another, we're getting slack) and the public may be ready to do some truly hardcore shit. It takes a reminder every so often to keep up worked up. The aspect I don't understand is why so many people want us to lose. The libs, the press, queers, nutjobs, all would have a pretty shitty life under the yoke of islamic oppression.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-09-18 07:09||   2006-09-18 07:09|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm with .com on the program to re-capture the nation. We will have to get our house in order before we can effectively fight the asshats.
Posted by SR-71 2006-09-18 07:36||   2006-09-18 07:36|| Front Page Top

#4 In my opinion, an attack on Washington, DC would be among the best things that could happen to bring America together. Not because we citizens would rally around ole DC, but because the politicians would wake the phalk up. Well, some of them, anyway.
I forsee a day when we are shooting at mosques and our police are trying to stop an prosecute us.
We must declare Islam a non-religion. We must declare Islam a death cult, and outlaw the practice of Islam within the boundaries of the US. It wouldn't hurt to forge an alliance of countries who oppose Islam to fight side by side, including Israel, India, Australia, UK, Japan, etc. Ha, Mexico and Canada, ha ha ha.
Posted by wxjames 2006-09-18 07:51||   2006-09-18 07:51|| Front Page Top

#5 Mr. Lewis speaks with the wisdom of age about youth and the pessimism of age about the future. The current time is much more akin to the late '30s than 1940. Bush is akin to the Churchill a lone voice, preaching to the truth ineffectually than the Churchill vindicated, leading a resolved and united King in Parliament. I also agree with .com, (PBUH) about ending our internal differences, but I am confident that too shall come, though if not after another attack. There is little doubt in my mind who will emerge victorious.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-18 07:56||   2006-09-18 07:56|| Front Page Top

#6 I've said it before many times, but we don't have to win the War on Terror, we just have to not lose it (somewhat like Britain in 1940).

I'm not big on historical determinism, but the ME will be modernized, its just a question of how how long it takes and the number corpses along the way. All we have to do is not lose in the interim.
Posted by phil_b 2006-09-18 08:03||   2006-09-18 08:03|| Front Page Top

#7 I can most definately disagree with him on at least one point.

He seems to be missing the fundamental point about democracy when he points to the Sultan's inability to act decisively as being an indication of some kind of consensus based government. The weakness of tyrannical rule is well understood; it needs to be backed up by a violent ideology, requiring a number of henchmen who may decide to overthrow you at any given point. This is completely removed from the "True Concept" of democracy/demoskratein (i.e. not the MSM/LLL idea of voting tyrants into govt==dhimmocracy) whereby the strength of the leader lies in his ability to act dynamically and decisively, being given a mandate to act within the framework of laws / constitutions currently in place. Restricting the scope of their power in temporal terms and absolute terms, whilst increasing the range of their power.

On top of which, making a comparison against French Monarchs sets the bar pretty low...

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2006-09-18 08:36||   2006-09-18 08:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Mr. Lewis is generally correct - but he is still being too PC. Like most of the elites, he is still ingoring the enormous friggin' elephant in the room.

Until we openly recognize and prosecute the war on the basis that our enemy is ISLAM - all of it - we will continue to just be "spitting into the hurricane."

Islam is a malevolant, violent, intolerant, hateful, pernicious, imperialistic cult - and needs to be destroyed at its core.

The common meme is "there are almost a billion Muslims in the world - that's too big a population to confront." Wrong. Right about the numbers - wrong about the inevitable permanance of the population. Think back to the American bison, or the passenger pigeon. Huge numbers can be reduced to handfuls - but you have to get started on the serious culling at some point.

My dream is: a world expunged of the Muslim scourge. As Martin Luther King once (profoundly) said: "Never give up on a dream, because of the length of time it will take to accomplish - the time will pass anyway."

Posted by Lone Ranger 2006-09-18 08:43||   2006-09-18 08:43|| Front Page Top

#9 This is all part of the ritualistic cultural dance we go through before we release the self imposed bonds that keep the ugly beast at bay. Its necessary for the psychological cleansing that will follow the unimaginable destruction and violence.
Posted by Chang Cholunter4501 2006-09-18 08:53||   2006-09-18 08:53|| Front Page Top

#10 ...the only real solution to defeating radical Islam is to bring freedom to the Middle East. Either "we free them or they destroy us," Mr. Lewis said.

It's certainly legitimate to propose that a major cause of the Muslim world's present state may be the tyrannical governments under which they've been living, and therefore that bringing freedom to the people of the Middle East MAY succeed in de-toxifying their culture. That is a testable hypothesis, and we are busy testing it right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But to say, absolutely, that democratizing the Middle East is THE solution, and take it on blind faith that it WILL work, seems both naive and sloppy.

It will either work, or it will not. Right now, from what I've seen so far, it seems prudent to prepare for the possibility that it will not.

The contention, especially popular in diplomatic circles, that Arabs aren't suited to democracy and that the West's best hope lies with friendly tyrants...

I think Lewis presents a false either/or choice here. Certainly we've learned over the last couple of decades that our best hope does NOT lie with friendly tyrants. But I think we're also learning, from present experience, that it's quite possible that Arabs may very well NOT be cut out for peaceful, responsible democratic self-governance. So far, it doesn't look to me like they've got much of a natural aptitude for it.

...shows an ignorance of the Arabs' past and contempt for their present and future, and is "demonstrably absurd in historical terms," Mr. Lewis said.

The Arabs' past is past. Their present is most certainly deserving of contempt. And their future, judging by the trajectory they appear to be following, is doubtful.

Frankly, I'm a lot less enamored of Lewis and his theories these days than I used to be. To me, the only sane and responsible way to view this "Middle East Democracy" experiment we are conducting is as just that: an experiment. And instead of taking it on blind faith that it WILL work, we should be observing the results of our efforts and honestly assessing, with eyes open, whether it IS working.

So far, I don't think it is.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-09-18 10:01||   2006-09-18 10:01|| Front Page Top

#11 Anyone else starting to see more flags???
Posted by anonymous2u 2006-09-18 10:45||   2006-09-18 10:45|| Front Page Top

#12 wxjames -

but because the politicians would wake the phalk up. Well, some of them, anyway.


...Well, the survivors, anyways. If it happened while Congress was in session, those who were lucky enough to be back in their districts would almost certainly contract a severe case of Field Marshal's Psychosis - what happens when a civilian who previously considers himself and his country invulnerable or beyond the reach of the enemy suddenly faces an atack nose-to-nose. That's what happened to (IIRC) McGeorge Bundy in Vietnam when he was there on a fact-finding mission and the VC hit the base he was staying at. When he saw the burning wreckage of USAF aircraft the next morning, he went ballistic, made a phone call to LBJ, and convinced him to start ratcheting things up.
This time though it'll be demands to let the ICBMs fly, and they will - and once the dust settles, hang the surviving pols for letting us come to that point.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-09-18 11:42||   2006-09-18 11:42|| Front Page Top

#13 This is some media bullshit. He said he wasn't not certain, NOT that thought the US was going to lose.

Geez Daniel FREEDMAN
Posted by Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-09-18 11:54||   2006-09-18 11:54|| Front Page Top

#14 U.S. May Lose War on Terror, Historian (Bernard Lewis) Says - DANIEL FREEDMAN


Posted by Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-09-18 11:55||   2006-09-18 11:55|| Front Page Top

#15 The complete and total eradication of Islam would indeed be a loss for the U.S but I think we'd get over it in time.
Posted by rjschwarz 2006-09-18 12:01||   2006-09-18 12:01|| Front Page Top

#16 And might I add that as far as Hollywood villians go the Islamic horde just doesn't measure up to the Nazis. They're gonna have to clean up there act before they are relagated to the dustbin with the Austrio-hungarian Empire.
Posted by rjschwarz 2006-09-18 12:02||   2006-09-18 12:02|| Front Page Top

#17 "Hitler would have won under these conditions," Mr. Lewis said, citing America's inability to clearly define the war on terror and exactly who its enemy is.

The core problem. But then muslims are not Germans. I am not no much worried about outright losing. I am very worried that while diddling around, we are headed straight for nuclear war. A reasonable first strike with (say with short range missiles (500km, access to 70% of the population) launched from container ships off the 3 US coasts could be expected to kill 40 million Americans. Add 20 million more with longer ranged weapons. At that point the US can be overwhelmed by stronger powers. I think many people, including in the West, are hoping for just this and have not thought out the consequences to them of a real hegemonic power taking over.

When faced with such overwhelming destruction, their will be overwhelming temptation for the US to launch first and let missile defenses target the few (if any) surviving long range missiles.
Posted by ed 2006-09-18 12:23||   2006-09-18 12:23|| Front Page Top

#18 I hope it never comes to that. The war should be fought by the military now in the military way, not with one arm tied behind their back, and then after losing much ground, allow the nuclear solution to decide the outcome. There is no honor in that. Fight now, like real men and kick the liberals in the ass. Beat the enemy on the field and cut off his lifeline and wear him down until he surrenders.
The way our left fights war is to wear us down until we hate them and all they stand for, a time quickly approaching.
Posted by wxjames 2006-09-18 13:12||   2006-09-18 13:12|| Front Page Top

#19 Lewis always goes wrong about democratizing these loonbats. Democracy cannot be forced, it has to be desired and demanded. If these f**kups wanted it, they had access to it before we did thanks to their Greek neighbors. With people like Lewis advising, we may lose. But, thanks to Pope Benedict and others, the rabid reaction of the Muzzie world is finally beginning to cause a few to look up and take notice of the insanity inherent in the Death Cult. This mental transformation takes time for most, unfortunately. Same as for Nazis and the militant Japanese during the 1920-30's. Everyone stood by with their thumb up their arse as things got progressively worse. Once incident after another. Followed by one atrocity after another. Finally, there was only fighting as the answer to preserve their way of life. Same thing now. We just have to wait for the stew to reach high boil before anything constructive can happen.
Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-09-18 14:13||   2006-09-18 14:13|| Front Page Top

#20 SOP35, Japan and Germany were made Democracies by force...
Posted by rjschwarz 2006-09-18 14:18||   2006-09-18 14:18|| Front Page Top

#21 Lewis is, I think, arguing against the "realists" who were happy to have a strongman dictator maintain "stability" in the region.
Posted by lotp 2006-09-18 14:27||   2006-09-18 14:27|| Front Page Top

#22 The West has a large proportion of potential victims who love death -- their own and that of their civilization, like Chomsky and Kerry, and their legions of supporters. They will not defend themselves where and when it counts. Many will not even bother to propagate themselves. I think that is the weakness Lewis is referring to. The jihadis at some level are aware that Islam cannot survive in the modern world, and they love death also -- their own and the death of the modern world so that Islam can survive.
Somehow I am not worried about Islam triumphing and a new Caliphate. Neither do I believe there will be an overwhelming, angry response from the West under attack, resulting in the death of most Muslims in a one-sided nuclear holocaust.
The modern world is interdependent to a degree not seen since the Roman Empire between 300 and 500 AD. Our energy, food, pharmaceuticals and most other necessities of modern life depend on international cooperation. If enough holes are punched in the network, it will collapse, millions will die from loss of their life support systems (not from nuclear attacks, either, more like what happened in New Orleans after Katrina) and a new Dark Ages would follow. All the more reason to fight.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-09-18 16:24||   2006-09-18 16:24|| Front Page Top

#23 The Pope COULD convert to Islam too, but I suspect the chances are somewhat remote.
Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-18 16:26||   2006-09-18 16:26|| Front Page Top

#24 The key difference, Mr. Lewis said, was that "in the partition of India, the U.N. was not involved.

It was involved in Kashmir though, which it probably why that festers to this day..

Posted by john 2006-09-18 17:07||   2006-09-18 17:07|| Front Page Top

#25 The Pope's comments and the reaction to it are starting to open some eyes, even on the left. Take a look at the quickie poll on SF Gate (www.sfgate.com).

The question: Is Pope Benedict's apology enough to defuse muslim anger?

The responses:
1. Yes, time to move on 2%
2. No, he won't live down disparaging quote 16%
3. Should be, but Mideast sensitivity knows no bounds 9%
4. He had nothing to apologize for 73%

Now SF Gate is the online version of the SF Chronicle. It is moonbat central. Yet 81% are of the opinion that the muzzie reaction is banannas. This is a huge shift from previous sentiments.

Each of these muzzie events forces those in the west to look, think and see the true nature of islam. The more people that look, think and see, the more that realize something serious must be done. Slowly but surely the blinds are coming off, and it is the muzzies themselves who are removing them.
Posted by remoteman 2006-09-18 17:36||   2006-09-18 17:36|| Front Page Top

#26 Interesting poll. Maybe there's hope for us yet...
Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-09-18 18:54||   2006-09-18 18:54|| Front Page Top

#27 The problem with the spread of democracy in the muslim world is that their faith (Islam) is against it in any form. Everything must be done according to the Koran, and anything else is apostacy. Democracy cannot fluorish until Islam is destroyed for the death cult it is. The reason the Arabs are so far behind everyone else is that their idea of "education" is to memorize the Koran, and to judge everything in the world by the words of that document. Inquisitiveness, curiosity, mental exploration, are not just disapproved of, they're FORBIDDEN by their religion. Only blind obedience to the "faith" is allowed. The rest of the world has gone off on its own and discovered wonderful things. The only way the muslim world can get those things is to borrow (or steal) them. Even as a form of culture, Islam is a death cult. If a society cannot evolve to face the new challenges around it, it will eventually die. It's just taking too long for it to happen on its own.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2006-09-18 22:20|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2006-09-18 22:20|| Front Page Top

#28 This seems to me to be far too pessimistic a view.

When Muslims will commit greater atrocities, even the cowardly Europeans and the american Dhimmicrats will at last open their eyes.

Then, the West will, at home, hunt for all Muslims, and, abroad, unleash its powerful weapons, destroying Mecca, Medina, and a lot of the cities of Islamic coutries.

But before that, a lot of people will have to die in western democracies.
Posted by leroidavid">leroidavid  2006-09-18 23:38||   2006-09-18 23:38|| Front Page Top

23:54 leroidavid
23:49 eltoroverde
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:44 Sherry
23:43 leroidavid
23:38 leroidavid
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 Zenster
23:32 Zenster
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:26 leroidavid
23:21 leroidavid
23:15 leroidavid
23:10 Zenster
23:08 Homer
23:06 Carl in N.H.
23:04 ex-lib
22:57 RD
22:48 Homer
22:39 Zenster
22:34 Zenster
22:30 tabd
22:29 Fleash Greaper4919
22:27 Fleash Greaper4919









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com