Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-01-2010, 02:16 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Islam & Islamic antisemitism

Bat Ye'or, the world's leading scholar of Islamic antisemitism -- full interview

Pamela Geller interviews Bat Ye'or, the world's leading scholar of dhimmitude, Eurabia, and Islamic antisemitism, last Sunday. This is the full 53-minute interview.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 06-01-2010 at 02:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 02:20 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 02:25 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Pamela Geller interviews human rights activist David Littman

Pamela Geller interviews human rights activist David Littman

David Littman, whose writings and heroic battles against Islamic supremacists at the UN in Geneva we have featured here many times, is interviewed Sunday by Pamela Geller.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 12:16 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Raymond Ibrahim: "Americans must first and foremost understand Islam

Raymond Ibrahim: Raymond Ibrahim: "Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it--without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations", particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it--without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations"

Our old pal Raymond Ibrahim spells out what's wrong with John Brennan's policy toward Islam and terrorism. "Obama's Top Counterterror Adviser's Inability to Think Outside the Box Bodes Disaster," by Raymond Ibrahim for Pajamas Media (via, May 29:
"The greatest hurdle Americans need to get over in order to properly respond to the growing threat of radical Islam is purely intellectual in nature; specifically, it is epistemological, and revolves around the abstract realm of 'knowledge.' Before attempting to formulate a long-term strategy to counter radical Islam, Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it--without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations. This is apparently not as simple as expected: all peoples of whatever civilizations and religions tend to assume that other peoples more or less share in their worldview, which they assume is objective, including notions of right and wrong, good and bad. .... [T]he secular, Western experience has been such that people respond with violence primarily when they feel they are politically, economically, or socially oppressed. While true that many non-Western peoples may fit into this paradigm, the fact is, the ideologies of radical Islam have the intrinsic capacity to prompt Muslims to violence and intolerance vis-à-vis the 'other,' irrespective of grievances.... Being able to understand all this, being able to appreciate it without any conceptual or intellectual constraints is paramount for Americans to truly understand the nature of the enemy and his ultimate goals."

Such were the words that opened my testimony to Congress. One year later, none other than President Obama's top counter-terror adviser, John Brennan, has come to to personify the approach I warned against, that is, the misguided phenomenon of westernizing Islamic concepts.
A Fox New's report, titled "Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam,'" has the details:
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."
In other words, despite the fact that Islamists describe all their goals in "religious terms," Brennan sees them--you know, people like Osama bin Laden who murdered 3,000 Americans--as naught more than victims of the system. And why is that? Because Brennan believes that "political, economic and social forces"--the three I specifically stressed in my excerpt above--are the only precipitators to violence. So jihadists can openly articulate their violent bloodlust through religious terms all they want, it matters not: Brennan and his ilk have their intellectual blinders shut tight and refuse to venture outside the box....
Indeed. Read it all.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 04:20 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The World’s Oldest Sickness

The World’s Oldest Sickness
The Gaza flotilla incident reminds us that the destiny of the Jew is to be eternally unsafe in this world
by David Solway

The world is sick again with an old disease for which no cure has ever been found. It tends to go into remission here and there at various times but it invariably reappears, as virulent as ever, developing new strains as the bacillus adapts to the antibiotics of reason, shame or distraction. The disease is called anti-Semitism and it can afflict even those who would seem best prepared to resist it. Few are immune.

It can assume racial forms, the Jew regarded as a quasi-human deformity, as rodent, monkey or untermensch. International jurist Jacques Gautier, who finds it “shameful” that under the dispensation of the Human Rights community it is understood that Arabs will have legal and political rights in Israel while it is accepted that Arab countries can be judenrein, concludes that Jews do not enjoy human rights because they are not reckoned as human. Why extend the norms and principles that presumably govern human behavior and the relations between states to a people and a state tacitly considered as beyond the pale, as not quite “like us”? This is how double standards are implicitly justified. Judaism has also been condemned as a cultural and economic perversion that contorts the structure of society. This is a very old story. Indeed, whatever manifestation it assumes, anti-Semitism has been with us almost as far back as human memory goes. What historian Robert Wistrich has called the world’s longest hatred is also the world’s oldest sickness.

It is, in fact, best construed as a universal epidemic, the emotional and intellectual equivalent of the Black Death that decimated Europe in the fourteenth century. The difference is that those who have contracted this septicemia of the mind do not die, except inwardly. Ironically, their victims are precisely those who do not suffer from the plague that has contaminated its bearers—except, of course, for those apostate Jews who are sick with the same morbid distemper. The list of such despicables would fill the devil’s Rolodex. But they too must eventually succumb to the fury of the demented carriers of the pathology. Unfortunately, the Israeli pharmaceutical firm Teva, one of the world’s largest suppliers of antibiotic medicines, has no psychic or endocrinal equivalent to treat the malady.

In Anti-Semite and Jew, Jean-Paul Sartre argues that anti-Semitism is not an idea but “first of all a passion” that is akin to hysteria. This passion connects schematically with “the idea of the Jew” to which individual Jews are made to conform irrespective of their personal attributes. For Sartre, anti-Semitism is founded in the “fear of the human condition”—of solitude, responsibility for oneself, and the terror of contingency. The Jew is made responsible for the inescapable distress of being human along the entire spectrum from the empirical to the ontological—an excuse for failure, a means of false absolution and a convenient repository of all we are unwilling to acknowledge about ourselves. As such he has been zoned for apartheid, whether metaphysical or social. Sartre concludes that “If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him.”

For all his innovative phrasing, Sartre is really playing variations on the grizzled notion of the Jew as scapegoat, derived from Leviticus 16, which is true enough—witness the current U.S. administration’s treatment of Israel which, as historian Moshe Dann suggests, is a species of collective scapegoating to cover its own foreign policy failures. Philosopher René Girard adds a certain twist to the etiology of this recurrent sickness and proposes the concept of “ritual mimesis” or “mimetic victimage,” an ironic conflict-management elucidation of the scapegoat philosophy. In Girard’s thinking, the violence between groups in a given society is resolved by projecting it upon a third party—the Jew—who is then expelled.

In T.S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism, and Literary Form, Anthony Julius suggests an interesting comparison/contrast between Homeric mythology and anti-Semitism. They both “offer explanations intended to make sense of puzzling misfortunes in human life, the one by the intervention of the gods, the other by the intervention of the Jews.” The trouble is that “Jews are not malign Olympians who dispose of humankind by manipulative wizardry.” But tell that to the anti-Semite, who craves an easy explanation for what he does not comprehend in the larger world or cannot resolve in his own circumscribed life. By making the Jew responsible for all he cannot clarify, come to terms with or vanquish, the anti-Semite forfeits both courage and morality. What will he do when the Jew is no longer there? He would be like the parasite that has devoured its host and now faces starvation.

This suggests another definition of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a form of spiritual parasitism, the always tempting resort of the human leech who feeds his appetite for security, justification and self-acquittal from the life-blood of others—in this case, of course, from the body of the Jewish people. Put less offensively, anti-Semitism is blind ignorance, both of the world and the self. Psychologists like to call this psycho-reflex “projection” or “cathexis,” but these terms don’t even begin to cover the malice inherent in so invidious an emotional investment or to parry what Wistrich in his recent book, A Lethal Obsession, has identified as a “Judeophobic virus.”

Today, anti-Semitism has adopted a new expression, dubbed by Robin Shepherd in A State Beyond The Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel as “neo-anti-Semitism” which is “virulently anti-Israeli”. The Neurozone is gravely compromised, but the syndrome is making significant inroads on this side of the Atlantic as well. While not entirely ridding itself of its racial and socioeconomic baggage, neo-anti-Semitism converges on the Jew-as-Zionist, associated with the state of Israel as the modern embodiment of a discredited colonial enterprise. The purveyors of this claim affect not to be anti-Semitic, but their protestations are not convincing. It looks more like lying by ancillary focus.

The proof resides not only in the fact that Israel is unfairly and disproportionately singled out for opprobrium while flagrant and undoubted human rights offenders are generally given a free pass. It is also evident in the fact that Israel is conceived as no ordinary colonialist power. Israeli Jews are regarded as reviving the pestilence of Nazism, cleansing, or approving of the cleansing, of ethnic populations, aka the Palestinians—which is nothing short of a gross misreading of the historical archive and a wrenching misrepresentation of the present circumstance. For despite the fictions of a perjurious world, there can be no question that the Jewish people enjoy a religious, historical and legal right to their homeland, as Jacques Gautier, who spent twenty years studying the issue of ownership, as attorney and legal specialist Howard Grief in his The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, and as many others have established beyond the slightest doubt. The effort to deny what is the cadastral address of the Jewish people is a pattern of what Melanie Phillips has called, in her new book of that title, The World Turned Upside Down.

Interestingly, the accusation that Israel is the new SS is the contemporary distortion of the theme of Albert Camus’ The Plague, an obvious allegory of the Nazi invasion of Europe and North Africa. The wrinkle added to this fabric of defamation is that Jews have no right to any kind of power or authority. As Bernard Lewis writes in Semites & Anti-Semites, Jews have no business being anything other than, at best, “a tolerated subject minority.” Therefore, “by appearing as conquerors and rulers the Jews have subverted God’s order in the universe.” This calumny, says Lewis, is both the Muslim and “the fashionable leftist or progressive line.” But it is only a symptom or manifestation of the same old sickness. To paraphrase Stephen Toulmin in Cosmopolis, it is, in effect, “the narrative of a past episode reflected in a more recent mirror.”

And yet the mystery persists. But whatever theory we advance to decrypt what may be largely unfathomable or at least not wholly explicable, one thing is certain. Anti-Semitism is here to stay. Jessica may elope with Lorenzo but she or her children or grandchildren will one day be forced to accept the indelible fact of origins. Anti-Semitism is not a contagion that, like Daniel Defoe’s description in A Journal of the Plague Year of the catastrophe that visited London in the year 1665, will ever be “enervated and its malignity spent.” This is because anti-Semitism is unlike other forms of irrational hatred and operates under a different set of laws, which appear to be immutable.

Indeed, today once again, as we confront a new world-generation of venomous and commissurotomized anti-Semites, we might plausibly conclude that anti-Semitic sentiments and irruptions, in virtue of their millennial repeatability, have become entrenched in human consciousness as a natural inevitability. As I have written before, “It is something that it is perceived in the depths of the psyche to have moved from the dimension of history over into the structure of nature. It is as if anti-Semitism has now become part of our synaptic equipment.”

As a result, the destiny of the Jew is to be eternally unsafe in this world, despite the narcotic of assimilation or the illusion of self-rejection. The time seems invariably to come when the Jew is thrown back on his identity and regarded not as a human being or as an ordinary citizen but as, ab ovo, a Jew. After which, measures are adopted. Of no other people can this be said. And this is why the Jewish people cannot afford the luxury of historical amnesia, self-betrayal or the hallucination of ultimate security, but must remain vigilant, conscious and always prepared for the resurgence of the plague.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 04:23 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Muslim Infidels »

Muslim Infidels
Why Islamists terrorize non-violent Muslims
by Steven Plaut

I look out the window and stare at the minarets of the Ahmadi mosque. There is a cool evening breeze as the calls to prayer are heard from its two towers, lit up in colors in the evening. The sea spreads below it off to the horizon. The mosque minarets have become something of a symbol of the city, the very first thing that greets the eyes of tourists as they enter town from the main highway.

The Ahmadis just across from my window go about their business, disturbed by no one and disturbing no one. There is a reason for this.
The reason is that this Ahmadi mosque is not in Pakistan. It is in Haifa, Israel. You know, that same Israel that is defamed as a discriminatory apartheid state by the members of the Islamofascist-leftist alliance, that 21st century Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Of course, the reality is that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is not an apartheid regime.

The minarets of the Haifa mosque are the most interesting thing one sees from my living room window. But I turn from the window to the television screen. There on the evening news are other Ahmadi mosques. They are filled with blood and flames. Those Ahmadis were not fortunate enough to live under Israeli “apartheid” rule. They were the victims of Pakistani barbarism and savagery.

On May 28, 2010 a group of Sunni Muslim terrorists attacked two mosques in Lahore, Pakistan, belonging to the Ahmadi sect. At least 98 people died in the carnage. The terrorists used bombs and automatic rifles. The massacres drew attention to a little discussed facet of modern Islamofascism, namely Islamist violence against other Muslims.

The Ahmadis are a heterodox sect, known collectively as the Ahmadiyya, founded in the late 19th century in Pakistan. It is estimated that they have four million followers just in Pakistan, and they claim to have tens of millions more worldwide. They have two million followers just in the African country of Benin.

Ahmadi followers believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) was sent by Allah as a prophet “to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace,” this according to an Ahmadi web site. The founder of the sect claimed to be a prophet and a sort of Islamic messiah or Mahdi. The sect even claims that Mohammed foresaw and foretold of the coming of Ahmad.

There is some disagreement even within the Ahmadi movement as to just what Ahmad’s position is in the religion. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement broke away from the rest of the Ahmadis and tried to move closer to mainstream Islam. It affirmed the traditional Muslim interpretation that there can be no prophet after Muhammad, and instead, viewed Ahmadism as a reform movement within broader Islam. Curiously, one of the main theological differences between Ahmadis and other Muslims has to do with the role and position of Jesus, who is considered a prophet in Islam, although not of the same stature as Mohammed. Starting in the 1920s, large numbers of Pakistani Ahmadis arrived as missionaries in many countries around the world, trying to win converts. The movement claims to have followers today in 195 countries.

The first Ahmadi contacts with people living in Ottoman Palestine were made before the end of the nineteenth century. Concentrating their missionary efforts mainly on local Arabs, several converts were made. The most important was a local clan leader living on Mount Carmel in what is now a neighborhood of Haifa. He was Abdul Qadir Odeh, the first Arab leader to embrace Ahmadiyyat in what became Israel. In the Haifa neighborhood of Kababir just across the wadi from me today, the Israeli Ahmadans live.

Older Ahmadis can be spotted around town by their Pakistani haberdashery; they wear exactly the same style of hat that Afghan President Hamid Karzai wears. The “Centre for the Ahmadiyyan Delegation to Countries of the Middle East” is also situated in the village/neighborhood. I once went to one of its open houses in its mosque, where it was offering free Koran books in different languages to anyone for the asking. Hebrew Korans are easy to find. But that was the first and only time I ever saw the Koran translated into Yiddish. Ahmadis from Kababir also regularly set up information stands about their community on my campus.

The relations between the Haifa Ahmadis and Jews (and Christians and Moslems and Druse and Bahais) is warm and cordial. As far as I know there has never been a single instance of Haifa Ahmadis participating in anti-Israel terror or sedition. The worst complaint about them that I have heard has to do with their shooting off fireworks at their weddings.

Many mainstream Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims do not consider the Ahmadis to be true Muslims at all. There are many websites that demonize and defame the Ahmadis, run by radical Islamists. A law in Pakistan prohibits Ahmadis from proclaiming themselves Muslims. Anti-Ahmadi violence has broken out regularly in Pakistan, the first time in 1953, shortly after Pakistani independence.

According to one of Ahmadi official web site:
“Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the leading Islamic organization to categorically reject terrorism in any form. Over a century ago, Ahmad(as) emphatically declared that an aggressive “jihad by the sword” has no place in Islam. In its place, he taught his followers to wage a bloodless, intellectual “jihad of the pen” to defend Islam. To this end, Ahmad(as) penned over 80 books and tens of thousands of letters, delivered hundreds of lectures, and engaged in scores of public debates. His rigorous and rational defenses of Islam unsettled conventional Muslim thinking. As part of its effort to revive Islam, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community continues to spread Ahmad’s(as) teachings of moderation and restraint in the face of bitter opposition from parts of the Muslim world. Similarly, it is the only Islamic organization to endorse a separation of mosque and state.”
One wonders whether the Ahmadi version of a quietist non-violent Islam is what really has the Islamofascists so upset. Because of the cordial relations between Jews and Ahmadis in Israel, numerous Islamofascist web sites denounce the Ahmadis as Zionist agents.

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 04:52 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow TURKISH AMBASSADOR to United States calls for a “Final Solution” to Israel problem

TURKISH AMBASSADOR to United States calls
for a “Final Solution” to the Israel problem
And we know what he means by a ‘final solution,’ just ask the Armenians who survived the Turkish genocide.

As the crisis over a deadly Israeli commando raid on a vessel carrying Turkish activists continued to command the attention of top officials in Washington, Jerusalem, and Istanbul, Namik Tan, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, called Friday for engaging Hamas in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But in an unfortunate turn of phrase, Tan twice said Friday that the militant Palestinian group, which the United States and Europe have designated a terrorist organization, is a necessary and important part of the "final solution" to the conflict.

"For a final solution, you cannot ignore Hamas. That's what we are saying," said Ambassador Namik Tan. "This is not the first time that we are trying to bring this into the discussion. We have told this to the Israelis, to our American friends, to our international interlocutors, everyone. How could you imagine a final solution without Hamas?"

Tan's choice of words aside, he was calling for Hamas to be included in final-status negotiations -- a prospect many Israelis would find even more objectionable than his language. The U.S. position is that Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, respect international agreements, and reject violence before it can be considered a legitimate player.

The ambassador's comments highlighted the yawning gap between the positions of the Turkish government and that of the American and Israeli administrations, as tensions linger following this week's Gaza flotilla incident.

Only yesterday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, "I do not think that Hamas is a terrorist organization. I said the same thing to the United States. I am still of the same opinion. They are Palestinians in resistance, fighting for their own land."

As the Obama administration continues to try to calm the situation and contain emotions following the Gaza flotilla incident, the Turkish government is doing exactly the opposite, raising the volume of its public calls for actions by both Washington and Jerusalem.

At his embassy Friday afternoon, Tan railed against Israel, made broad threats about the Turkish-Israel relationship, and professed deep disappointment with the Obama administration and its handling of the crisis.

"Israel is about to lose a friend ... This is going to be a historical mistake," he said, calling on Israel to make a public apology if its wishes to keep its ties with Turkey. "The future of our relationship will be determined by Israel's action."

Calling the Israelis "criminals," he reiterated Turkey's call for an international investigation. "It's all criminal ... Can you imagine a criminal investigating its own wrongdoing?"

The Obama administration has made clear it supports Israel conducting its own investigation, albeit with some unspecified international participation. "Can Israel, as a vibrant democracy, with strong institutions of government, conduct a fair, credible, transparent investigation?" State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Thursday. "The answer is yes. It is fully capable of doing that."

President Obama spoke with Erdogan by phone and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a two-and-a-half hour face-to-face meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister AhmetDavutoglu on Tuesday. But while the two long interactions were helpful in getting Israel to release Turkish citizens, they didn't produce any agreement on the overall issue, said Tan.

"There is no word of condemnation nowhere, at all levels. So we are disappointed," Tan said. "We want to encourage the United States to take certain decisions in that regard."....

Obama and Clinton refused to condemn or acknowledge the Armenian genocide

Read it all>
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2010, 02:24 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Israel’s Critics and Hollow Lies

Israel’s Critics and Hollow Lies
Dismantling the propaganda one lie at a time
by Rick Moran

In the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla incident, we have witnessed a tsunami of virulent, over-the-top criticism of the state of Israel for its actions in interdicting the so-called “peace activists” before they could dock at the port of Gaza.

Reasonable people can argue whether the decision on the methods used to stop the ships was the correct course for the Israeli government to take. Indeed, there is ahealthy debate within Israel itself over this very issue, including questions about intelligence, tactics, and whether the propaganda victory handed to pro-Palestinian activists could have been avoided while still maintaining the blockade.

Even the efficacy of the blockade itself is being discussed in Israel, as it has been since the quarantine was intensified nearly 3 years ago. For these internal critics, and those elsewhere who do not wish to see the state of Israel or its people destroyed, it is much too glib to ascribe their opposition as anti-Semitic or even anti-Israeli. But we can certainly put a reasonable question to these critics that never seems to get answered amidst the bombast and posturing from both the Jew haters and genuine “peace” seekers alike.

What is it you would have the Israeli government do to protect itself?

Indeed, what marks the critic of Israeli policy is a disconnect between the perilous reality of Israel’s exposed position vis-a-vis the Palestinians and those nations that support them. They hold a pie-in-the-sky belief that if Israel would only remove the irritants the Palestinians suffer on a daily basis, that the animosity felt by Israel’s enemies would magically disappear.

Consider what these critics have been harping on for years:

The Blockade
Israeljustifies its blockade of Gaza under recognized treaties regarding the Laws of the Sea. This includes interdiction of ships in international waters, as anyone who has read anything about the US blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis can attest.

But let’s ignore all of that and grant Israel’s critics their wish and raise the blockade. What would be the probable outcome?

Judging by what happened on Israel’s southern border following their war with Hezbollah, it would be a military calamity and a security nightmare. Without inspecting each and every ship that docked at the Port of Gaza (and if Egypt allowed the free flow of goods and people into Rafah), the likelihood that the Palestinians would be supplied by Iran and Syria with much more sophisticated and deadly arms would be assured.

Why? Because of the spectacular failure of the United Nations International Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) whose job after the war was to prevent the resupply of Hezbollah. Their mission was to guard the border with Syria to keep Iran’s puppet Bashar Assad from moving arms into Lebanon to replace (and as it turned out, augment) Hezballah’s ****nal of 40,000 rockets. Not only were the terrorists easily resupplied, but it appears that recent additions to Hezballah’s ****nal include medium range ballistic missiles capable of hitting every major city in Israel.

Given such incompetence on the part of the UN, are Israel’s critics seriously suggesting that, 1) lifting the blockade would not result in an avalanche of sophisticated weapons pouring into Gaza; and 2) any other party would do as good a job as the Israelis themselves in keeping these weapons out?

Israel controls the Port of Gaza as a result of the Oslo accords. They have a legal right to self defense, and a legal justification for the blockade, including the right to interdict shipping in international waters – as the Americans did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Israel’s overwrought critics could assure the Israeli government that lifting the blockade would not result in Hamas improving their capability of murdering a lot of innocent Israeli citizens, I am sure that Prime Minister Netanyahu would be interested in hearing how they would propose doing so.

The Fence
It doesn’t matter to critics what Israel is trying to keep out by building a 450 mile fence largely along what was once known as the “Green Line” that separated the West Bank from Israel. Rarely does one come across criticism of the barrier that gives the Israeli rationale for constructing it in the first place. There have been all sorts of fantastical claims about why Israel is building the Fence, ignoring the most obvious reason; it will save the lives of Israeli citizens.

Again, there appears to be a disconnect on the part of critics who can safely catalog Israeli concerns and shuffle them off to the side somewhere, while railing against the purported effects of the fence on Palestinians.

Most observers would agree that the barrier imposes burdens on the Palestinians. The way the wall is being constructed creates enclaves of Palestinians who will be isolated from their neighbors and the rest of the West Bank. But for critics, military necessity and the security of innocent Israeli citizens just never seems to make much of an impression. Otherwise intelligent, discerning analysts bewail the plight of Palestinians – and, in some cases, it is indeed tragic that families are separated, commerce affected, and property expropriated.

But we come back to the question that critics of Israeli policy refuse to even consider; what is the government supposed to do to protect their citizens from such an implacable, deadly enemy? The fence is a far less draconian and brutal solution than other governments have chosen in the past in a similar situation – namely, mass slaughter of their enemies. If that is Israel’s goal, they are doing a horrible job of achieving it.

Instead, the fence inoculates Israel from most of the terrorist acts that would kill many of its citizens while advancing the least obnoxious alternative that places the smallest possible burden on the Palestinian people. In fact, building the Fence has resulted in far fewer terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis. The three years prior to building the fence saw 117 terrorist attacks resulting in the loss of 477 civilians while wounding thousands of others. In areas where the Fence has been completed, the number of attacks has dropped to near zero.

Critics also rarely mention that some Israeli citizens in the settlements oppose the fence because it separates them from the rest of Israel.

The “Proportionate Response” Canard
Perhaps no complaint of Israel’s critics reveals the massive disconnect between reality and sophistry as much as the idea that because the Palestinians are weak militarily, and fewer in number, that it is the responsibility of Israel to pull its punches and react “proportionately” to Palestinian provocations; or, in the case of the Gaza raid, provocations from anyone.

First, Michael Rubin writing at The Corner demolishes this nonsense:
But why should any democratic government empowered to defend its citizenry accept Europe’s idea of proportion? When attacked, why should not a stronger nation or its representatives try to both protects its own personnel at all costs and, in the wider scheme of things, defeat its adversaries?

Likewise, when terrorists seek to strike at the United States, why should we find ourselves constrained by an artificial notion of proportionality when responding to those terrorists or their state sponsors?

Ultimately, it may be time to recognize that, in the face of growing threats to Western liberalism, strength and disproportionality matter more to security and the protection of democracy than the approval of the chattering class of Europe or the U.N. secretary general.
I have never heard of “proportionality” applied to any other nations except Israel and the United States. I don’t recall such arguments when Russia invaded Georgia, destroying several towns with massive artillery bombardments, ripping up rail centers, and killing wantonly. They may have been criticized for the invasion but the words “disproportionate response” were not used, as far as I can recall, to describe their action. Even if the phrase was used, there would be no comparison with the frequency with which that criticism is directed against Israel.

Neither am I aware of anyone criticizing Pakistan for using tanks and helicopters to engage Taliban fighters armed only with AK-47’s and a few outdated mortars.

But the idea of “proportionality” in war is very important to people like Andrew Sullivan:
Kudos to Michael Rubin for conceding that the Cheney-Netanyahu approach to terrorism is exactly a question of deliberate disproportion…

Ah, yes. Why not torture, mass murder, and an abandonment of basic principles of the rules of law?
Note the towering straw men set up by Sullivan. Is he accusing Israel of doing all of that? Or is he saying that Israel is capable of doing those things? Or is he positing the notion that commando raids using much restrained force until the “peace” activists put the lives of the soldiers at risk automatically escalates into “torture, mass murder, and an abandonment of basic principles of the rules of law?”

In fact, the reason there were not hundreds killed on that ship was because Israel did, indeed, engage in a proportional response to the violence directed against them. They didn’t have to. They could have rappelled down those ropes armed with automatic rifles instead of paint guns and at the first sign of trouble, blazed away, killing dozens. I daresay that most nations would have taken that route. It is much safer for the attacker, and success is more assured, if the IDF had gone Sullivan’s “mass murder” route.

But they didn’t. They couldn’t. Israel is a civilized nation engaged with barbarians whose blood-lust against the Jews is so profoundly ingrained that many of the activists fervently sang and chanted about martyrdom prior to their little cruise. Willing to give their lives for a propaganda stunt? What is “proportional” when engaging people like that?

Did Sullivan and his ilk expect the commandos to rappel down to the deck armed with knives, steel bars, and baseball bats? Would that have been a “proportional response?” Yes, it’s as silly as that.

It really doesn’t matter to Israel’s critics. Like the blockade and the Fence, the commando raid is beside the point. What matters is finding a way to place Israel in the weakest moral position possible in the eyes of the world. In order to do this, critics will go to astonishing lengths, twisting their arguments into pretzels of logic, salted with half truths, while ignoring the entire issue of Israel’s necessary self defense against those who wish to destroy her and her people. And through all of that virulent, off-balance criticism, not one word about alternatives that they would recommend the Jewish state employ except near total surrender to their enemies.

Perhaps we shouldn’t ask what critics want Israel to do. The answer might very well horrify all of us.

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 03:22 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The Grand Jihad »

The Grand Jihad
How Islam and the Left sabotage America
by Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a columnist for National Review. His book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008), has recently been released in paperback with a new preface. Check out a description from Encounter Books. His newly released book, which has just become a New York Times bestseller, is The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
FP: Andrew C. McCarthy, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Tell us about your new book and what inspired you to write it.

McCarthy: Jamie, as always, it’s a pleasure to be here.
My first book, Willful Blindness, which you kindly allude to in introducing me, was really focused on the terrorist aspect of the Islamist threat. Although I did argue that terrorism was the direct result of Islamist ideology, based undeniably on an accurate and mainstream construction of Islamic doctrine, my main purpose was to explain why prosecution in the criminal justice system, standing alone, was an inadequate response to a profound national-security challenge.

The Grand Jihad is an effort to dig deeper into what that national security challenge is, and in particular, to stress that terrorism is only a small subset of it. Islamists consider themselves to be in a “civilizational jihad” — their words, not mine — against the West. They use terrorism to great effect, but the battle proceeds on every conceivable front in our society: the media, the academy, and our politics, law and culture. And their aim is nothing less than the “destruction of the West” — as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide (and probably the most influential Sunni cleric in the world), puts it, “to conquer America” and “conquer Europe.”

FP: Why is a book like yours necessary?

McCarthy: The reason a book like this is necessary is that, in the U.S. and the West, we don’t seem to grasp — some of us expressly deny — the dimensions of the threat facing us. When they hear someone like me talking, they tend to dismiss these warnings as some sort of far-fetched theory: “He says they plan to destroy the West — how crazy that is!” So it’s important to be able to point out that I am not theorizing here. I am reporting to you what they are saying about what they are so obviously doing. You can ignore it, at your peril, but to deny it is happening is just preposterous.

FP: And the origins of your very title shows that denying it is just preposterous, right?

McCarthy: Exactly. The very title of the book, “The Grand Jihad” and the invocation of “sabotage” in the subtitle, is taken from a 1991 internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum in which the group’s leadership in the U.S. explains to its global leadership in Egypt that the Brothers (or the Ikhwan) consider their work in North America as a “grand jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.” They are telling us outright what they are about. And while this 1991 memo is quite blunt, it’s not materially different from what they’ve been saying outright for 80 years. The Brotherhood’s motto remains, to this day, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar!” It doesn’t get much less subtle than that.

FP: Why is emphasis on the Muslim Brotherhood so important?

McCarthy: The Brotherhood is the font of modern Islamist ideology, which is deeply rooted in Islamic doctrine and scripture and which is far more mainstream among the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims than we’d like to acknowledge. To hear the official government fairy tale, we are confronted by a fringe handful of “violent extremists” who just happen to be Muslims and are so unrepresentative of Muslims that we must not refer to them as “jihadists” or “Islamo-fascists” or “Islamic terrorists” or make any connection whatsoever between their atrocities and what we are incessantly told is one of the world’s great religions.

In point of fact, Islamist ideology is the dominant and dynamic belief system among the world’s Muslims. It is true that support for terrorism is a minority position in at least some (but by no means all) of its uses. But what we need to grasp is that this represents a disagreement among Muslims about tactics, not about the bottom line. The desire to convert free societies into sharia societies is a majority position, not a fringe position.

FP: Why is this fact so rejected in our media and culture?

McCarthy: It is sometimes difficult to decipher this because:

(a) the doctrine of taqqiya, or deception, encourages Islamists to lie about their aims in order to achieve their aims (obviously, you can’t use a sabotage strategy without that), and

(b) when Islamists and Westerners speak about “freedom,” they are not speaking about the same concept.

In Islam, “freedom” means perfect submission to Allah and His law (sharia). So an Islamist has no trouble looking you in the eye and saying he is all for freedom. It owes to our own ignorance that we don’t grasp that he really means the antithesis of the concept we think we are hearing.

Same thing with “terrorism”: Islamists do not accept that what they call “resistance” – which includes mass-murder attacks against people they have decided are threatening or insulting Islam, or “occupying” territories they have decided are Islamic – is “terrorism.”

So they have no trouble looking us in the eye and saying, in all apparent earnestness, and telling you they condemn “terrorism,” even though they know full well that they don’t believe suicide-bombings in Israel constitute terrorism.

As I relate in the book, this also explains how Qaradawi could “condemn” the 9/11 attacks but then issue a fatwa calling for the murder of American troops operating in Iraq. The former, a sneak attack targeting civilians – including Muslims – in a non-Muslim country is, for him, a tactical blunder because it provoked a forcible response that was a net loss for the Islamist project. The latter involves a Western military force “occupying” an Islamic country; Islamist ideology demands violent jihad to drive them out – and it doesn’t matter a wit that the Westerners view themselves as doing humanitarian work to make life better for Muslims; Islamists view the planting of Western ideas and Western institutions in Islamic lands as an act of war.

FP: You mention “violent jihad.” What do you think of the fact that John Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism advisor, just explained to us that jihad is an “internal struggle” and a noble calling?

McCarthy: Ah, yes, the internal struggle to “purify oneself or one’s community.” It is remarkable that we’ve been under jihadist siege for 17 years – and you could say it’s a lot longer than that, but I’ll count from the WTC bombing – and we still hear this blather.

At the highest levels of government, we don’t want to come to grips with what jihad is. It is a very simple concept. In Islam, jihad is always and everywhere the divinely ordained mission to establish, spread or defend sharia, the Muslim political and legal system. Sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition to Islamicizing societies – the central, supremacist imperative of Islam being to place all the world under the dominion of Allah and His law. Thus jihad can be, and often is, violent. But it can also be nonviolent, though not in the syrupy way Brennan and other apologists suggest. To hear them tell it, jihad is totally benign – the internal struggle to brush after every meal, or to rid one’s neighborhood of drug-dealing, etc. That’s not it at all. When Islam speaks of jihad as the command to “purify oneself or one’s community,” it does so in a very narrow sense. The idea is not to become a better person but a better Muslim – i.e., to be more faithful to sharia. And to “purify one’s community” does not mean to make it a better place in some objective sense; it means to rid one’s community of non-Muslim influences.

If we understand the elemental fact that jihad is, in fact, a bedrock tenet of Islam and that it is entirely about establishing sharia, then we are on road, finally, to understanding the civilizational threat we face.

FP: How is Sharia a threat to us and our way of life?

McCarthy: Sharia, in many salient particulars, is antithetical to Western culture and American constitutional republicanism. Sharia rejects our foundational premise that people have a right to make law for themselves, irrespective of any religious code (and sharia is not just a religious code but a full-scale socio-economic and political system that has spiritual elements). Sharia rejects freedom of conscience (apostasy from Islam is a capital offense). It denies equal protection before the law to women and non-Muslims. It denies private property (it claims to protect private property but it really doesn’t – all property is deemed to belong to Allah and its human “owner” is regarded merely as a custodian who is obliged to use it for the good of the umma). It abhors capitalism. It endorses violence as a means to settle political disputes. In short, it cannot tolerate individual liberty, which is the building block of our society.

FP: Sounds like something the Left would embrace. That’s why you argue that Islamists work together with the Left to sabotage America, right?

McCarthy: Correct, that is a huge part of it.
I should be clear about what I mean by “the Left.” I would have thought this obvious – a subtitle is always something of an overgeneralization – but I am not talking about all liberals or all progressive people any more than I am talking about all Muslims. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not subscribe to Islamist ideology (the problem, of course, is that there are hundreds of millions who do, and they appear to have the better case in terms of fidelity to Islamic doctrine). And not all of what might generally be called “the Left” is part of what I am homing in on: the hard Left – in America, the Obama Left or the Alinskyite Left – pushing to change our society radically. I think they are a minority, but they are a dynamic, effective minority – just as Islamist ideology (which I suspect is not a minority if you take the tactic of terrorism off the table) is the dynamic and assertive movement among the world’s Muslims.

Nor am I saying, as someone asked in one of my first interviews, that Barack Obama wants to impose sharia. This is an alliance, not a merger. Islamists and Leftists have significant points of departure – mostly on civil rights. If it were just the two of them, they would fight to the death. Indeed, that historically is what has happened: the two sides join in marriages of convenience that always end badly once they have achieved the goal that pushed them together in the first place. After taking help from the communists to topple the Shah, Khomeini repressed them. After Nasser’s socialists aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood to overrun the British-backed Egyptian monarchy (an entente in which Nasser personally solicited a skeptical Sayyid Qutb), Nasser declined to install sharia, the Brotherhood tried to kill him, and Nasser responded by brutally suppressing the Brotherhood – such that Qutb was ultimately executed and the Brotherhood was driven into the arms of the Saudis (the unintended deadly consequence we are still living with today).

I’ve been surprised, Jamie, that when I’m asked about this aspect of the book, people imply that I am concocting a theory. I would have thought that not only the historical instances of Islamist/Leftist collaboration but the innumerable examples all around us (e.g., the radical Center for Constitutional Rights jumping in to become al Qaeda’s lawyer after 9/11; the collaboration between the ACLU and CAIR against the post-9/11 national-security measures; the Muslim Public Affairs Council taking a lead role in the push for Obamacare; the Muslim Brotherhood’s very easily accessible economic and social program – you can glean it from their website, – which is plainly socialist; etc.) would have made the fact of the alliance undeniable. Yet I am constantly asked, “Doesn’t the Left have as much or more to lose than anyone if Islamists come to power?” Sure, as I’ve said, they’d have a lot to lose if there were a situation where all that was left were themselves and the Islamists. But we’re not in that situation. We are in the situation where, historically, they are most apt to confederate: namely, where they have a common obstacle that makes their differences seem less important. To me, the interesting question is why the two sides collaborate, not whether they collaborate. There’s no question that they’re collaborating.

FP: So, in your view, why exactly do they collaborate?

McCarthy: Well, it’s mostly about the common enemy. But I argue that, their significant differences notwithstanding, they are in harmony on a few big-picture matters. Both ideologies are authoritarian, in the sense that they want a powerful central government to impose their alternative utopias. Both are totalitarian, in the sense that each of those alternative utopias involves controlling life down to its granular details. And, again, neither can tolerate a freedom culture: if individuals are free, Leftists and Islamists must fail. As I demonstrate in the book, Rousseau, who is the father of all modern radical movements and despised the notion of individual liberty, was an admirer of Islam – especially its holding that the spiritual and secular realms are indivisible. And when one compares Rousseau’s thought with that of Qutb (who, along with Banna, is the most important Brotherhood thinker), the similarities are startling.

FP: In describing the Obama Left, you invoke David Horowitz’s notion of “neocommunism.” Tell us why.

McCarthy: I am obviously very influenced by David’s insights about the radical Left, and, with respect to the themes in this book, by his Unholy Alliance, which I think is one of the most important – and too often overlooked – books of the last several years. David’s description of neocommunism seems to me a perfect analysis of the phenomenon we’re seeing. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many on the Right heaved a sigh of relief and though, “Thank God that’s over.” But it wasn’t the end of communism at all. Indeed, it turned out, as David points out, to be a boon for Leftists. In arguing for their utopia, they no longer had to explain away a huge, execrable, concrete example of what happens when their lofty ideas get applied in the real world. Now it’s all “social justice” – and who doesn’t want social justice, right? – without the inconvenience of the gulags, the purges, the mass-murders, the collapsed economy, the resulting degradation and hopelessness....
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2010, 03:26 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Islamic antisemitism exposed yet again

Moroccan paper:
The Jews "embody wickedness, which has brought God's eternal curse upon them"

Islamic antisemitism exposed yet again -- but Muhammad Sharki is not an "Islamophobe." He's just a Muslim reading the Qur'an. "Moroccan paper: 'The Noble Qur'an Stricty [sic] Defines the Position of Muslims in Regard to Jews--There Is No Room for Debate,'" from Translating Jihad, June 9:
From Moroccan online paper Oujda, comes this article by Muhammad Sharki about the Qur'an's decrees relative to the Jews. Mr. Sharki makes it clear that the Jews should not be known as a "nationality or race," but rather a "people who embody wickedness, which has brought God's eternal curse upon them." This curse, amply described in the Qur'an, came about because of their "disobedience, hostility, abomination, and loyalty to the infidels." Mr. Sharki then explains that, "A Muslim is not entitled to suppose that Jews are different than how they are described in the Qur'an." Is it any wonder that so many Muslims hate Jews today? It's hard not to if one understands and believes the Qur'an. Link to the original Arabic.
The Noble Qur'an Stricty Defines the Position of Muslims in Regard to Jews--There Is No Room for Debate

Muhammad Sharki, Oujda, 5 June 2010
It is well-known that the Noble Qur'an is the source from which Muslims derive their truths and positions. The Noble Qur'an has spoken on things which still have yet to occur, such as the day of judgment with its subsequent paradise and hell. On the other hand, it has also spoken of things which have already occurred, and other things extending to the present and future, for it is a book of guidance, and not just a history book which records events for the mere sake of recording them. If Muslims take anything from the Noble Qur'an related to their lives and their preparation for death and the next life... There will be no innovation [bid'a; Islamic term denoting apostasy or heresy] in their position towards Jews, for this has been precisely defined by the Noble Qur'an. There is no justification for adopting positions from any source other than the Noble Qur'an. The world today is ruled by the Zionist lobby; the United States, Western Europe, and the rest of the world sympathize with the Jews, due to what is termed 'the Holocaust,' which is a carefully-prepared grievance to be used as a pretext for the creation of the Zionist entity, which has never existed throughout history, at the expense of the right of the Palestinian people. It is well-known that the contrived Jewish grievance has caused the world to overlook the crimes of the Zionist entity, which are unprecedented in the history of mankind. The Jews have established a tradition of criminalizing whoever denies their pretended grievance, and have classified this denial as the most serious and ugliest charge ever known in human history. This is termed 'antisemitism,' which they consider akin to hatred of God Himself.

Certainly the opinion of the Jews that antisemitism is the worst taboo in the world today is not correct. If it is not correct in countries tampered with by the Zionist lobby, then it will definitely not be correct in countries who derive their truths and positions from the divine source, and who know the true definition of 'Jew'--not as a nationality or race, as they like to describe themselves to justify their quasi-grievance, but as a people who embody wickedness, which has brought God's eternal curse upon them.

The Almighty said in the Noble Qur'an: "Cursed were those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and (habitually) transgressed. They used not to prevent one another from wrongdoing that they did. How wretched was that which they were doing. You see many of them becoming allies of those who disbelieved. How wretched is that which they have put forth for themselves in that Allah has become angry with them, and in the punishment they will abide eternally. And if they had believed in Allah and the Prophet and in what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them as allies; but many of them are defiantly disobedient" [Qur'an 5.78-81]. The curse of God has come upon the Jews by the tongue of His prophets (peace be upon them)--not for their race, nationality, or semitism, as they claim, but rather for their disobedience, hostility, abomination, and loyalty to the infidels. If the cursing of David and Jesus did not catch up with them, then the cursing of all the prophets, and last of all of our lord Muhammad (PBUH), will. For this reason, they spared no effort in attempting to kill, poison, and disparage Muhammad through various means. Due to their disobedience, hostility, abomination, and loyalty to the infidels, the Noble Qur'an has defined the position of Muslims toward them, as the Most High said: "You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers (to be) the Jews and those who associate others with Allah" [Qur'an 5.82]. The Noble Qur'an has declared that the hostility between Jews and Muslims is deep-seated, for the Jews are even ahead of the polytheists in the intensity of their hostility against the Muslims.

The Prophet (PBUH) emphasized this hostility when he said, "A Jew has never passed by a Muslim without wanting to kill him" [narrated by Abu-Huraira]. This confirms the idea that killing Muslims is a part of the Jews' disobedience, hostility, abomination, and loyalty to the infidels. This is also one of the things which has caused them to receive the cursing of Almighty God, by the tongue of David and Jesus son of Mary, peace be upon them. A Muslim is not entitled to suppose that Jews are different than how they are described in the Qur'an--otherwise, he is contradicting the Noble Qur'an. The Qur'an does not stop there, but commands Muslims to refrain from alliance with the Jews, as the Most High said: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are (in fact) allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is (one) of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people. So you see those in whose hearts is disease hastening into (association with) them, saying, 'We are afraid a misfortune may strike us.' But perhaps Allah will bring conquest or a decision from Him, and they will become, over what they have been concealing within themselves, regretful" [Qur'an 5.51-52]. The Noble Qur'an has stipulated that there should be no alliance between the Muslims and the Jews and Christians, due to the wickedness of the Jews and Christians, wherein they unite against the Muslims....
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2010, 02:08 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 05:49 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow "I've become an enemy of the people for speaking the truth about Islam"

"I've become an enemy of the people for speaking the truth about Islam"

So says Bruce Bawer. "When it comes to the right to speak one's mind about Islam, the record of the last few years makes it clear which direction the West is moving in." Indeed. The official fictions are ever more strictly enforced. It is only a matter of time. But...the truth will always remain the truth, and it will come out in other ways.

"I've Become an Enemy of the People for Speaking the Truth About Islam: I've now been singled out, in a report commissioned and funded by the government of Norway, as a perpetrator of Islamophobia. Am I about to be hauled into court?," by Bruce Bawer in Pajamas Media, June 15 (thanks to Aaron):
When it comes to the right to speak one's mind about Islam, the record of the last few years makes it clear which direction the West is moving in. In France and Italy, Oriana Fallaci is put on trial for disparaging Islam. In Canada, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are hauled before "human rights commission" tribunals for criticizing Islam in print. In Australia, an Islamic organization sues two pastors for "vilification of Muslims." In Britain, a Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested on charges of hate speech for having written negatively about Islam, and the Archbishop of Canterbury proposes that Parliament pass stronger laws against such speech acts. And in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, the head of the Freedom Party, which performed so well in the June 9 general elections that Wilders may end up in the governing coalition, still faces trial for having made a film about the Koranic foundations of terrorism.

Then there's Norway, where I live, and where the last few days have seen yet another dark development. By way of background, permit me to begin by quoting myself. On pages 230-31 of my book Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom I sum up the more alarming aspects of Norway's Discrimination Law, passed in 2005:
It forbids "harassment on the grounds of ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, skin color, language, religion, or beliefs," and, in turn, defines harassment as "actions, omissions, or utterances [my emphasis] that have the effect or are intended to have the effect of being insulting, intimidating, hostile, degrading, or humiliating."
In other words, it's illegal just to say certain things. [...]
Which means that a handful of far-left organizations have been given enormous power to silence those they disagree with.
Or to silence those who speak about things they don't want you to know about, like the truth about Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism.

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2010, 04:26 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Ahmadinejad: The Jews Only Seem Human/We Will Act to Deliver the American People

Antisemitism Documentation Project

In a June 16, 2010 speech in the city of Shahre-Kord, in central Iran near Isfahan, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated his anti-Semitic world view, calling the Jews the worst of criminals and claiming that they only appear to be human. Ahmadinejad also hinted at his apocalyptic outlook, saying that whoever relies on God's might need fear no one. He added that his regime is consistently and successfully acting to change the world order and spelled out his government's new mission – to liberate the American nation from the "undemocratic and bullying" regime that oppresses it.

The speech, which marked a year since the first announcement of President Obama's call for support of the Green movement – which Ahmadinejad called interference in Iran's domestic affairs – reflected an apparent policy of retaliation for every Western action. This was evidenced in Iran's response to the fourth round of anti-Iran sanctions, which include searches of Iran-bound ships, in which Iranian officials announced that Iran would conduct its own searches of Western ships in the Persian Gulf.[1] In the same vein, in response to U.S. support for Iran's Green movement, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran would act to deliver the American people from its dictatorial government by aiding opposition activities against the U.S. government.

Following are the main points of Ahmadinejad's statements:

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2010, 01:03 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Questioning the Koran

Questioning the Koran
Time to take off the gloves?
by William Kilpatrick

At the Guantanamo Naval Base prison, American military personnel are required to wear gloves when touching the Koran. It’s the perfect metaphor for our official culture’s obsequious behavior toward Islam. Terrorists the world over cite the Koran as the motivation and justification for their terrorist acts, yet journalists and government officials reflexively jump to the Koran’s defense whenever it seems to be implicated in terror. Instead of thinking, “Hmm, let’s take a closer look at that book,” they assure us, on no evidence, that the terrorists have misunderstood the Koran.

Considering that large chunks of the world are sliding into the Islamic camp, it may be time to take off the gloves. We don’t have the luxury any longer of living by pre-9/11 niceties such as “we must respect religious differences”—a formula which has come to mean that we mustn’t even look into them. On the contrary, you respect differences by taking them seriously. And if the Koran is the motive force behind Islam’s militancy then the Koran deserves serious examination, not perfunctory gestures of esteem.

“Why bring religion into it?” you may ask. Well, because religion is what it’s all about. Sincere Muslims believe that God wants the whole world to be subject to Islam. They’re free to believe that, of course, but it would be very much in the interest of non-Muslims if they stopped believing it. If an unbeliever refuses to submit to Islam, Allah requires that his head be separated from his body. In light of this, it seems only reasonable that unbelievers should start thinking of ways to separate Muslims from their faith. We have a—shall we say, vital—interest in encouraging Muslims to reflect critically upon the facts of their faith. We can help them to do this, not by telling them we have deep respect for their religion, but by telling them we have deep misgivings about it.

So, the argument that the Koran is of divine origin, and therefore deserving of unquestioning obedience, ought to be challenged. And it ought to be challenged frequently and persuasively with the intention of forcing Muslims to at least entertain some doubts that God had anything to do with the composition of the Koran.

Let’s pass over the awkward fact that there were no witnesses to the revelation except Muhammad himself, and go on to look at what Muslim apologists say in defense of the Koran. The traditional belief is that the Koran, which was given to Muhammad in installments, is a perfect replica of a mother book which has existed eternally in heaven. According to apologists, the proof that God composed it is that it is a work of perfection, a literary masterpiece written in an inimitatable style. Thus, doubters are challenged to produce even one sura comparable to it (10:38). In a nutshell, only God could have said it so well.
Well, let’s see. Here is sura 81:20:
I swear by the turning planets, and by the stars that rise and set; by the night, when it descends, and the first breath of morning: this is the word of a gracious and mighty messenger…
That’s pretty good. So is sura 51
By the dust-scattering winds and the heavily-laden clouds; by the swiftly-gliding ships and by the angels who deal out blessings to mankind; that which you are promised shall be fulfilled…
If the whole Koran were written to this level you might have the makings of a case for its divine authorship. But for the most part—at least for the Western reader—it falls short of other great literature. Much of it is tedious, repetitive, and didactic. While it’s true that a lot is lost in translation, how much could have been lost from: “Prophet, we have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty: the daughters of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to take in marriage.” (sura 33:50). No matter how skillfully translated there is not much literary punch in such passages.

Of course, many readers also find parts of the Bible to be tedious, repetitive, and didactic. But this is less of a problem for Christians since they don’t claim that the Bible is a word-for-word dictation from God. For Christians, the literary merit of scripture is not a crucial issue. Still, the Bible does have considerable literary merit. Many passages in the Old Testament soar above the Koran—the Psalms, the scene of the dry bones come to life described in Ezekiel (Eze. 37), the Lord answering Job out of the whirlwind (Job 38), the temptation scene in the Garden of Eden, the vivid prophecies of Isaiah. And there is nothing in the Koran to compare with the moving scenes in the Gospels. So, if you hold to the God-dictated-it school of Koran defense, you have a problem. To put it bluntly, why can’t God write as well as human authors such as David, Solomon, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?—not to mention Homer, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy.

Muslim apologists do have an answer to such quibbles. They say that you can only appreciate the true beauty of the Koran by reading it in Arabic. Okay, then, maybe when you read, “We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” (2: 226) in the original Arabic it sounds like something out of “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyan.” But there is another problem which goes beyond the sound and sense of words. Whether or not the Koran is lacking in stylistic perfection, it is certainly lacking in coherence. And you don’t have to speak high Arabic to notice it.

When God wrote the “mother of a book,” He apparently forgot to outline. As a result, there is no beginning, middle, or end to the Koran. As N.J. Dawood, one of its translators, admits, “scholars are agreed that a strictly chronological arrangement is impossible…” Instead, the Koran is arbitrarily arranged according to the length of its chapters with the longest coming first and the shortest, last. Accordingly, the Koran skips back and forth between accounts of Jesus, Moses, Joseph, Abraham, and Noah as though all these figures lived in some kind of time proximity instead of being separated by hundreds, even thousands of years. Besides the strange juxtapositions of the stories and persons, you can add in the fact that, with a few exceptions, none of the stories are fully developed. They are more like story fragments. And the logical transitions between episodes are often missing. As the great Koran scholar Theodor Noldeke pointed out, the extended narratives of the Koran are lacking in “indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events…and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration.” One is reminded of Mark Twain’s joke that Fenimore Cooper broke all the rules of literary art, including Rule One, “That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere,” and Rule Two, “that the episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it.”

In response, Muslim apologists say you should think of the Koran more like a body of sermons than as an organized book. But even on this level the Koran lacks coherence. When you listen to a sermon you expect that the end of it will usually have something to do with the beginning of it. This is quite often not the case with the Koran. If you think there ought to be some logical connection between paragraph one and paragraph two or between paragraph two and paragraph three, you are obviously stuck in the linear mode of thought, and you’re not ready for the Koran. Better practice on some James Joyce first.

If you are the Lord of the Universe, apparently you are under no obligation to connect your thoughts. Thus the Koran often seems like a giant game of “Mad Libs” in which unrelated parts are arbitrarily dropped into the narrative. Or, if you prefer a more elegant explanation, here’s Professor Malcolm Clark, author of Islam for Dummies: “The Qur’an is like a montage of different images or a kaleidoscope in which different elements recur but in different arrangements.” That’s one way of putting it. Another way is this: “a confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite, insupportable stupidity in short.” That’s historian Thomas Carlyle’s description of the Koran—and he was fairly sympathetic to Islam.

However you try to explain it, you would think that God could make a better effort. If you believe that the Koran is dictated by God you have to account for the fact that the Author of Creation seems to lack the literary touch—that is, the knack for storytelling, sequence, composition, and drama that we expect in accomplished human authors. Yes, there are beautiful passages in the Koran, but as an exercise in composition it would not pass muster in most freshmen writing courses. Muslims rankle at perceived insults to Allah, but isn’t it a major insult to Allah to attribute to him such a “confused jumble” of a book?

Did God write the Koran? Considering what’s at stake, this is not a time to shy away from the question. The truth concerning the circumstances of the Koran’s birth is much more consequential for the world’s fate than any revelations about the circumstances surrounding the birth of President Obama. Is it provocative to ask the question? Yes, but then, nowadays, anything and everything short of a complete submission to Islam is considered provocative by many Muslims. Besides, contrary to the sensitivity watchdogs, tough questions aren’t usually asked simply for the purpose of provoking anger. Believe it or not, tough questions are often intended to provoke thought.

It’s not just Muslims who need to rethink the Koran, but all those non-Muslims who, without knowing anything about it, still believe the Koran ought to be accorded great respect. The Southern Command guidelines for military personnel not only mandate wearing clean gloves when touching the Koran, they also require that the Koran be handled in a “manner signaling respect and reverence.” “Handle the Koran,” state the guidelines, “as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.” “Fragile?” Yes. Maybe the Southern Command brass have it right, after all. Handle with care. And don’t drop it. It’s brittle.

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2010, 04:14 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Ignoring the fact that many Jews fought and died for blacks in the fight for civil ri

Nation of Islam’s Screwy Louie Farrakhan blames Jews for financial ruin of blacks.

Farrakhanis a vulture, a vampire who drains the life out of the very people he claims to lead. He destroys and makes a meal of his own people. And he in no way represents decent, hardworking Black America.

Imagine if the American black community had the leadership of Martin Luther King instead of this devil who wants to keep his people uneducated, dependent, angry anti-individualists and anti-capitalists. He is the worst kind of demagogue, sacrificing his own to advance his own evil ambitions.

And Obama counts him as a friend. A White House in decay. Martin Luther King would spit in the face of Louis Farrakhan and kick him to the curb where he belongs with the rest of the filth. Perhaps this is the only way for a soulless, evil wannabee to get his sullied name into the papers.

Farrakhan claims Jews for centuries have worked to financially undermine Black people. Disgusting. Radical Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan sent a letter to Jewish leaders asking them to repair the damage they have caused blacks for centuries.

Washington Examiner reports: Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan has written the leaders of more than a dozen major U.S. Jewish groups and denominations seeking “repair of my people from the damage” he claims Jews have caused blacks for centuries.

Farrakhan sent the letter along with two books from the Nation of Islam Historical Research Team that the 77-year-old minister said prove “an undeniable record of Jewish Anti-Black behavior,” starting with the slave trade and Jim Crow laws.

“We could charge you with being the most deceitful so-called friend, while your history with us shows you have been our worst enemy,” he wrote.
Farrakhan has long accused Jews of wrongdoing in speeches, but he has rarely addressed Jewish groups so directly in writing.

The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group which distributed copies of the letter, said in a statement Tuesday that Farrakhan’s “anti-Semitism is obsessive, diabolical and unrestrained. He has opened a new chapter in his ministry where scapegoating Jews is not just part of a message, but the message.”

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2010, 03:36 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Terrorism starts in the mosque, the mosque that is in YOUR neighborhood

“Minarets are our bayonets. The domes are our helmets. The mosques are our barracks. And the believers our Army.”
–Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan

This is not the rhetoric of radical Islam. This is what is taught in the mosques that your Muslim neighbors attend. There is a growing pushback all over America against the spread of Islam via mosques, the one thing that ALL Muslim terrorists have in common. Allow enough mosques to proliferate, and we will become England, where the practice of repressive and oppressive shari’a law is allowed. Creating an Islamic state out of a democratic one is the ultimate goal of ALL Muslim believers, regardless of what they tell you. Don’t be fooled, there are no moderate Muslims. The only moderate Muslims are ex-Muslims.

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 05:21 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Modern anti-semitism (Islamic, left-wing)

Modern anti-semitism (Islamic, left-wing)

Islamic anti-semitism
  • Killings for Islam
  • Islamic fascism
  • Islamic anti-semitism
  • Arab anti-semitism
  • Anti-Semitism in the Arab World
  • National Socialism and Anti-Semitism in the Arab World, Matthias Küntzel, Jewish Political Studies Review, Spring 2005. - "Anti-Semitism based on the notion of a Jewish world conspiracy is not rooted in Islamic tradition but, rather, in European ideological models. The decisive transfer of this ideology to the Muslim world took place between 1937 and 1945 under the impact of Nazi propaganda."
  • The Palestinians supported Nazi Germany in WW2, and even assisted in the Holocaust
  • MEMRI - Extracts from the Arab press translated into English. Read their appalling ideas for yourself - their hatred of the Jews, their support for the killing of Israeli and Western civilians, their fundamental immorality, their ignorance, their conspiracy theories, their hatred of western human rights and human freedom.
  • Why they deny the Holocaust, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, December 16, 2006 - "On top of nearly constant anti-Semitic propaganda, much of the Muslim world hasn't even heard of it." Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself never even heard of it until she was age 24 and got asylum in Holland. "As a child growing up in Saudi Arabia, I remember my teachers, my mom and our neighbors telling us practically on a daily basis that Jews are evil, the sworn enemies of Muslims, and that their only goal was to destroy Islam. We were never informed about the Holocaust."
  • As she points out about the sick freak show of the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran, "What's striking about Ahmadinejad's conference is the (silent) acquiescence of mainstream Muslims. I cannot help but wonder: Why is there no counter-conference in Riyadh, Cairo, Lahore, Khartoum or Jakarta condemning Ahmadinejad? Why are the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference silent on this?" Again, as before, as always, "moderate" Muslims are silent.
  • Mumbai terror attacks, Nov 2008 - Pakistani jihadis go out of their way to find Jews in Mumbai and kill them, because they, like all jihadis, are racists.
    • 2 year old Moshe Holtzberg has his mummy and daddy killed in front of him, for no reason other than they are Jews and the jihadi killers are racists.
    • The Rabbi and the Terrorists, Dennis Prager, December 02, 2008. "The question is why? Why would a terrorist group of Islamists from Pakistan whose primary goal is to have Pakistan gain control of the third of Kashmir that belongs to India ... devote so much of its efforts - 20 percent of its force of 10 gunmen ... - to killing a rabbi and any Jews with him? The question echoes one from World War II: Why did Hitler devote so much time, money, and manpower in order to murder every Jewish man, woman, and child in every country the Nazis occupied? Why did Hitler ... weaken the Nazi war effort by diverting money, troops, and military vehicles from fighting the Allies to rounding up Jews and shipping them to death camps?"
The UN's anti-semitism

The UN allows countries that are not democracies to vote in its decisions. By doing so it forfeits all credibility. No one should give a damn what the UN says about Israel (or indeed any issue). Leftist anti-semitism

The Arab world is openly anti-semitic, and is not ashamed of it. Europe hates Israel too, but claims that this is different.

"Hallucinatory" anti-semitism
  • Daniel Jonah Goldhagen expresses well the point that anti-semitism has always been "hallucinatory". It is not about what the Jews do. It is about imaginary things. Hitler's fantastical complaints about the Jews were no more based on reality than the medieval complaints about the Jews "causing" the Black Death.
  • Almost all complaints about Israel today are of the same hallucinatory quality. What Israel does and does not do is simply irrelevant to the lives of almost everyone in the Arab world. And yet it consumes so much of their attention, as if Israel and the Jews are to blame for the fact that they are poor, unfree and backward. The entire Arab world is in the grip of a hallucinatory anti-semitism that achieves nothing. The best thing Arabs can do is simply forget about Israel.
  • The Editor-in-Chief of the enemy TV station Al-Jazeera illustrates this hallucinatory hatred of Israel. He claims that the Jews are the cause of all of the Arab world's problems (even in countries with no Jews):
    • Q. "Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?"
    • A. "I think so."
    • He's not joking. He really believes this.
  • The Globalization of Antisemitism by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (see also Hate turns from Shylock to Rambo)
  • And in Europe, Israel, rather than money-lending or Christ-killing, is now the main "reason" given for European anti-semitism, and the left is now the centre of Jew-hating, rather than the right.
  • The Paradox of Cruelty: The greater the hatred, the less the reason
  • Anti-semitism's equally hallucinatory sister hatred, anti-Americanism.
Hatred of Israel is the new anti-semitism
The left and Israel
Left-wing Holocaust denial: Comparing free societies to the Nazis. Comparing trivial things to the Nazis.
  • Comparing a western democratic government to the Nazis, or their police to the Nazis, or your teachers to the Nazis, is a form of Holocaust denial. It says that killing millions of innocent women and children by shooting them in pits or putting them in ovens is "just like" telling some spoilt young person that he can't stay up late, or demonstrate on certain streets.
  • "Bush equals Hitler" adds up to holocaust denial by Jonah Goldberg - "If your son is murdered and I claim that it never happened, I am denying the existence of a crime. But if your son is murdered and I compare that tragedy to losing your car keys, that is a form of denial, too."
  • "Bush=Hitler" by Jonah Goldberg
  • Comparing Bush to Hitler
  • It is not just moronic youth that engage in this left-wing trivialisation of the Holocaust. It is a firmly established part of left-wing politics and demonstrations to compare free countries like America and Britain - and, most unforgivably, Israel - to Nazi Germany.
  • Bigotry outside Faneuil Hall by Alan Dershowitz, on leftist anti-semites screaming that he is just like Hitler. See call for protest. "The sin that, in the opinion of the screamers, warranted this comparison between me and the man who murdered dozens of my family members was my support for Israel."
A vile cartoon, November 14, 2008, in the Emory Wheel student newspaper, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, compares Jews to Nazis.

See controversy.

Obviously, being prevented from killing Jews is the same kind of thing as being herded into a ghetto for extermination.

What kind of mind can regard the life-saving Israeli wall, which has led to a massive drop in suicide bombings, as similar to Nazi walls? I don't remember the Jews of 1940 suicide-bombing German civilians in coffee shops. I don't recall that the Germans herded them into ghettos in order to protect the German people.

What Israel is up against:

Islamists protesting about Gaza, 10 Jan 2009, in Canada (of all places!) call for the extermination of the Jews of Israel.

"Jewish child, you are gonna ****in' die!"

What are these people doing in the West? Why were they allowed in? Why are they not all deported?

From here.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2010, 05:32 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Islamic Fascism

Islamic Fascism

Background: The current attacks: The problem: The solution:
Islamic Fascism

Islamic Fascism is really a modern phenomenon. [1] It is basically a 20th century totalitarian movement - like fascism and communism. Islam existed before Islamic Fascism, and will exist after it. Islamic Fascism is designed - like fascism and communism - to appeal to idealistic young people with a utopian future where the world will be "cleansed". It really started with the Iranian revolution in 1979, and used to be called "Islamic fundamentalism". Other names for it are "Islamofascism" or "Islamism". I think "Islamic Fascism" is the clearest, most descriptive name, [2] showing that this is simply the same kind of thing that the democracies spent the 20th century fighting. Islamic Fascism is genuinely fascist. It has contempt for democracy, free speech and human rights. It is full of hatred for Jews, atheists, homosexuals, and liberated women. It is linked to racist hatred of blacks in Sudan, slave trading of black Africans, and racist hatred of other ethnic minorities in the Islamic world. And, like fascism and communism, the only solution is the total and utter destruction of this philosophy. This will take a long Cold War, lasting for perhaps the next two or three decades, punctuated by perhaps one or two more Hot Wars. But Islamic Fascism will lose. Democracy will win.

  • [1] I don't mean to imply that Islam in general respects human rights or human freedom. That is clearly not true. I am only saying that the Islamist movement we are up against - idealistic, utopian (full of young people), expansionist (let's attack the west), suicide-bombing, fantasy-based (let's conquer the whole world) - is quite a new movement, which did not really exist before the 1960s-70s.
  • [2] The terms "Islamic Fascism" or "Islamofascism" are quite respectable:
    • President George W. Bush has used these terms:
    • Muslim / Middle Eastern dissidents have used these terms:
    • Are these people "racists" too? Not at all. They are simply describing what they see. Just as if starry-eyed young Christian fundamentalists were suicide-bombing gay bars, strip clubs, mosques, synagogues and abortion clinics, urged on by hate-filled TV-evangelist preachers who promised that the bombers would go to Heaven, we would not hesitate to describe it as "Christian Fascism".
  • Defending "Islamofascism" - It's a valid term. Here's why, Christopher Hitchens, Oct 22, 2007.
    • "Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. ... Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia ... Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression ... Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures. ... Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the "pure" and the "exclusive" over the unclean and the kufar or profane. ... In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the grand mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler's side). ... And, of course, Bin Laden has threatened force against U.N. peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends in Darfur."
    • I love the way he sums it up. It's very simple: "we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements"
  • Islamic Fascism 101: On all they've done to earn the name, by Victor Davis Hanson
    • "Make no apologies for the use of "Islamic fascism." It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist "anti-fascist" appeasers in the West is just too bad."
    • On the defeat of the jihad: "it is a vain enterprise to worry over how many Muslims follow or support al Qaeda, or, in contrast, how many in the Middle East actively resist Islamists. Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda's success or failure. Just as there weren't more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn't a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble."

Everyone should support a "War on Islamism"

Nobody should support a war on Islam, but everybody should support a war on Islamism.

Islamism is not simply a religious philosophy that one is free not to follow. Islamism is a political movement that aims to impose itself by force on those who disagree. Islamism aims to impose religious Sharia Law on the whole world, ending human rights and civil liberties, ending freedom of religion, ending freedom of speech, and ending freedom of sexuality.

Islamism threatens us and everything we love, and will always threaten us, until it is defeated. A War on Islamism is something that every Christian, Jew, atheist, Hindu or other infidel should support. A War on Islamism is something that every freedom-loving Muslim should support. Islamism - or any other philosophy that imposes religion by force - should have no place in our world. A War on Islamism is a no-brainer, like a War on Fascism. Every liberal and every leftist should support a War on Islamism.
  • The British novelist Ian McEwan caused a storm in 2008 by saying: "I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on".
  • Incredibly, many people were outraged by this. But every single person in the West should agree with this. Every Muslim in the West should agree with this.
  • Objection: "Islamism is the real, theologically-sound Islam. Tolerant Islam does not follow the example of the Prophet."
    • I do not disagree with the arguments by Robert Spencer and others that the Islamists who want sharia (and even the violent utopian Islamists who want to attack the infidel West) may be a lot closer to the Prophet's life than tolerant Muslims who want to live in peace. But religions don't have to make sense anyway (they are hardly based on logic and reason), and Muslims can invent their own tolerant, peaceful Islam, no matter what its founder said. (After all, Jews don't follow the appalling example of Moses' life.)
    • We need a name for tolerant Islam, because it does exist, and in the West at least it is the majority. I suggest calling it "Islam", and saving "Islamism" for those who want to impose sharia.
    • Andy McCarthy, 13 Mar 2010, is conflicted about naming: "Islamists are Muslims who would like to see sharia .. installed. ... It is the purpose of jihad. The terrorists are willing to force sharia's installation by violent jihad; other Islamists have varying views about the usefulness of violence, but they also want sharia, and their jihadist methods include tactics other than violence. I reluctantly use the term "Islamist" rather than "Islam" because I believe there are hundreds of millions of Muslims (somewhere between a third to a half of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims) who do not want to live under sharia, and who want religion to be a private matter, separated from public life. It is baffling to me why these people are Muslims since, as I understand Islam, (a) sharia is a basic element, and (b) Islam rejects the separation of mosque and state. But I'm not a Muslim, so that is not for me to say. I think we have to encourage the non-sharia Muslims and give them space to try to reform their religion, so I believe it's worth labeling the sharia seekers "Islamists" in order to sort them out. But I admit being very conflicted about it because I also concede that the Islamists have the more coherent (and scary) construction of Islam."
The two faces of Islamism.

Left, the destruction of our prosperity, our science, our learning, our culture, our beautiful cities - everything we have worked for for a thousand years.
Right, the institution of a reign of primitive superstitious savagery.
September 11th, 2001

The World Trade Centre attack is the greatest attack on civilization and liberty since 1945. The West is not simply "another" culture. It is a set of values that represent the highest achievement of humanity. A set of values that the whole planet can - and should - adopt. Western values are worth dying - and killing - for. The West is the greatest, richest, freest, best part of planet Earth, the heart of science and all knowledge, the best hope for mankind. Anyone who seeks its destruction should be destroyed themselves.

  • The World Trade Centre attack (also here and here)
  • Images and video
  • The Islamic Fascist killers Al-Qaida
    • Al-Qaeda
    • Al-Qaeda members
    • The fascist Ayman al-Zawahiri
    • The butcher Mohamed Atta al Sayed led the killing of 3,000 civilians. Atta was not poor and desperate. He was a highly educated child of wealth and privilege. In short, he was a typical spoilt middle-class radical, of the kind that flocked to fascism and communism in the past.
    • Mohamed Atta's father, a wealthy lawyer in Cairo, Egypt, hopes for more killing of infidels.
    • The 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui was spared the death penalty, although, as Charles Johnson says: "I don't know if anyone in our country's history has ever deserved it more".
    • The Onion's classic Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell. ""I was told that these Americans were enemies of the one true religion, and that Heaven would be my reward for my noble sacrifice," said Alomari, moments before his jaw was sheared away by faceless homunculi. "But now I am forced to suckle from the 16 poisoned leathern teats of Gophahmet, Whore of Betrayal, until I burst from an unwholesome engorgement of curdled bile. This must be some sort of terrible mistake.""
  • The mass killer of innocents Osama bin Laden (and here)
    • Bin Laden is dead?
    • A Billion for Bin Laden by James Miller, 9 Aug 2004, proposes offering a $1 billion reward for Bin Laden's capture - to encourage serious private enterprise to take part (this would be enough potential return to form a dedicated company to pursue, whereas $25 million really isn't, given the high risk of nothing) - and to encourage foreign governments to sell out (to whom $25 million is not really enough to take any serious risks or pain).
    • My thoughts on this as at 2009: Miller is dead right. In fact, $1 billion is cheap. Given the far greater amounts the US has spent since 2001 (over $550 billion on Iraq alone), and given the demoralisation and slow-down of the global jihad that the capture and execution of the Al Qaeda leaders would cause (hence saving the US vast amounts of money), $1 billion would be a bargain. The US is mad not to offer such a reward.
  • The left's denial:
    • Since 9/11 seems to justify the war on Islamic fascism, there has been a constant attempt by the left to deny, downplay or hijack the memory of 9/11.
    • Conspiracy theories
    • The "International Freedom Center", an attempt to turn the WTC site into an anti-American memorial.
      • Cox and Forkum celebrate its closure. "Goodbye and good riddance", as one of its opponents says.
  • The heroes of Flight 93 (also here and here) - the passengers who fought back against Islamist evil.
    • Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs - Bill Whittle on the strength of free people: "the fact remains that .. one ordinary group of people on an ordinary flight on an ordinary day defeated the very best that the global terror network could put together. Our ladies junior varsity squad whipped the living **** out of their Super Bowl A-team over Pennsylvania that day, and they did it because for one brief shining moment enough passengers on that airplane went Grey."
    • Blog encouraging people to watch an account of Flight 93. "Bring Kleenex, and thank God for forty Americans who beat al-Qaeda before most of us knew who they were."

The spoilt, wealthy butcher Mohamed Atta.

Could 9/11 have been prevented?

No, is the short answer. Because nobody would have tolerated the US government taking strong action to prevent it before 9/11.
  • Alternative history by Gregg Easterbrook. - Bush attacks Al-Qaida in Afghanistan before 9/11. The world (including the UN, Blair, Aznar and Richard Clarke) furiously condemns him. He is ultimately impeached and disgraced. Classic. Brilliant. This is what would have happened.
  • Easterbrook expresses better than almost anyone else why 9/11 had to happen - why all those people had to die, why the democracies did not attack Germany in 1933.
  • Tragically, it may also predict the future. Attacking North Korea now would lead to unbelievable world fury and get any president impeached. The fact that it would prevent the alternative future of North Korean nuclear attack on a western city will not matter.
  • Pre-emptive war
    • The tragic dilemma: In many situations, peace costs far more lives than war.
      1. Containment and sanctions often kill more people than a quick war to depose the regime.
      2. Even doing nothing often kills more people than war to depose the regime (because it leaves the regime in power).
      3. Often, war is inevitable anyway, and the only choice is between a short, early war when the regime is weak (e.g. 1933), or a far worse war later when the regime is strong (1939). It is irrational to choose the long war instead of the short one.
      Pre-emptive wars can save thousands, even millions, of lives. But nobody will tolerate them.

The Clinton Administration had Bin Laden in its sights in 2000 (picture from drone over Afghanistan) but failed to kill him.

I was typical liberal-left

At the time of the September 11th attack, I still believed in the left-liberal universe, and I was still reading the Irish Times and the Guardian, as you can see from some of my early links:

  • The power, the glory and the grievances by John Burns, The Guardian, Sept 18, 2001 - on how, even when consumed by anti-American hate, people want to be Americans. People the world over look at America (and the West) and they want what we have - democracy, freedom, prosperity, power, and the heady excitement of being able to do anything you want with your life. They want the same as us. We should help them get it.
  • Richard Dawkins
    • Design for a Faith-Based Missile (also here), September 2001.
    • Time to Stand Up, September 2001, makes one think that Dawkins is about to stand up against Islamism. But he was to disappoint us.
    • What Now? (discussion at Edge)
      • Dawkins, 27 Sept 2001, shows how close Dawkins came to escaping from the liberal-left meme complex: "The chips are down, and I suddenly know whose side I am on. A world without Islam, indeed a world from which all three Abrahamic religions had been lost, would not be an obviously worse world in which to live. .. But a world which had lost enlightened scientific reason (which is at its best in America, and not only because more resources are spent on it) would be impoverished beyond all telling. So I hope I shall not sound too corny if I want to stand up as a friend of America. Even (and it feels like pulling teeth to say so) Bush's America." But the feeling didn't last.
  • After an initial shock, the left rapidly settled back into old habits, and now behaves as if Sept 11th never happened:
  • The modern left and Islamic fascism
  • People who let me down after Sept 11th (People I admired who let me down)
Then I start to shift to libertarian-right

So my first reaction to September 11th was in the liberal-left press, and I still tried to fit it into that universe. Then I started reading the American media online. And I found my political philosophy starting to change. This was big. This wasn't about Israel after all. This was something much bigger. These were beginning to look more like the Nazis, come back again in different uniforms, with different names, but with the same mission, to destroy our civilization. This was beginning to look like the absolutely just war that we had not seen since 1945.

  • September 11th made me leave the left
  • This is the heir to fascism and communism. The bombers do not have a small, modest cause. They want to end our civilization:
  • The 1990s are over:
    • It's the war, stupid, Mark Steyn, on the 2004 presidential election - the first post-9/11 election - and how some people still can't see that the trivial era is over. This is serious, like 1940.
      • "I'm like Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca: 'I put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear it again.'"
      • "America, it's said, is divided into September 11th people and September 10th people. I'm in the former category. I'm a single-issue guy. All the other stuff can wait."
      • "After Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said that he feared all he'd done was wake a sleeping giant. But it's been two years now. If you figure it's time the sleeping giant resumed his slumbers, Kerry's your man."
    • The Great Divide by Fred Barnes
      • "George W. Bush is a September 12 person. John Kerry is a September 10 person. The difference is real. A September 12 person was traumatized by the terrorist attacks .. on September 11, 2001. A September 12 person believes the world we thought existed before the attacks doesn't exist anymore."
      • "In contrast, a September 10 person was outraged by the attacks but not traumatized. A September 10 person thinks the world still exists as we perceived it before the attacks and thus hasn't fundamentally changed."
  • Bill Whittle, October 06, 2004
    • Deterrence (part 1)
      • Let us assume that the left really do want to stop a nuclear 9/11. Then they are simply deluded about how to do so: "We both look at this: [9/11] And we both want to make sure that it - or worse - does not happen again. ... We want to deter it from happening again. And all of this rage and fury and spitting and tearing up of signs, all of these insults and spinmeisters and forgeries and all the rest, seem to come down to the fact that about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean. It's really just that simple. ... It all comes down to carrots (liberals) or sticks (conservatives)."
      • The left doesn't understand because the left doesn't understand the wolves that live outside our world: "I used to be a carrot man. Like most larval liberals, I grew up in a life that would be unrecognizable to all but the thinnest sliver of humans that ever lived on this great rock in space - that thin, thin sliver being everyone and everything you and I know and take for granted. Reality - meaning the wolves - have never been so far from the door as they are today. So believing in the power of goodwill and friendship, of handshakes and agreement and compromise, of trusting to the good and noble in mankind was easy for me, for the consequences of being wrong in that belief cost me nothing at all. I'd never been robbed, raped, beaten or victimized in any way. That belief in goodwill, compromise, concession and trust grew as a result of being surrounded by decent people in a well-ordered, lawful society, with a long history of compromise and cooperation."
      • Outside of our world there is a Hobbesian world of tyranny, torture, rape, oppression, racism, genocide and proud, unaccountable, unrepentant evil. "I wish it were not true ... but wishing does not make it so. ... It would be nice to live in a world full of liberals. I say that as a staunch conservative. It would be nice to live in a world that behaved like a Hollywood party or a university campus, filled with kind, educated people with lots to lose, who cherish reason and responsibility and are incapable of brutal, violent acts. If all the world were filled with decent, compassionate, rational people, life would be a bouquet. But it's not. ... It's a damn shame, it really is."
      • He describes what I went through, and there's no going back: "We like to say that the world changed that day. What a ridiculous, self-centered thought. The world didn't change. Our illusions about the world changed. The scales had (mostly) fallen from my eyes in the years leading up to that morning. But many, many conservatives (as I define myself) were born precisely at 9:17 am EDT, when United 175 flew past the burning North Tower - an accident? - and exploded through the second, on the morning of September the 11th, 2001."
    • Deterrence (part 2)
      • Every tyrant in the world is waiting and hoping that Kerry gets elected: "You lack the vision, Senator, to see this as a many-front war. You lack the insight to see how the sight of Saddam crawling from a hole inspired an identical self-possessed lunatic to give up Libya's nuclear weapons program. Iraq deterred Libya, you eternal defeatist. And all of the rest of the former free-range dictators now hang on the results of this election to see whether they will get a man who has capitulation in his very marrow, or one who has weathered unbelievable pressure, slurs and insults, and very likely thrown away his second term, to face reality and do something. Something unpopular. Something that he knew would make his poll numbers go down."
The Islamist way of war (separate page)

Islamist nightmare scenarios (separate page)

In defence of the West

After September 11th, I thought I would go online and see what the much-reviled American right-wing hawks and conservatives were saying. I had never read their material before (it does not appear in the Irish media) and I was shocked to find that it appeared to be based on reason and evidence, and a strong sense of morality and belief in human freedom and dignity. These, I realised with a shock, are the people who defended us against the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.

The Irish Times liberals are not the people who defended us against the Third Reich. They would never have stood with the Allies (and never will, no matter what). Their arguments are much the same as de Valera's. Their anti-American, anti-British worldview is little different to de Valera's. They are the heirs of de Valera, not Churchill.
I felt my left-liberal faith slipping away with every article I read.

Emotion has its place. The anger and fear of 9/11 allowed many of us look at new ideas - such as conservative ideas - for the first time. The liberal-left meme complex is self-sustaining and hard to break out of. Anger and shock has its place in giving new memes a brief window to invade. As they say, "A Conservative is a Liberal Who's Been Mugged". Many of us were mugged on 9/11, and changed.

Ultimately, though, I look for new ideas based on reason and logic, rather than on emotion.
  • Oriana Fallaci expresses well the raw western anger of 9/11, even if her analysis is poor:
    • The Rage and The Pride by Oriana Fallaci - I'm not a fan of Fallaci (*) but God she expresses my anger at September 11th. Every time I think about it, I can't believe those murdering bastards did that.
    • And she expresses my rage at the European left - "the singing crickets and buffoons who used to lick Pol Pot's feet" - I think this contempt for the left is something I will now feel all the rest of my life.
    • (*) Her writing is sloppy and emotional. And it is devoid of hope. She talks as if all of Islam is the enemy, rather than the Islamist movement within Islam. She talks as if Islam can't be liberal and tolerant. But the same could have been said about Christianity or Judaism in the past. People change. And religions change. Nothing is fixed, no matter how permanent it looks.
    • She talks as if the problem is bad races. But this is a philosophy of despair. The problem isn't bad races. The problem is bad ideas. The solution is for the same races to adopt new ideas. Western values are for everybody.
    • You are wrong, Ms Fallaci, by one of the writers I like, Amir Taheri.
    • He notes that Fallaci was anti-American in the past.
    • Whether she was even pro-Islamist back then - with that trendy left-wing sympathy for Ayatollah Khomeini - I do not know. The Iranian Taheri says she was: "Her praise of Khomeini, and her vicious attacks on the late Shah, are still part of the official literature of Iran." She has changed of course since, and now says about Khomeini: "What a pity that, when pregnant with him, his mother did not choose to have an abortion." The interview confirms again for me that she is generally sloppy, emotional and illogical.
  • I prefer these writers.
The problem - What is wrong with the Islamic world?

The root cause of Islamist terror

The solution - America and the West must assert themselves. The Islamic world must change.

"All Arabs shall arise and annihilate the Jews! We shall fill the sea with their corpses."
- Hassan al Banna, founder of the original Islamic fascist group the Muslim Brotherhood, calling for a genocide of the Jews when Israel was declared a state, 1947.
Luckily, the Islamic fascists failed to carry out their genocide.
The American jihadi Adam Gadahn demonstrates Islamism's low and debased morality, openly defending attacks on civilians.
"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."
- Omar Bakri Muhammad sums up the world of the Islamist savages. See more. "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. ... There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not."
- Hani Sibai makes clear what Islamism means.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 07-03-2010 at 05:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 05:26 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Islamist nightmare scenarios

Islamist nightmare scenarios

Nightmare No.1: Nuclear attack on the West (possible)

Nightmare No.2: The Destruction of Israel (possible)

Nightmare No.3: The Destruction of the West (unlikely)

Nightmare No.4: Civil war in the West (unlikely)

9/11 showed that Islamism, long a festering problem, may be a serious threat to the free societies of the world. Exactly how serious that threat is remains to be seen. The communists killed 100 million people and threatened the entire world with nuclear holocaust. The fascists killed tens of millions, carried out large-scale genocide and destroyed much of Europe. So far the Islamists are not in that league, though their intentions clearly are.

But a worrying thing about the Islamists is that they may not be deterred as the communists were. They may just go ahead and nuke Israel or a western city, and welcome their martyrdom.

Another problem is the minority, but still depressingly large, number of jihadi sympathisers among Muslims in the West, and the potential this has for starting some kind of awful Bosnia-style, infidels versus Muslims, civil war in Europe, in which innocent Muslims could suffer ethnic cleansing or worse. Here are some nightmare, doomsday scenarios and how likely I think they are.
Never forget the thousands of men, women and children killed for no reason by Islamist religious fascism in New York.

Click on image for video. Image from here.

This is only a warning of what is in store for us if the modern fantasy utopian movement of Islamism is not utterly destroyed.

If Islamism is not confronted and utterly destroyed, a nuclear attack against a Western city will happen in the next few decades.

You can surrender all you like, appease all you like. Address supposed Islamist "grievances" all you like. Abandon Israel. Pull out of Iraq. Pull out of the entire Middle East. Stay at home. But nuclear jihad will come. The only way to stop it is to destroy Islamism.

Nightmare No.1: Nuclear attack on the West

Status: Could easily happen in 21st century.
Bad as 9/11 was, it made a previously unlikely nightmare scenario far more real: If the terrorists had a nuclear weapon, they would clearly use it immediately against a western city. As soon as they get such weapons, they will be used. Apocalyptic stateless terrorists cannot be deterred, as terror states like the Soviet Union were.

And nuclear weapons continue to spread. Now the butchers of North Korea have nuclear weapons. While their impoverished people starved to death in a state-caused famine, these butchers spent billions to construct nuclear weapons to threaten the free countries of South Korea and Japan. And the aggressive, Jew-hating, fascist state of Iran seems to be next. Who is going to stop every genocidal tyrant, Islamic fascist, and murderous armed group on the planet getting nukes?

Only America can stop this. Only America is trying to stop proliferation. The rest of the world will not take this issue seriously until a western city is destroyed.
  • Islamic Fascism
    • 9/11 may be just the warning of the future nuclear 9/11.
  • Islamic Fascism: The solution - America and the West must assert themselves.
  • Google
  • Wikipedia
  • Federation of American Scientists
  • Pakistan
  • North Korea
  • Iran
  • The book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe by Graham Allison, 2004.
  • Nuclear attack on the west:
  • The ongoing failure of imagination, by Graham Allison, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 2006:
    • "Prior to 9/11, most Americans found the idea that international terrorists could mount an attack on their homeland and kill thousands of innocent citizens not just unlikely, but inconceivable. ... As we approach the fifth year without a second successful terrorist attack upon U.S. soil, a chorus of skeptics now suggests that 9/11 was a 100-year flood. ... The idea that terrorists are currently preparing even more deadly assaults seems as far-fetched to them as the possibility of terrorists crashing passenger jets into the World Trade Center did before that fateful Tuesday morning. As one attempts to assess where we now stand, and what the risks are, the major conclusion of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission deserves repetition: The principal failure to act to prevent the September 11 attack was a "failure of imagination." A similar failure of imagination leads many today to discount the risk of a nuclear 9/11."
    • "my best judgment is that based on current trends, a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is more likely than not in the decade ahead. ... In the judgment of most people in the national security community, including former Sen. Sam Nunn, the risk of a terrorist detonating a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil is higher today than was the risk of nuclear war at the most dangerous moments in the Cold War."
  • Nuclear attack on the west will mean the end of the Islamic world:
    • The New Arab Way of War by Peter Layton - The Islamists are playing with fire. If their attacks go too far - if there are WMD attacks on western cities - if the west starts to feel an actual existential threat - the Islamists may receive nuclear retaliation. They really are playing with fire: "there have been many instances in Western history where patience has been exhausted suddenly and merciless, ruthless responses undertaken. The Arab way of war could yet reap this whirlwind for the Middle East if attacks by assassins go too far. History suggests this line will not be known, or even articulated, until after it is crossed."
    • Postmodern War by Victor Davis Hanson - It is extremely difficult for America to fight this enemy in this age of global news, but: "In our present context, all our concern about American combat casualties would vanish should there be another mass murder similar to 9/11. Like ancient man, postmodern man is hardwired to survive, and thus really will use his full arsenal when faced with the alternative of extinction. Should we lose the stock exchange or the White House, there would be almost no calls for restraint against states that harbored or aided the perpetrators"
  • The "Belmont Club" by Richard Fernandez has some analysis of how the world will respond if there is nuclear attack by Islamists:
    • Are suicide attacks the 'ultimate weapon'? says that Islamism's features - suicidal, cannot be deterred, committed to our destruction no matter how we appease it - are strategic weaknesses because they force its enemies to engage in total war against it. Unless it is defeated, Islamism will eventually force some country into using nuclear weapons against it. - "The natural outcome of the kamikazes was the atomic bomb over Hiroshima. Nothing else would do. ... And the eventual reaction of nuclear-armed Israel, Russia and India to the unlimited slaughter of their populations does not bear thinking upon. And it will not be surrender, but rather something else."
    • Et in Arcadia Ego Sum - Islamism forces its enemies to fight to the death, since it explicitly tells them they will die if they surrender.
    • The Three Conjectures (and postscript):
      1. Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold.
      2. Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam. "A catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed" [once Islamists acquire WMDs].
      3. Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the 'Golden Hour' - the final chance. "It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day ... It follows that the War on Terror must not fail. Not if mankind is to live; not if the Muslim world is going to survive."
    • More discussion here and here.
The Axis of Evil

The term "The Axis of Evil" was introduced in the State of the Union Address by Bush, January 29, 2002. See discussion of origins.

At that time, there were 3 unfree countries trying to develop nuclear weapons: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Hence the logical use of the term, the "Axis of Evil", focusing on these 3 as the most immediate threat to civilization.

Since then, Iraq has been stopped, Iran is still going full steam ahead, and North Korea has, tragically, succeeded, joining the previously existing 3 unfree countries with nuclear weapons: Russia, China and Pakistan.
  • The term "The Axis of Evil" is still a good way to describe the loose collection of enemies of the free world, led by Iran and North Korea:
  • The new power blocs of the world
  • The Axis of Evil Redux by Michael Ledeen, January 23, 2003 - celebrating both Reagan and George W. Bush for speaking the truth to an indifferent world - for being idealists in the brutal, indifferent, amoral world of the UN.
  • It's an Axis and It's Evil by Mark Safranski, 4 Mar 2002 - "Bush has rocked the world by telling an unwelcome truth that Western elites have struggled for a decade to avoid acknowledging."
  • The left laughs at the "Axis of Evil":
    • "Axis of Evil" is the most clever term in international politics since the "Evil Empire". By calling a spade a spade, it infuriates all those western sympathisers with and apologists for totalitarian regimes.
    • Half-educated leftists sneer at the Axis of Evil and regard themselves as marvellously sophisticated. But if these regimes are not evil, then nothing is. If we cannot describe these regimes as "evil", then evil has no meaning.
    • The mind of the left - I understand very well the mindset that laughs at the Axis of Evil. I regard it as an adolescent mindset, that understands very little about the world.
  • Iraq and WMD's - The reasons for the Iraq war
Western weakness

The nightmare is that it may take a nuclear 9/11 before the West gets serious about Islamism. The West has fought a half-hearted war against Islamism so far, as if the threat isn't serious enough. As if 9/11 wasn't big enough.

The West right now looks weak and divided, waiting for its enemies to move.
  • Western weakness and isolationism
    • "A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today." - The West needs to stand up for itself. It's better for the West, and it's better for the world, when it does.
    • Failures of Nerve by Roger Kimball - On American confidence. - "My own judgment is that the current orgy of anti-Americanism, fanned to a fever pitch by talk of war with Iraq, will dissipate in proportion to the resoluteness demonstrated by the United States."
    • Appeasement Then and Now - FrontPage Symposium - Good debate on whether America should go out there and try and change the world, or stay at home. Pat Buchanan makes the case for staying at home. Victor Davis Hanson says the world would become a terrifying place if America did.
  • Imagine if the US was not the lone superpower:
    • If I could make one broad criticism about left-wing and radical thinking in general: It is not enough to criticise the existing world and propose alternatives. It is necessary to prove that the alternatives are better. This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with socialism and anti-capitalism.
    • Similarly, it is not enough to complain about the US being the only superpower. It is necessary to prove that the alternative world is better, not worse.
    • Imagine a world where America was not strong - article by Paul Johnson - it would be horrifying.
    • A World Without Power by Niall Ferguson
      • "Critics of U.S. global dominance should pause and consider the alternative. If the United States retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it? Not Europe, not China, not the Muslim world - and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age."
      • "Unfortunately, the world's experience with power vacuums .. is hardly encouraging. Anyone who dislikes U.S. hegemony should bear in mind that, rather than a multipolar world of competing great powers, a world with no hegemon at all may be the real alternative to U.S. primacy. Apolarity could turn out to mean an anarchic new Dark Age: an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves."
      • "If the United States retreats from global hegemony - its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier - its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for."
    • Rule America? Liberal elites ruined Britain as a hyperpower. Could America meet the same fate? by Jonathan V. Last, on how Britain ceased to be a superpower in the early-mid 20th century. "In an important sense, the British Empire's strength failed because its elite liberal citizens stopped believing in it." If the same happened to America, the result would be a very dangerous world.
  • Pessimism - Western foreign policy is still flawed - Has US foreign policy changed enough?
Nightmare No.2: The Destruction of Israel

Status: Could easily happen in 21st century.
Many, probably most, Palestinians and Arabs see the long-term plan as the destruction of Israel, involving either killing all the Jews or making them live under an Islamic totalitarian state. But Israel now has nuclear weapons, and nuclear attack on Israel, or the imminent defeat of Israel by Islamic armies, may lead to the nuclear destruction of Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Tehran, Qom, Baghdad, Najaf, Karbala, Damascus, Cairo, Khartoum and much of the Islamic Middle East.

  • Israel - The future
  • The Other "Suicide Bombers" by Lowell Ponte, April 12, 2002 - Article on Israel's nuclear capability says the Islamic dream of victory over Israel is simply impossible. When their backs are to the wall, when the alternative is extinction, Israel will use their nukes.
  • This Holocaust will be different, Benny Morris, Jan. 18, 2007. - Morris' nightmare vision of a coming Iranian nuclear assault on Israel. He thinks differently to Ponte. He thinks Israel won't use their nukes until it is too late.
    • "The second holocaust will be quite different. One bright morning, in five or 10 years, perhaps during a regional crisis, perhaps out of the blue, ... the mullahs in Qom will convene in secret session ... The orders will go out and the Shihab III and IV missiles will take off for Tel Aviv, Beersheba, Haifa and Jerusalem, and probably some military sites, including Israel's half dozen air and (reported) nuclear missile bases. ... With a country the size and shape of Israel .. probably four or five hits will suffice: No more Israel. A million or more Israelis in the greater Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem areas will die immediately. Millions will be seriously irradiated."
    • "Perhaps, after acquiring the Bomb, the Iranians will behave "rationally"? But the Iranians are driven by a higher logic. And they will launch their rockets. And, as with the first Holocaust, the international community will do nothing. It will all be over, for Israel, in a few minutes - not like in the 1940s, when the world had five long years in which to wring its hands and do nothing. After the Shihabs fall, the world will send rescue ships and medical aid for the lightly charred. It will not nuke Iran."
  • Israel Without Apology by Sol Stern - Israel's desperate struggle to survive - especially in 1967 and 1973, when Holocaust II nearly happened - and the world didn't care.
  • The attempted Holocaust of 1967 - "Jordan and Syria were planning to cut Israel in half; Jordan was planning to take out whole populations from Israeli towns and shoot them."
  • The "Samson option"
  • At Last, Zion: Israel and the Fate of the Jews by Charles Krauthammer - The Jews have taken an enormous risk in going to Israel. Yes, having a state means that serious military power is now at last in the hands of Jews. But the downside is that millions of Jews (soon the majority of the world's Jews) are packed into a tiny area in one of the most dangerous parts of the earth, surrounded by vicious enemies. Maybe it would have been better for the world's Jews to simply have gone to America. Maybe so. But now that Israel exists, everyone must support it. Now that a free society exists surrounded by enemy tyrants, everyone must support it.
  • Krauthammer on the decision to establish Israel:
    • "It was the right decision, the only possible decision. But oh so perilous. What a choice of place to make one's final stand: a dot on the map, a tiny patch of near-desert, a thin ribbon of Jewish habitation behind the flimsiest of natural barriers ... One determined tank thrust can tear it in half. One small battery of nuclear-tipped Scuds can obliterate it entirely. To destroy the Jewish people, Hitler needed to conquer the world. All that is needed today is to conquer a territory smaller than Vermont. The terrible irony is that in solving the problem of powerlessness, the Jews have necessarily put all their eggs in one basket, a small basket hard by the waters of the Mediterranean."
Nightmare No.3: The Destruction of the West

Status: Unlikely.
Could the future be even worse? Could Islamism, like the Soviet Union, get armed with thousands of nuclear weapons in the 21st century, and then, unlike the Soviet Union, use them?

If the West was going to go down, if our very existence was under threat, if the barbarians threatened to destroy everything we have achieved over the last thousand years, would we use our nukes? I think we would have to, to survive, and the moral blame would lie with the aggressors.
  • "Bomb Texas": The psychological roots of anti-Americanism by Victor Davis Hanson - He suggests that the anti-Americanism of the modern left could really be, in the worst, nightmarish case, an early warning of the end of western civilization and the start of a new (probably Muslim) barbarism. He reminds us that our predecessor, classical Greek and Roman civilization, fell to Christian barbarism, "[as] a result not of imperial overstretch on the outside but of something happening within that was not unlike what we ourselves are now witnessing. Earlier Romans knew what it was to be Roman, why it was at least better than the alternative, and why their culture had to be defended. Later in ignorance they forgot what they knew, in pride mocked who they were, and in consequence disappeared."
  • How We Collapse by Victor Davis Hanson, on the endless criticism of the West - "Western societies from ancient Athens to imperial Rome to the French republic rarely collapsed because of a shortage of resources or because foreign enemies proved too numerous or formidable in arms ... Rather, in times of peace and prosperity there arose an unreal view of the world beyond their borders, one that was the product of insularity brought about by success ... We should take stock of this dangerous and growing mindset - and remember that wealthy, sophisticated societies like our own are rarely overrun. They simply implode - whining and debating still to the end, even as they pass away."
  • Memo to Osama (and part 2) - Richard Fernandez of the Belmont Club suggests how the west might fall.
    • "The desire for self-death is embodied in what is called the Left, the unnamed shadow motivating the carnage of the last century."
    • "That leaves us with this tantalizing question. Having gone so far on September 11, can we not go further? Will one more push topple the rock? The answer is yes, but only if the push is sufficient and it leaves the Left which is the spirit of suicide, in control. This latter condition is essential. The fundamental fact is that the triumph of the Jihad must be momentarily preceded by the ascendance of the Left. Only the Left will pick up the gun, put the barrel to the temple of the Western mind and pull the trigger without hesitation. But their ascendance will only be momentary, and I for one delight in imagining how we will kick them as they squeal about their rights and their sexual entitlements once there is no one left to protect them."
    • Discussion - "The West is disgusted with itself; longs to die; yearns for condemnation. The job of the Faithful is but to put it out of its misery. Standing offstage only by their implied presence is the remnant of the West that that has not lost sight of love; that remembers its covenant; that recalls "the starlight on the western seas." That is whom the Jihad must defeat and all it must defeat."
Nightmare No.4: Civil war in the West

Status: Unlikely.
One thing different between this war and World War 2 is the large number of enemies living in our home societies - the minority, but still depressingly large, number of jihadi sympathisers among Muslims in the West. Under the right circumstances - such as mass hysteria after some huge terrorist atrocity - this has the potential for ultimately starting some kind of awful Bosnia-style, infidels versus Muslims, civil war in Europe.

Such a war would likely: (a) lead to the defeat and ethnic cleansing (or worse) of Europe's innocent Muslims, and: (b) lead to the end of European democracy and the resurgence of old-fashioned ultra-nationalist European fascism. It would be a disaster both for Muslims and for infidels. Could Europe fall?
  • The Second Fall of Rome - Could Europe fall?
  • The Fall of France and the Multicultural World War - More speculation about possible future scenarios. Could France fall?
  • Could Scandinavia fall?
  • It's the Demography, Stupid, by Mark Steyn, points out (as others have) that the Muslim birth rate in Europe is far higher than the native "post-Christian" birth rate (which is below replacement level). Extrapolate for a century and more than one European country will become majority Muslim.
  • Could much of Europe become Islamic (and hence unfree) in the 21st century? Could the Muslim population of Europe finally end the centuries old experiment in freedom and democracy?
  • Even large minority Muslim could end European freedom (not even majority):
    • Mark Steyn analyses the 2005 Freedom House rankings.
    • Of the 46 Muslim majority nations only 3 were ranked as Free.
    • But equally scary, of the 16 nations in which Muslims were a large minority (20 to 50 per cent of the population) only 3 were ranked as Free.
Christian video laying out some of the stats.

I'm not totally convinced (and I think some of their numbers are wrong).
  • The bottom line is that right now there are 16 million Muslims in the EU, out of a total population of 500 million. That is, the EU is 3 percent Muslim.
  • France is 7 percent Muslim. Holland 6 percent. All other "normal" countries in Europe are less, many less than 1 percent. Ireland is less than 1 percent. So there is a lot of extrapolation going on here.
  • The BBC thinks, 7 Aug 2009, as I do, that some of the numbers in this video are wrong. But they find it hard to come up with the real stats, since governments do not collect them. Governments should start collecting them.
Reasons why Europe may not fall (both good and bad reasons)

Steyn makes a good case, but I don't think Europe is doomed just yet. Predicting the future by extrapolating from current trends has a long record of failure, a notable example being the global population crisis that was supposed to have happened by now. Global warming may turn out to be another. So what could prevent the end of freedom in Europe in the 21st century? Here's a few possibilities:

  1. The Muslim birthrate declines. Muslim immigrants are unlikely to carry on indefinitely with the same birthrate in prosperous Europe as in their impoverished home countries. Martin Walker has some counter-stats. Mark Steyn replies.
  2. Birthrates in Europe's Muslim neighbours are already declining:
    • Morocco - 2.57
    • Algeria - 1.82
    • Tunisia - 1.73
    • Libya - 3.15
    • Turkey - 1.87
    For comparison:
    • Israel - 2.77
    • Ireland - 1.85
    • UK - 1.66
    • France - 1.98
    • My immediate family - 4.00
    • My extended family - 2.20
  3. The Great Muslim Apostasy begins in the West (it may already be under way). For every young Muslim attracted by the austerity of jihad and sharia, two more are attracted by sex, atheism and freedom. European countries become more Muslim and "post-Muslim", but it makes little difference.
  4. Fundamentalism is unexpectedly defeated in the Islamic world. Belief in the jihad, sharia (and maybe even the Koran and Muhammed) collapses like belief in communism, as Islamic peoples are exposed to the modern world for the first time. Wolfgang Bruno (and followup) speculates that due to its many weaknesses, Islam itself could be in trouble: "Islam will have faded off the world stage by the end of this century, and .. the process should be apparent by mid-century, or even before."
  5. Europe becomes more assertive. Weak, "post-modern" Europe dies out because it isn't having kids. The stronger, more assertive elements in Europe are, and so the future belongs to them. In America, "red state" Bush voters have more children than "blue state" Kerry voters, which means America will get less blue over time. Likewise in Europe, left-wing, anti-American, postmodern, urban cosmopolitan Europeans tend not to have children. Whereas pro-family, pro-west, assertive Europeans probably do. Hence, over time, Europe should become more like America, and hence more assertive in defence of its freedom.
  6. Europe gets serious. Once Europeans see that sharia really threatens their freedom, they wake up, and belief in multiculturalism vanishes overnight like communism. Europeans ban all Islamic fundamentalist immigration. Temporary ban on all Islamic immigration until existing immigrants are integrated. Internment and deportation of all Islamist suspects (instead of surveillance). Any expression of Islamic fundamentalism becomes illegal. Anyone promoting sharia or Islamist ideas is deported. European governments offer massive support for having children, and financially punish the childless.
  7. Europe gets irrational and fascistic. Europe, the birthplace of modern industrial genocide, descends into darkness again. Civil war. Europeans, the inventors of the western way of war - the most deadly and effective way of war in the history of the world - win again of course. Muslims lose. Ethnic cleansing of Islamic population. Wolfgang Bruno thinks Islam will not triumph in the West, but warns there could be European war first, in what he calls The Clash of Fascisms. If sharia is bad for infidels, this could be even worse.
It's not clear what's going to happen. There are many alternatives to Steyn's future of Europe under sharia, just as plausible. Unfortunately, not all of them are good.
Scepticism about extrapolations
  • Jon Ihle expresses some healthy scepticism about extrapolations:
    • "if immigration to the US continued along the lines it did from 1880-1920, America would be split roughly between Italians, Slavs and Jews. Present trends almost never continue."
    • Although one could equally argue that just because democracy has existed in Europe for a while doesn't mean it will continue to exist.
  • Muslims Take Over Europe? Sorry, There's No Chance by Ralph Peters, is much darker:
    • "The historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. ... And Europeans won't even need to re-write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with an Islamist theme - real Muslims zealots provide Europe's bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe's Muslims. ... When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened - a few serious terrorist attacks could do it - Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported. ... Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time. When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front ... all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal. I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims."
    • As I have said, Europe looks pacifistic, but maybe it is more correct to describe it as irrational. It could swing the pendulum to the other side very quickly.
    • And again, in case anyone thinks this is good, this would mean the end of European liberal democracy too. It would be a disaster both for Muslims and for infidels.
The French intifada, 2005
  • 2005 Muslim riots in France - Is this the start of the European Muslim intifada? Do we have a future of endless war in European cities by hate-filled young European jihadis?
    • Young Muslim thugs burn down a nursery school in Acheres, west of Paris (from here). The poor children must be terrified when they see what happened to their little school.
    • As Nidra Poller says, it is the Islamists who are the real oppressors in the housing projects, the enemies of the law-abiding hard workers who want to contribute to France, and above all the oppressors of women: "These are French women, born in France, and abandoned to de-facto Islamic rule in the country of their birth. It is their Islamist brothers, not French society, that reduce them to second class citizenship."
    • Disabled Woman Set On Fire In Riots - A 56-year-old disabled woman was doused with petrol and set on fire by youths in the French intifada.
  • The "intifada"
    • The left can't stand the right's use of the word "intifada" to describe the French Muslim riots. They have always half-supported (or even fully supported) the Palestinian intifada. The right, of course, regards the Palestinian intifada as a disgusting war on innocent civilians, and they have no problem comparing the French riots to it. To them, "intifada" is a disgusting word - that is why they apply it to the French riots.
    • And it is also used to mock the European left for their long support of the Palestinian intifada. Now do you understand, we are trying to say.
    • The right is making the point that to many rioters, this really is meant to be the start of a revolution. That Europe's future could be like Israel, with suicide bombers in every European city.
    • Leftists think this is Islamophobic nonsense. But why listen to me? Many radical Muslims have claimed this. For example, the Islamic socialist terrorist Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya: "According to Gaddafi the riots in the poor suburbs of Paris last year were "only the beginning of the armed struggle of the Muslims against discrimination in Europe". "Probably one day Europe will be subordinated to Islam", Col. Gaddafi claimed".
  • Optimism:
    • Other young thugs (letting down their respective minorities) have caused riots, without starting war:
    • I don't mean to pick on blacks, Latinos and Muslims. It's just that, apart from the strange case of Northern Ireland, I'm not aware of any major life-taking riots by whites, Jews or Asians (non-Muslim) in the West in the last 40 years. If you know of any, let me know. (*)
    • Why classify the above riots by race/religion at all? Because I am interested in what happened next. I want to look at similar riots by groups in the past in the West and ask did they lead to war or not. And the answer is encouraging.
    • My point is actually optimistic. Despite the actions of young black thugs, the majority black community did not support them, and they failed to start a war. Let's hope the 2005 French Muslim rioting is the same, and will be seen as just an isolated event. The alternative - that the future of Europe looks like Israel - is unthinkable.
  • (*) By the way, it should not be forgotten that all the worst democide of the 20th century was by whites and Asians, not by blacks, Muslims or Latinos.
  • Pessimism:
    • There is a darker possibility, though. This could be the start of the long-awaited European intifada. It is highly ironic that France's endless appeasement of (and even support for) Islamist extremism, and its leadership of the "Axis of Weasels", has gained it nothing, any more than Hitler was really impressed by Chamberlain. To the young Islamists, the French are all infidels. Appeasement does not gain respect from thugs, but rather is viewed as a sign of weakness.
    • I don't agree that it is amusing to see this happen to the Weasels of France, after all of their treachery, but I do think this comment has a point:
      • "I, for instance, do indeed think that the Euro-fada is a very good thing, but not because I am disgusted by the French (even though I am). Civil war is coming to Europe. The only question is whether it will be sooner or later, and the sooner it happens the better the chance that secular/Christian Europe will survive. We were lucky that Al Qaeda attacked the Trade Center with airplanes, instead of waiting until they had nukes. They woke us up in time for us to destroy them. The Euro-fada is Europe's wake up call, ... In response, the intifada will rise joyously throughout Europe. When all the Islamo-fascists stand up as one and start marauding in earnest, Europe will finally fight. The Islamo-fascists will have their AK's, their body bombs and their IED's: no match for Europe's small but well armed militaries, who will kill every last one of them. This is great news. The futures price for secular/Christian European survival just quadrupled. So you see, it is not shaudenfreude. We are on France's side, even though France is not on ours."
    • Ultimately I think he is wrong. Civil war is not inevitable (though I am realistic about the risks if Europe avoids confronting Islamism forever). But I think he is right to say that Europe may wake up. And that could be a very bad thing for Islamism. And the sooner it happens, the better. Europe waking up sooner will mean government-led action, tough laws, increased intelligence, active deportation, and a controlled, restrained crushing of Islamism. Europe waking up later will mean panic, pogroms, civil war, and attacks on innocent Muslims.
    • For the sake of the Muslims of Europe, far more than for the infidels, we need to stop Islamism now before it gets any worse.
  • My optimism above was right after all. The riots fizzled out, and only 1 person was killed. The revolutionaries got nowhere, and maybe never will. It's still fun to call it an "intifada" though, to annoy the left.
  • Hey, maybe I was just ahead of the curve. Muslims are waging civil war against us, claim French police, Oct 2006. "Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day. .. the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year". Michel Thoomis of the Action Police trade union says: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails."
  • Will all those lefties who laughed at the word "intifada" now apologise?
  • Further Muslim riots in Europe:
    • Muslim youths riot in Brussels, Sept 2006.
    • Muslim youths riot in Amsterdam, Oct 2007, after police shot dead a violent, and apparently Islamist, gangster who attacked them. "Moroccan-Dutch residents of Slotervaart complained to reporters they were "sick and tired" of continuous "negative news reports" about fellow Moroccan-Dutch, adding they felt increasingly stigmatized." Charles Johnson: "And what better way to counter those negative news reports than to riot and burn stuff?"
    • More French urban thugs riot, Nov 2007.
Optimism - Europe is a sleeping giant

Let me remind you that I remain optimistic. The 21st century, I believe, will see the Islamic world change, not the West. The West will remain free, and will export its corrupting freedom everywhere. It is the Islamists whose world will be destroyed.

  • Public anger at Muslim protesters, The Sunday Times, February 12, 2006 - A poll of the British public gives great grounds for hope. Essentially, the left-wing, politically-correct mantra that we must "understand" Muslim anger is failing in the marketplace. The great British public can be trusted on this issue, as on so many others:
    • 86% of the British think the cartoon protests were "a gross overreaction".
    • By 56% to 29% respondents said it was right to publish the cartoons in Denmark and republish them elsewhere.
    • 76% said the police should have arrested Islamists carrying placards urging violence.
    • 80% said the authorities show too much tolerance of Muslims who urge extreme acts.
    • 67% think this is because senior policemen such as Sir Ian Blair are too "politically correct".
    • Where foreigners stir up racial and religious hatred, 81% think they should be sent back to their own countries, even if to do so would endanger their lives.
    • The West is a sleeping giant, and the pre-scientific tribal savagery of Islamism stands no chance against it. The West has seen off much worse existential threats than the pathetic philosophy of Islamism, and it will see off Islamism as well.
  • Survey of American public, Feb 2006, shows similar great hope for the West. The great American public can be trusted as well:
    • The majority of Americans say the US should not give any financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority (this is after the Hamas victory).
    • The majority say the US should not have diplomatic relations with the Palestinians unless they recognize Israel.
    • Americans are much more likely to sympathize with the Israelis (59%) than with the Palestinians (15%).
    • Could be something to do with the fact that the Palestinians support killing Americans, and celebrated 9/11.
  • Survey of Americans, Mar 2006
    • 58 percent of Americans think Islam has more violent extremists than other religions.
    • 46 percent of Americans have a negative view of Islam.
    • 33 percent of Americans believe that Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims.
  • Survey of Americans, Apr 2006
    • What Is Your Impression Of Islam? Favorable - 19%. Unfavorable - 45%.
    • And Islam's numbers have got a lot worse since 2002. It seems that the more people find out about Islam, the less they like it. As Atlas Shrugs notes, "There was a time Americans never thought about these [jihadi] atrocities or Islam for months, years at a time. Now, not a day goes by where they are not, for one reason or another, forced to think or hear about, the Religion of Peace. And frankly, they don't like it." Maybe Islam should be afraid of the American street.
    • 46 percent of Americans believe Islam encourages violence more than other religions.
  • Not All Is Lost in Europe: A continent awakens to a threat by Emanuele Ottolenghi, February 13, 2006, discusses a remarkable survey of Europeans about Iran:
    • The vast majority of Europeans believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
    • The vast majority wish the Iranian plans to be thwarted.
    • If all other solutions fail, and it is a choice between military strikes and Iran getting nuclear weapons:
      • 74 percent in France support military strikes, 20 percent against.
      • 51 percent in Austria support military strikes, 40 percent against.
      • 45 percent in UK support military strikes, 26 percent against.
      • 46 percent in Germany support military strikes, 45 percent against.
    • As Ottolenghi says, the wisdom of the public is remarkable: "The EFD data show that the public is not easily fooled about the true motives and intentions of our Islamist adversaries."
  • Pew Global Attitudes Project survey, 2006
    1. The majority in America, France, Germany, Britain and Spain believe Iran will use its nuclear weapons against Israel. Support for strikes on Iran may not be as weak as thought.
    2. The majority in Turkey, Jordan and Egypt agree (that Iran will use its nuclear weapons against Israel). Many of these of course would support such an attack.
    3. Support for Israel has been rising in America, France, Germany and Britain since 2002, as people finally face the Islamist terror that Israel has faced alone for decades.
    4. The vast majority who express a preference support Israel in America. The majority who express a preference now support Israel in Germany, and it is a draw in France. Only in Britain does a majority support the Palestinians.
  • Survey in Germany, May 2006
    • 91 per cent said they associated Islam with oppression of women.
    • 83 per cent said that Islam was dominated by fanaticism.
    • 71 per cent said Islam was intolerant.
    • Asked if there should be a ban on the building of mosques in Germany as long as the building of churches in some Islamic states is forbidden, 56 per cent agreed. Funny, I wouldn't agree myself. We shouldn't give up our religious freedom just because some Middle Eastern hellholes deny it. I'm in the liberal minority. How about that.
    • 40 per cent said they would actually support strict limits on the practice of Islam in Germany to protect the country. I wouldn't agree at all.
    • I guess this proves my pessimistic point that if the idealistic, neo-con war on Islamism doesn't succeed, the alternative may not be simple Islamist victory. It may be the rise of an older European fascism, and a horrible European civil war in which innocent Muslims, not Islamists, will suffer. Support the war on Islamism. It's the only way to stop a war on Islam.
  • Survey in Czech Republic, Oct 2006
    • 75 percent of Czechs have a negative attitude to Islam.
    • 60 percent of Czechs are afraid of Islam.
    • A disturbing 75 percent of Czechs would ban the building of mosques in the Czech Republic, which would be an outrageous denial of religious freedom. Again, as with the Germans, I am well to the left of the Czech population.
  • Survey in UK, Aug 2006
    • 73 per cent of Britons agreed that "the West is in a global war against Islamic terrorists who threaten our way of life".
    • When asked whether Britain should change its foreign policy in response to terrorism only 12 per cent said it should be more conciliatory, 53 per cent thought it should become more "aggressive" and 24 per wanted no change.
    • Interestingly, this impressive hawkishness on the war is combined with a lack of admiration for Bush. Perhaps people are disillusioned with Bush because he has done little since 2003 to win the war. He has failed to confront Iran and Syria. He has not even destroyed minor thugs like al-Sadr. Nothing succeeds like success, and Bush looked like a winner in 2003. It's time for another victory.
    • As Richard Waghorne says: "How many of that majority are angry at the trans-Atlantic alliance precisely because they've not been assertive enough in the last three years? At least a substantial part, one would think."
  • UK survey, Aug 2006
    • The majority of Britons (53 percent) feel threatened by Islam. Unbelievable. Islam has only been in Britain for a couple of decades, and already it has burnt its bridges.
  • Survey, Apr 2007 (see here):
    • The majority (52 percent) of Europeans would support a military strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
    • The majority supported this in 18 EU member states including Denmark (68 percent), Belgium (65 percent), Sweden (65 percent), France (53 percent) and Britain (51 percent). 46 percent agreed in Ireland.
    • More people in the UK are concerned about Islamic fundamentalism than in any other EU country. 71 percent agreed with the statement that "Islamic fundamentalism is a serious threat for our country", compared to an EU average of 58 percent. Other countries where the majority agreed were Germany (66 percent), Spain (66 percent), France (64 percent), Italy (60 percent) and Sweden (56 percent). 42 percent agreed in Ireland.
    • Islamism certainly has a fight on its hands, if things get more serious.
  • Survey, Aug 2008: 63 percent of Americans would approve of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites if diplomacy fails to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis.
  • Survey of Flanders, Belgium, Jan 2009
    • 46 percent of Flemish say Islam does not contribute to European culture. Only 18 percent say Islam contributes.
    • 48 percent of Flemish agree that Islamic values are a threat to Europe. Only 17 percent disagree.
  • Poll of Americans, June 2009
    • 46 percent of Americans have an unfavourable view of Muslim countries. Only 21 percent have a favourable view. (Personally, I can't believe the favourable view is so high. Don't these people read?)
  • "Call to bridge West-Muslim divide", a disgusting BBC whitewash of the "Alliance of Civilisations" group, also provides grounds for optimism. Not in the article itself, which is PC rubbish, but in the comments from viewers.
    • The BBC treat this group as if it is composed of respectable people who should be listened to. The British viewers' comments provide the only ray of light. If you sort comments by popularity, the fresh air of scepticism and common sense blows in, and gives me optimism that there is hope for Britain:
      • "Is this a report that places the blame only on the West and absolves Muslims of any fault? If so it is not worth the paper it is written on."
      • "Islam needs to progress to the 21st Century. That is the basic problem."
      • "One of the things that would need to be done is for Muslim nations to stop persecuting their Christian minorities."
      • My favourite comment: "I am not convinced that the rift can be healed, and if it means the West has to compromise it's hard won values and liberties I would rather it were not."
    • Why is it left to the viewers to provide scepticism like this? Surely journalists should be in the business of scepticism too?
    • Still, if these comments represent the future of the British voter, Islamism is doomed.
  • More good news: The climate in Europe may be changing, and becoming more hostile to Islamists:
  • Poll of Britons, April 2006 found that many hard-line policies are actually popular with voters in Britain:
    • 91 percent say criminals should serve their full sentences.
    • 83 percent say Britain should give priority to British families in allocating council housing.
    • 77 percent say Britain should accept fewer asylum seekers.
    • 59 percent say all immigration should be halted.
  • The United Kingdom debate over veils, 2006, is a good example of the danger for Muslims. It is an illustration of how the majority of the non-Muslim population could easily swing right of me if provoked (or is indeed already right of me). I think it is simply wrong for the state to dictate how people can dress. I think in a free society you should be able to follow any religion you like, and dress how you like. I may think you are a crackpot (you have no right to demand that I "respect" your choices) but in a free society you should have the right to be a crackpot. But it seems much of Europe would consider legal restrictions on things like the veil and the building of mosques. I am to the left of most of Europe on religious freedom.
  • The message for Muslims living in the West is clear - you've got to do something to reduce the fear of Islam in the West. You've got to stop whining, and start proudly proclaiming your support for the West and western values, and put clear water between Islam and Islamism. Support the West in its war on Islamism, or risk a general, populist European campaign against Islam.
  • Scary: BNP finally wins serious seats in UK, June 2009, winning 2 seats in European elections (in Yorkshire and the Humber and North West England). Fear of Islam caused this.
  • Swiss vote to ban minarets, Nov 2009.
  • Poll, Jan 2010: Islam is incredibly unpopular in the UK.
    • After endless aggression, threats, terror killings, and calls for sharia, Islam has a terrible image in the UK.
    • Only about 25 percent of people in Britain feel positively about Islam. And it is not just anti-immigrant prejudice. Many people are hostile to Islam who are not hostile to other immigrant religions.
    • 55 per cent of people would object to a large mosque being built in their locality. Only 15 percent would object to a large church.
    • 45 per cent said religious diversity has had a negative impact on Britain.
    • 70 percent would ban Islamist public meetings.
    • 57 percent would ban Islamist publications.
  • Poll, Oct-Nov 2009: Islam is unpopular in the US too.
    • 91 percent of Americans have a favourable view of Christianity.
    • 71 percent of Americans have a favourable view of Judaism.
    • 58 percent of Americans have a favourable view of Buddhism.
    • 42 percent of Americans have a favourable view of Islam.

How Europe could easily swing (or already is) to the right of me.
Above shows support for political parties in Holland in opinion polls, Aug 2008 - Mar 2009. From here.

Geert Wilders is campaigning against Islam, not just Islamism. He has talked about banning the Koran, and preventing the building of Islamic mosques and schools.

I would not vote for his party, the PVV. Their opposition to the jihad is too extreme.

And yet polls, Mar 2009, have his party as now the no.1 party in Holland.
The infidels of Europe are highly unlikely to go gently into the dark night of sharia. They will stop it. I just hope it's peaceful and not violent.

These are real threats. But nothing is inevitable. It is still 1933. There is still time to stop all these nightmare scenarios from coming to pass. We still have time to destroy Islamism while it is new and weak, rather than wait until 1938 or 1939, when it is rampant and strong. There is still time to strangle Islamism in the cradle.

The above scenarios - Western nuclear assault on the Islamic world, resurgent Western ultra-nationalist fascism - show the danger for all of us, not least for the Islamic world, if we do not destroy Islamism now. Everyone who believes in freedom and tolerance, including liberal Muslims, must support the War on Islamism, or risk the above scenarios coming to pass.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2010, 06:47 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Islam in the West

Islam in the West

Since the 1950s, Islam has been growing in the West, mainly by immigration. Most immigrants come to the West precisely because they support its freedoms and want to escape failed states ruled by clerics and Islamic dictators. We have a duty to let these freedom-loving Muslims in. There is an upside to doing so:
  1. Western Muslims are the most liberal, tolerant, pro-democracy Muslims in the world. All the dissidents are here - the religious dissidents, the political dissidents, the feminist dissidents, and the gay dissidents. All the dissident works - such as criticism of Islam and Islamism - are published in the West.
  2. There is an argument that if there is ever to be an Islamic Reformation, it will come from the western Muslims, who are free to speak and question, rather than from the Muslims living in unfree states.
But there is a substantial minority (10-20 percent) of immigrants who threaten our western freedoms. What to do about these aggressors is one of the questions of our time.

Muslim immigration

For me, Islamic fundamentalism is under siege in its home countries, and will eventually lose out to democracy and freedom. The idea that Islamic fundamentalist immigrants could come to the West and eventually threaten our freedoms I find a bit far-fetched.

My instinct is totally pro-immigration, for many reasons:
  1. I believe human rights and western freedoms are universal, and all races can participate.
  2. Around the world, millions of people who live in tyrannies long for freedom and democracy. We have a duty to give pro-democracy activists, anti-communist dissidents, anti-Islamist dissidents and western freedom-lovers a haven. The west is the natural place for them to set up their opposition parties, newspapers, websites and governments-in-exile, which we should support.
  3. We have a duty to give a haven to people fleeing genocide and persecution.
  4. I believe free movement of people, like free trade, is good for the economy. Skilled people move where the work is. Attempts to stop this are like protectionism, and restrict the economy. (However, this does not hold if the immigration is unskilled and unambitious, and it may be that much actual immigration in Europe does not help the economy.)
  5. I despise anti-immigration movements that are based on ethnic purity. Some of the paleo-conservatives seem to be in or near this territory. I think the desire for ethnic purity is one of the single worst ideas in human history. My country, the Republic of Ireland, is far too ethnically pure already, having lost most of its ancient Protestant and Anglo-Irish population. In general, ethnic purity is a sign of failure. Immigration is a sign of success.
Having said all that, there is one troubling issue:
  1. How about letting in people who hate you and threaten you? To oppose immigration per se (or be against all immigrants once they are in) seems racist to me. But the western left ignores the fact that immigrants may hate western freedoms, and want to end them, and force their primitive, barbarous ideas on me. Obviously, not all immigrants have been threatening like this, so we must be careful to focus on the ones who have issued such threats. At the moment this category consists almost entirely of Islamists who openly want to destroy our freedom and some day set up sharia law in Europe.
My response to the existence of such appalling people is as follows:
  1. Let in freedom-lovers, exclude freedom-haters. - Yes, I agree that people who hate western freedoms should not be allowed in. Islamist activists should not be let in, even if they are being persecuted. West-haters can be hard to identify on arrival, though. You need to be careful that your rules and checks do not exclude democracy-loving Muslims who are fleeing Islamist religious states. These are exactly the people you want to let in.
      • Islam v. Islamism makes the same point, about how many Muslims and ex-Muslims in the West are our allies: "Remember that most Muslims who emigrated to the United States did so to get away from "cultures" and "societies" (I use the terms very loosely) like the ones that are described below, much as Judeo-Christian immigrants came here to get away from European monarchies, religious despotisms, and feudal lords."
  2. Deport freedom-haters. - Inevitably, you will let in some freedom-haters by accident. If they are serious, they will eventually do something, at which point they can be identified. Then you have the problem of: Can they be deported? After all, native born people are allowed hate the west. Are we making immigrants second-class citizens, with less freedom of speech than natives? It's certainly a difficult issue. I think they can be deported, on the grounds that letting them in was clearly an error at the time. So I think, yes, an immigrant can be a second-class citizen in this sense for n years, until they have proved they are not an enemy of the country. This is not a restriction that will bother any immigrant who does not actually hate the west.

  3. Native born people cannot be deported, even if they hate the west and its freedoms. They must be first-class citizens. In a free society, we tolerate citizens who hate tolerance and want to end it. We have free speech for people who want to end free speech, such as fascists, communists and Islamists. But the point is: We can be relaxed about this when they are powerless cranks. But what if there is a growing number of such people who want to end freedom? My response would be that we should still have free speech, but a free society has every right to try to survive. It must do everything possible to reduce the numbers of such people, and not let any more in.
    • Germans to put Muslims through loyalty test - The German state of Baden-Wurttemberg is to test whether incoming Muslims believe in western values of religious freedom and a tolerant society. If not, they are denied citizenship. Even better, if you answer the test correctly, but it is found out later that you do not really believe in western values, you can have your citizenship removed. Those who support 9/11 will be denied citizenship. This is the future. This is what all of Europe should do. If immigrants do not believe in western values of tolerance and freedom, they should not be let in to Europe.
    • Plain-talking quotes from Australian leaders: "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you."
Is there really any threat to our liberties?

Will Muslim immigrants really threaten our liberties? I'm fairly relaxed so far, but that situation may of course change. West-hating immigrants have achieved little so far, though there are some worrying signs:
Apologists for rape

  • Australian Islamofascist Feiz Mohammad
    • "Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world. Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature." - Feiz Muhammad, 2005.
    • "Jews are pigs that will be killed at the end of the world" - Feiz Muhammad.
  • Australian Islamofascist Taj El-Din Hilaly
    • This ranting Islamist preacher was born in Egypt, yet shamefully he was allowed into Australia, despite the fact that he hates western values and wants to destroy them.
    • Australia's most senior Muslim cleric blames women for rape (because of their immodest dress), 2006.
    • See transcript (and here): "In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. ... If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it. If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen."
    • A 23-year-old Syrian-born immigrant to New Zealand defends the cleric: "The argument that men should control themselves is ludicrous. It is just like saying thieves should not rob houses whose doors and windows are left wide open." I would deport this young man without hesitation. Such an immigrant should not be allowed into any western country. Letting him in was clearly a mistake.
    • I would deport the cleric too. Letting him in was also clearly a mistake. If you don't believe in western values, you shouldn't be allowed in.
    • More quotes from this *****: "The Jews' struggle with humanity is as old as history itself". "September 11 is God's work against oppressors." The Holocaust is a "Zionist lie".
    • Keysar Trad, spokesman for al-Hilali, denounced as "racist", "offensive" and "untruthful" by Australian Supreme Court, 1 Aug 2009.
  • Why do feminists support disgusting, rape-defending men like this, instead of supporting their enemies?
  • Rapes by Muslim immigrants:
    • There is some evidence in Europe of an unusually large number of rapes by Muslim immigrants of native European women. The cultural attitudes illustrated above would certainly help to explain this, as they make excuses for the rape by frustrated males of scantily-dressed infidel women.
    • Islam and rape
    • Rape in Sweden.
    • Rape in Norway.
    • Police report 2005: In 2004, non-western immigrants were 14 percent of Oslo's population, but 65 percent of its rapists. 80 percent of victims were native Norwegian women.
    • Police report 2010: Every single assault rape in Oslo in 2006-09 was by a non-western immigrant. That's 100 percent of assault rapes.
The comedy show "The Chaser's War on Everything" have a great, light-hearted, Australian response to the humourless Islamofascist freak Taj El-Din Hilaly.

Laugh at the Islamist with the "Mufti Muzzler".
Search for more: And here.


Even if freedom-hating immigrants never succeed in actually changing our laws, there is another threat, which is that of sporadic violence and terrorism. Importing Muslims means inevitably importing some jihadis. Even if you only let in freedom-loving, democracy-loving Muslims (as discussed above), their children may be jihadis. This seems to be the case with the London bombings. The simple act of letting in Muslims at all increases the number of jihadis who will try to kill you.

Tragically, it seems that the second London bombing attack was by refugees, on the country that took them in. They came to Britain as child refugees from war-torn Africa. And they repaid British generosity by trying to slaughter its people.

I have no answer for this. If the war against the jihad escalates, we may have to stop all Muslim immigration, including those fleeing persecution. I hope to god it never comes to this awful scenario.
"Moderate" Muslims in the west

As I said above, it is true that the west is the heartland of truly moderate Islam. Western Muslims are far more moderate than Muslims in the Islamic world. There are millions of Muslims and lapsed Muslims in the west who believe in democracy and freedom, and are in the west precisely because they do not wish to live under Islamic law.

At the same time, many Muslim leaders promoted by the media as "moderate" Muslims turn out to be anything but. Sometimes, hate-filled extremist jihadis, such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, are simply described as "moderate". More often, "moderates" turn out to be religious ultra-conservatives who have crackpot views on Israel and America, and who seem incapable of condemning Islamism. Certainly, nobody who believes in Islamic law, or subscribes in any way to Islamism, could possibly be described as a "moderate". Nobody who supports attacks on Israeli civilians could possibly be described as a "moderate". Any time I hear the left describe some Muslim, such as Tariq Ramadan, as a "moderate", I now assume they are lying.

And finally, it is also true that 10-20 percent of western Muslims do support the global jihad.
Supposed "moderate" Muslims

Actually moderate Muslims

What I mean by actually moderate Muslims (as opposed to the fake "moderates" so often promoted) are Muslims who oppose Islamism.
  • American Islamic Forum for Democracy - supporting the fight against CAIR.
  • Muslims against Islamofascism
  • Pro-Israel Arabs and Muslims
  • Muslim freethinkers
  • Democratic Muslims, Denmark, founded by the Syrian Naser Khader.
    • Profile: "My modest hopes are to create the determining factors needed to create a reformation and enlightenment for Islam. That may sound ambitious. But the people who are needed to create the conditions needed for that are us - the Moslems of the West. My ambitions are - apart from making integration less painful - to show that Islam and democracy can be made to be compatible. If the Moslems of the West can not reform Islam, nobody can."
    • Far from being the doom of the West, the Muslims of the West may be the ones who reform the Islamic world.
    • DM member Kamran Tahmasebi:
      • "It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago"
      • "as a parent I feel a responsibility to fight, so that my children will not have to live under Islamist dogmas. They shall be able to live free in this country."
      • "Mr Tahmasebi adds that he believes the imams are one of the biggest problems Denmark is facing today."
      • "Indeed, there are indications that the main culprits for the integration problems are the imams, who tend to be much more extremist than many of the ordinary Muslims."
  • The Muhammed cartoons riots
    • Since Danish imams toured the Middle East with three fake Mohammed cartoons (see bottom of page) to try to incite hatred and violence against Denmark, Denmark is finally waking up: "I believe it has become obvious that the imams are not the people we should be listening to if we want integration in Denmark to work", says the Danish Integration Minister. Hurray!
    • The Akkari-Laban dossier
Survey of American Muslims

Survey at Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Convention, Sept 2006 shows us the cold reality of western Muslims. It's not that they support the jihad. It's that they are of no use in stopping it:

5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 117
NO 139
6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 200
NO 70
7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 106
NO 151
8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
REAL 126
FAKE 129
9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 140
NO 104

15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:
a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
YES 37
NO 258
b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
YES 43
NO 255
c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
YES 64
NO 232
d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
YES 35
NO 258
e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
YES 52
NO 242

Just as the Irish in Britain were of little use against the IRA, and just as the "good Germans" were of little use in WW2, so western Muslims will be of little use in this war. They don't like the jihad, but will make no attempt to fight it, and have only criticism for those who do.
10 percent of western Muslims will help fight this war. 10 percent will fight for the enemy. 80 percent will sit on the fence, and then, when the war is over, will be perfectly happy with the allied victory.
  • The only possible defence that could be made is that ISNA is more radical than most western Muslims.
  • Survey of US Muslims, May 2007
    • Only 40 percent of US Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
    • 13 percent of US Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
    • 5 percent of US Muslims have favourable views of Al Qaeda.
  • The above references a May 2006 study which found that:
    • Only 17 percent of British Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
    • Only 16 percent of Turkish Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
    • Only 15 percent of Pakistani Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
    • 35 percent of French Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
    • 25 percent of Spanish Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
    • 24 percent of British Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
    • 69 percent of Nigerian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
    • 57 percent of Jordanian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
    • 53 percent of Egyptian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
  • Opinion Polls in the Islamic world
  • Midwest Lutherans Largely Reject Violence, May 23, 2007 - Parody of our reaction to these polls. We expect moderate levels of support for violence and terror from the Muslim community, whereas this would be unthinkable in any other religious group.
    • "By an almost two-to-one margin, Midwest Lutherans voiced solid opposition to decapitation, suicide bombing, and chemical warfare in a new comprehensive survey of their social attitudes. ... "If there is one headline here, it's how remarkably moderate the Lutheran community is," said Pew director Andrew Kohut of the survey ... Kohut pointed to one of the study's key findings that only 29% of all respondents agreed that "bloody, random violence against infidels" was "always" or "frequently" justified, versus 56% who said such violence was "seldom" or "never" justified. The approval of violence rose slightly among younger Lutherans and when the hypothetical violence was targeted against Presbyterians, but still fell well short of a majority."
    • "Although a majority 87% of respondents agreed that "The world should be brought to submission under global Lutheran conquest and eternal perfect rule," there was a great deal of disagreement on the means to accomplish it. ... "Taken as a whole, the results show that Midwest Lutherans emphatically support a moderate, mainstream path to world domination," said Kohut. "These folks are well-assimilated into the broad fabric of American society, and unless you are Presbyterian, there is probably very little here to cause concern.""
Islam in the UK (separate page)

Islam in Ireland (separate page)

Sharia law in the West (separate page)

Islamophobia (separate page)


I'd rather end on an optimistic note. I don't think Islamic fundamentalism is going to triumph in the west. I think democracy is going to triumph in the Islamic world.

I think Islamic fundamentalism is far more under threat than western ideas are. Which is not to say that Islamic fundamentalists won't cause a lot more death before they exit history. But exit they will, just as the entire, bloodthirsty Christian medieval world is gone. Just as the entire Soviet world is gone. Democracy is unstoppable.
  • Optimism in the War on Islamic Fascism
  • Optimism on the future of Islam
  • Al Qaeda understand - article on the book, "The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad" by Yussuf al-Ayyeri of Al Qaeda. He writes that their mortal enemy is not America, or the Jews. It is secular democracy. Secular democracy will destroy their world.
    • He does not pretend to love human freedom or human rights. He says he hates them. He writes as if he was invented by American hawks to prove their point. But he is just being honest. - "If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target .. would be the whole of the Muslim world", he writes.
    • Odd that the dark forces of Al Qaeda understand exactly what their enemy is trying to do, while their idiot sympathisers in the west don't.
The Forward Strategy of Freedom:
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. The advance of freedom is the calling of our time" President George W. Bush, Nov 2003.

Bush understands the "root cause" of 9/11 - the lack of freedom in the Middle East.
  • This is why I support George W. Bush - because he believes in bringing freedom to the whole world, at a time when the left has abandoned that dream (and even opposes it). As Oliver Kamm puts it, Bush is a classic 18th century liberal. He is what modern liberals should be: "George W. Bush .. is .. the principal heir to a progressive tradition that regards political liberty as universal and that considers the first task of foreign policy to be to spread it rather than overlook its absence. He is accordingly a theorist, spokesman and figurehead for the ideals of the liberal Left; he merits the gratitude of those of us who would adhere to them."
  • Globalizing Democracy by Stephen Schwartz - "President Bush has restored to the Republican party its rightful legacy as a party of liberation"
  • Just like Reagan's wonderful "Evil Empire" speech, Bush's words bring hope to millions in the unfree world. An Iraqi blogger responds to the speech - "Many people ask whether we have heard the President's speach. Yes we have. Immediately the Chorus of AlJazeera, Al Arabiya, etc. and amazingly, CNN, BBC etc, started their spoiling, doubt-semming, bitchy insinuations ... Pretending to be objective, pretending to be "balanced", they try their best to kill the joy that the shining reassuring words bring to our frightened hearts."
  • Bush describes the glorious collapse of the Soviet tyranny, and the spread of democracy over the last 20 years: "As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world". And he blasts us with optimism: "and I can assure you more are on the way."
Islamic attacks on the West (more here and here) are steadily growing, and will happen no matter what politics the West has:

1968 to 1992:
  1. Many countries - Palestinian terror 1968 on.
  2. USA - Hamaas Khaalis 1973.
  3. USA - Stephen Gilroy 1973.
  4. USA - Zebra killings 1973-74.
  5. USA - Hanafi Siege 1977.
  6. Many countries - Iranian terror 1979 on.
  7. Spain - El Descanso 1985.
  8. UK - Lockerbie 1988.
  9. Many countries - Salman Rushdie 1989 on.
  10. USA - Rashad Khalifa 1990.
  11. USA - Meir Kahane 1990.
  12. Australia - Makin Morcos 1991.
Under Clinton:
  1. USA - WTC 1993.
  2. USA - Brooklyn 1994.
  3. France - Algerian terror 1994-95.
  4. USA - EgyptAir Flight 990 1999.
Under Bush:
  1. USA - 9/11 2001.
  2. France - AZF explosion 2001.
  3. USA - shoe bomber 2001.
  4. Holland - Pim Fortuyn 2002.
  5. USA - LA 2002.
  6. USA - Beltway sniper 2002.
  7. France - Bertrand Delanoë 2002.
  8. Spain - Madrid 2004.
  9. Holland - Theo van Gogh 2004.
  10. UK - London 2005.
  11. France - Ilan Halimi 2006.
  12. Germany - Amir Cheema 2006.
  13. USA - Seattle Jewish centre 2006.
  14. UK - London and Glasgow 2007.
  15. UK - Sherry Jones 2008.
  16. Denmark - Odense 2008.
Under Obama:
  1. USA - Little Rock 2009.
  2. Italy - Milan 2009.
  3. USA - Fort Hood 2009.
  4. USA - Richard T. Antoun 2009.
  5. USA - Flight 253 2009.
  6. Denmark - Kurt Westergaard 2010.
  7. USA - James Larry 2010.
  8. USA - Times Square 2010.
  9. UK - Stephen Timms 2010.
  10. Sweden - Lars Vilks 2010.

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum