Article

2004-02-15 Israel-Palestine

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 Rafael 2004-02-15 2:18:11 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Rafael, I think the WOT is winnable, but I probably define victory entirely differently than you do. I define victory as the elimination of state sponsorship of terrorists and the recognition by all legitimate states that states sponsoring terrorism shall be international pariahs subject to isolation or intervention. To me victory also includes a trip through each substantial rogue state by a Coalition of willing rat exterminators such that a reaonable level of lasting vigilence shall enable the free people of the world to live without substantial fear of being the subject of a mass killing.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-15 4:14:30 PM|| 2004-2-15 4:14:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 The WoT deals with the short-term problem. The long-term problem is demographic. All of the world is undergoing population stablization EXCEPT the Muslim world and sub-Saharan Africa (compare India and Pakistan on this score). As long as Muslim women are kept in subjugation, birthrates will remain high. Couple this with economic stagnation, and you have millions of young men coming of age every years with no job prospects, and few marriage prospects either (it doesn't help that older, richer men get t have 4 wives). These frustrated young men make easy recruits for Islamismism -- and the fact that Islam itself makes no distinction betweeen religion, politics, and law makes it all the easier to brew up the evil tonic of terror. But how to handle "demographic jihad"? (the term, btw, is Robert Spencer's). Any ideas?

Posted by closet neo-con 2004-2-15 4:30:17 PM|| 2004-2-15 4:30:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Excellent points, folks. The common factor, which the article author dismisses as root cause without sufficient argument to support doing so is, of course, Islam. In practice, and this means well-researched Islamic text is almost irrelevant, the Muslims (some say Islamists - I find no such distinction in actual practice) can and do justify anything they want. The facts of Islam's clear directions to Muslims to subjugate all others to Islam is the core issue.

How can Islam peacefully coexist with any other ideology or faith when:

1) Muslims are forsworn from even friendship with non-Muslims

2) Muslims are directed to consider themselves Muslims first and always - no other affiliation (nationality, etc) matters

3) Muslims are directed to subjugate, "as cattle", all others until they "fill the world"

4) Muslims have few restrictions upon how they achieve this in their dealings with non-Muslims - and honesty is not among them; i.e. the first casualty dealing with Islam always seems to be the truth - lies are totally acceptable; so how may non-Muslim nations ever deal with or make treaty with Muslim nations? In practice, they cannot.

5) Muslims have no rigid religious hierarchy; dealing with this Mullah or that Imam will have no bearing or effect upon how Muslims who follow someone else will behave. The convenience of this subtlety for those who do not want peace has been obvious in the M.E. for decades - and is a prime reason why no peace will be achieved as long as there are practicing Muslims there.

6) Muslim practices, embodied in Shari'a Law, are in conflict with all modern notions of civility; honor killings and the brutal treatment of women will always make Muslims pariahs to anyone who subscribes to civilized concepts and precepts.

7) Muslims consider Islam as perfect - the literal ~~Aramaic~~ Arabic word of Allah, and consequently will accept no changes, period. Where at odds or in conflict (wherever Islam exists?), ANY accommodation or concession must, therefore, come from others.

I see no reasonable way nor rational path to follow to stay out of conflict with Islam. Where there is trouble in the world, 90%+ of the time it is Islam, in practice, seeking to fulfill the goals set forth above.

As KSM said of the failure (yesterday) of AlQ to disrupt the Japan / Korea 2002 World Cup, the problem was a dearth of Muslims in Japan to support the operation. That's it in a nutshell. Where there is a concentration (critical mass?) of Muslims, you will find conflict - from terror to barbaric honor killings to brutal suppresion of women to strife due to zero-compromise politics. Islam is there in sufficient numbers to make it so. You want peace? Then there must be a dearth of Muslims.

Posted by .com 2004-2-15 6:19:25 PM|| 2004-2-15 6:19:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Excellent post, .com

Posted by 1234L 2004-2-16 8:35:28 AM|| 2004-2-16 8:35:28 AM|| Front Page Top

08:35 1234L
08:09 B
00:09 Lucky
23:47 Lucky
23:43 Tibor
23:43 Mike Sylwester
23:39 Lucky
23:22 Les Nessman
23:20 Zhang Fei
23:18 .com
23:18 Zhang Fei
23:11 phil_b
23:10 Seafarious
22:41 GK
22:35 AF Lady
22:32 JAB
22:21 rkb
22:20 PBMcL
22:13 Dan
22:03 Old Patriot
21:45 djohn66
21:44 Pappy
21:40 Zhang Fei
20:39 Robert Crawford