West: Retool U.S. war

You've got my vote!

WEST/BOSTOM '08!!!

There are some on-line Islamic sites where questions are asked and advice is despensed.

The following should explain a lot. I have posted this before, but there so are many new contributors I thought it needed a rerun.

http://islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php

What is the islamic understanding about democracy, Is there any place for it in islam?

Answer 15522

The common form of democracy prevalent at the moment is representative democracy, in which the citizens do not exercise their right of legislating and issuing political decrees in person, but rather through representatives chosen by them. The constitution of a democratic country will be largely influenced by the needs and wants of its people. Thus, if its people want casinos, bars, gay marriages, prostitution, etc. then with sufficient public pressure, all these vices can be accommodated for. From this, it becomes simple to understand that there can never be scope for a democratic rule from the Islamic point of view.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

The ol' Mufti knows best also.

Democracy without the limits of majority power as enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights should never be encouraged, especially among religious fanatics.

CAIR-Canada tried pushing Shariah-law on the Nation , but astute freedom loving Muslim women that fled Islamic States exposed the oppressive un-attainable standards for Females locked into a misogynistic islamic marriage.

CAIR has tried to force Universities to build or provide Mosques for daily prayers by Muslims students ,Canada's 'Charter Of Rights' for religious freedom is being used by CAIR to impose Islam by-proxy , plus, we now see that Hezbollah is backing Peace rallies in Toronto and Montreal with the support of the CAF that did nothing to stop the Nazi-style flag burning and death threats to Jews.

There will be a point of no return at which Islam and Muslims will be exposed for what they are, and the "Backlash" hasn't even begun .
Once North America wakes-up to the Islamofacsist
goal to force Islam on us and return to oil-lamps and donkey's while praying 5 times aday to a Loving Peacful God that wants you dead if you don't submit ( arabic word is Islam) .
The Police appear to be hand-cuffed by CAIR's lawyers and the Courts have very few Judges that apply the Law equally to Muslim criminals, Politicians actually believe they run the Nation
and the people are just lowly peons paying taxes to finance the charade.
Bill Clinton was in Canada to preach to us about responsible sex to avoid spreading AIDS, Bill Gates was booed when he mention abstaining
to help reduce the risk , Muslims will use these low morals to justify an Islamic State to atone
us with Allah.

I think that if Muslims are so offended by us they can merely leave and live in a utopic Islamic Nation that respects pluralism and womens Rights.

If any American President tried this, they would be impeached before they finished uttering the first three paragraphs.

The media would make George look like a buffoon (not that I think he needs their help for this) and a hate-monger.

CAIR, the ACLU, and all of their activist judges would gear out to prostitute the legal system to intimidate anyone who repeated a word of this and the traitors in the American Congress (an empty symbolic institution really) would block anything related to implementation of what was advocated by such a speech.

You have my full support; it is needed; I'll vote for it; when can we get it done!

It would be nice if this speech preceded a formal declaration of war on Iran and Syria, to be followed by a volley of W88 warheads on major Islamic spiritual and population centers. Tragically though, we won't see this kind of communication or use of force until we lose about 100,000 people in a day. Even then I have my doubts. The formalization of the threat we face is too painfully uncomfortable for our leaders to publicize. It would, however, be funny to see the Democratic response to such a speech. Imagine Pelosi up there, makeup, plastic surgery, and all trying to explain the 'sensitivities' and nuances of Sharia and how it truly makes accomodations for all people across race, religion, and gender. She'd try to work in some PR for what she's done in California to advance the spread of Islam. Heck, she might even let John Walker Lindh write the response since they share common Marin County heritage.

We are paralyzed by our enablement of Islamic Facism.

America needs to take a stand publicly. NOW.

Whining brats are that way because they have been enabled by their parents to do so. These children grow up to be more and more unmanageable because their parents have ABDICATED their parental responsibility to provide clear boundaries.

We are doing just that "officially" as a world power. Many in the US feel as we do, but won't speak up because if they do, they will be Politically Incorrect.

This has got to stop. It is "OK" to have an opinion, and to express it. That is what we are fighting for, isn't it?

it is not madness to know the truth; but is it madness to say it publicly at the highest levels?

in the despair to come, the despair of blood and pain, we will at least know what we are fighting for and against if ms. west's ideas were those of the government. on the other hand, maybe we can avoid some of that blood and pain by continuing to talk of "the benign religion" or whatever.

i tend toward the first notion, to know and to tell the truth. but i listen, also, to those who say the second, and who suggest isolation.

Prediction : If the USA is ever hit again and bigtime, expect a huge angry backlash against anything muslim because there Americans who are very armed to the teeth.

Bush may not do it, but others can start to do it, preparing the mental ground. They need not be Republicans. It would be better, in fact, more effective, if a Democrat or two began to attack the President for his messianic naivete in Iraq, his unwillingness to see that our goal should be not to win unwinnable hearts and minds, not to cure "poverty" (are the Saudis poor? The Kuwaitis? The Iranians? The Libyans? Wasn't it only after the OPEC money started to flow by the trillions of dollars that the wherewithal existed to buy those arms, pay for those mosques and madrasas worldwide, employ that army of Western hirelings doing the Saudi and Arab bidding), but to weaken, to take away the instruments of Jihad or so diminish their efficacy that they cannot threaten us as they now do.

Imagine if only one or two or three people said we should leave Iraq to its own devices, and concentrate on "weakening the world-wide threat of Jihad." No, they don't have to say what I have written here, about the ethnic and sectarian divisions within Iraq that will help to weaken Islam, and not only within Iraq. But they can think it, and they can make plans, in the Pentagon but not only the Pentagon -- the Pentagon still stuck in the idea that the only way to make war is through combat, when the best and most effective weapons will hardly ever require those famous boots on the ground we hear so much about, by those with an apparently unslaked taste for phrases on tap.

Good Gawd Almighty. . .

Dearbornistan (Michiganistan) is gonna be pissed!

Without resistance Sharia Law will be the 'law of the land'. Even water has enough sense to take the 'path of least resistance'. Islam is good at this. Western political types have not only 'overlooked' Sharia they have ignored it. In doing so they have opened the door of minimum resistance to Sharia. Thats why we have CAIR in the US and Iran has that loudmouth 'beasty boy'as spokesman. Their job is to exploit that western stupidity, and force more stupidity on the already stupid. The UK's Livingstone is a perfect example of how that works. But he is not alone, there are others. These people in power, who aid and abet the spread of the tyrannical cancer of Sharia, either knowingly or stupidly, should be branded as traitors and booted out of office or position. This should be standard proceedure in the 'war on terror'. I dont know about you, but to me the idea of living under "Sharia Law, is a terrifying proposition.
This has to be resisted. If not, get your wife a burka...she will need it...

BRAVO! BRAVO!

"Shariah law" = "Sexual Apartheid"

Dearbornistan (Michiganistan),

i'll go for Dearbornistan,but not Michiganistan. I'm a Michigander not a Michiganistanian,you'll read about patriot8 going postal first before that happins.I know their are more michiganders in this room,cause i talked to em.Michigan is a machingun state....

The time for such a declaration was within a day or two after 9/11 at most. Instead, what we had was Islam was a noble religion, a religion of peace, and visits to mosques by GWB - in effect handing the right and justifiable causus belli and the high moral ground to an enemy that will never cease in its goal to take over the world.

Handing the quiet undeserving plaudit of RoP to Islam has also meant that it could not be attacked.

Before any declaration, somehow we have to get organised on a local scale, just as Muslims are tightly organised under the auspices of the local mosque. The mosques themselves are organised across the nation, and then across the Ummah worldwide. Note how quickly the Danish cartoon affair became worldwide.

I agree with a stronger defense here at home to prevent the spread not only of Islamofascism but of Islamic culture in general. Yes, absolutely restrict Muslim immigration wherever possible.

I also agree that it is disappointing to see our efforts in the middle east costing so much and having so little apparent succes. However, I do not think we should abandon the offensive part of this conflict. If there is a sectarian war in Iraq and Lebanon so be it. If we stop supporting the so called Palestinians and the Saudis and Iranians have to do it, fine. But we should keep the pressure on over there. It is not just the West that needs protection either. As we all know the jihad attacks any non-Muslim entity or even any non-sufficiently-Muslim, or any non-male-Muslim or any not-of-my-tribe-Muslim-or-non-Muslim.

Prediction : If the USA is ever hit again and bigtime, expect a huge angry backlash against anything muslim because there Americans who are very armed to the teeth.

Counter Prediction:

in the scenario as stated, Americans will quietly and meekly turn in their guns to local law authorities in one of the many "gun buy back programs." They may even be willing to turn in their unregistered firearms for mere discount tickets to a sports event.

moreover, Americans will return from their respective places of worship after listening to their priests, ministers, and rabbis assuring them that a meek, docile response is what makes them "different and better" than those who hit in the first place!

Oh, there might be a few hold outs who will have warrants sworn out for their arrests for illegal gun possession; and a few may actually be shot in the back by FBI/ATF swat teams just like what happened at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge.

Naturally, investigations will follow in which the agents will be cleared of any wrong doing; the incidents will be blamed on the hold outs who were shot dead by the ATF/FBI agents; and the big incident that started the mess will be dismissed by a few 'extremists' who hijacked a religion.

All the while, organizations like CAIR will be charged with conducting "sensitivity" training to government officials and be given tours of "behind the scenes security operations" at major airports like O'Hare.

While, I admire your youthful optimism; I see no logical reason to hold out much hope for it.

president@whitehouse.gov

"others can start to do it, preparing the mental ground. They need not be Republicans. It would be better, in fact, more effective, if a Democrat or two began to attack the President for his messianic naivete in Iraq."
-- from my posting above

And it need not be someone in Washington -- Kinky Friedman, were he as part of his campaign for governor of Texas (which he deserves to win, especially with his rhetorical-question slogans "Why the Hell Not?" and "How Hard Can It Be?" and his dismissive description of the Democrats and Republicans as the "Crips and the Bloods"), to suggest, in his inimitable off-hand Will-Rogersish way, that "I think we ought to get out of Iraq now and let them fight over the spoils if they insist, and they apparently do, and then they can let us know when it's over. Not our business to keep Sunnis and Shi'a from being at each others' throats, anymore than we would have been downcast if the Germans and Japanese had met in the middle of Russia, say, and started fighting over who was going to claim that country.. We rescued the whole country, when we went in to find and destroy some potentially very dangerous weapons, which turned out not to exist, because Saddam Hussein was attempting to scare Iran with these "weapons" but was so good at it, that he alarmed us too. But that's it. We've put $400 billion down, or committed already for replacing military equipment, and supporting 20,000 wounded soldiers for their lives, and also $45 billion in new schools, outfitting hospitals, power grids, all the rest The returning soldiers tell us how grasping they all are, how much they want to get for themselves, for their families, perhaps in a few cases their tribe. But that's it. And I'm speaking about it because Texas needs to save money, ddffddfgood reasons of our own -- from Saddam Hussein. They seem to want our soldiers to fight for them, now the Shi'a egging us on to fight the Sunnis and now the Sunnis to fight the Shi'a, and of course they are all in a gimmee-gimmmee-gimme mode, trying to soak us for all we are worth."

Simple, folksy, will strike a chord -- not least in those soldiers who have actually served, once or twice or three times, in Iraq, and not been impressed by the kindness, or the bravery, or the gratitude, or the anything else, of the largely unpleasant (save for the tiniest children who have yet to be socialized into Islam and into hostility toward the Infidel -- but that will come, that will come).

Friedman need not do it, but what if he did? And what if the public, sick of this Iraq venture, sick of the colossal waste of it all, but not wanting to appease, wanting in Texas to fight against the Jihad more effectively, with more awareness of the need to exploit avaiable, almost too obviously available, methods to divide and demoralize and constrain the enemy (just as that enemy has been working in Western Europe to divide the Western alliance, and to demoralize Western Infidels by unsettling and bullying them, both with considerable success).

It would change things. It would force the silent Democrats, or those who as a matter of fixed belief oppose the war in Iraq, but for unstated or all the wrong reasons, to start talking, It would force otherwise sensible Republicans, such as McCain, to stop endorsing the Bush policy and to study the nature, the promptings, the scope and menace and varied instruments of Jihad. With that understanding, which cannot come at once, but requires not mere reading but also allowing time to take it in, to let it sink in, to allow this new understanding to help you make sense of so much that goes on inthe world, from the Moluccas and the Moro Islands to Malaysia's Bumiputra system, to the massacre of Buddhist monks in southern Thailand, to the persecution and murder of Hindus in Bangladesh, to Muslim terrorism in India and Indian Kashmir, to the martyrdom of Bishop John Joseph in Pakistan and the persecution of the Christians, to the meretricious nature of Pakistan, which because of the Muslim nature of the Muslim masses, cannot be a friend, can only be an enemy, of Infidel states, no matter how much debt is forgiven, how many F-16s supplied. and it is unaffected by whether Musharraf or Pinky Bhutto, a general or a zamindar's daughter, or someone as yet unknown, is in charge.

[Admirers of "Impressions d'Afrique" and "Locus Solus" will note that "Kinky" appears in the first sentence, and "Pinky" in the last. A variation on the theme, or scheme.]

"Thus, if its people want casinos, bars, gay marriages, prostitution, etc. then with sufficient public pressure, all these vices can be accommodated for."

Hey Mufti,
I for one would take casinos, bars, gay marriage, etc. any time over shariah and mosques and guys like you. You say those are "vices." Maybe.

But so is sloth, of which Islam displays in abundance; so is luxuriousness/lechery, which you are promissed will be gratified in your afterlife; So is greed, not just for money or other earthly posessions, but for allah's approval and rewards, here and in eternity.
To get those, nothing is too evil in Islam.

So let the casinos come and stop Mohammed at the border.

She has it right. The focus has been too much on democracy. The west - and of course, much of the remainder of the real democratic world as well - has taken it for granted that democracy includes principles of equality, fairness, freedom, and justice. However, in Islamic countries, `democracy' has been, more or less, a confirmation of ochlocracy. The majority being Muslim, they believe that they have `democratic' mandate to brutalise what little remaining minority remains in their countries. The focus should always have been on respect for minorities, and protection of their interests.

As for her suggestion about keeping jihad inside `dar ul islam', the best thing the west - and other real democracies - can do is support the rights and freedoms of the minorities in Muslim countries. Zoroastrians in Iran, Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Iraq, Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh - these are the ones who deserve support, not the oppressive Muslim regimes, where the only `democracy' is voting by wolves who choose which and how many sheep they eat.

O.T.

... but I am disappointed in how so much bien pensant opinion continues to "explain" and apologize for Islam.

I've just started Mark Mazower's Salonica: City of Ghosts - partly because I'd heard it had a lot about the old Jewish population there, because the more "the Jews" are given a bad press, as they increasingly are now, the more I find myself as a non-Jew obliged to find out more about this people and its extraordinary history. I don't think it's right to pile in on the underdog - even, or especially, when all around are losing their heads and blaming it on the Jews (as Kipling to his credit didn't in Rewards and Fairies).

The book also came with a recommendation from Anthony Daniels printed prominently on its cover, and he, and his alter-ego Theodore Dalrymple, have long since won respect from this reader ...

Only I'm hardly into this damn book and I'm already irritated by the writer's pro-Islamic bias. He thinks it a shame when Salonica falls back, briefly, into Christian control; he provides a, surely intentional, mis-translation of the word ghazi; he gives an account of the brutal massacre when the city fell to Murad but immediately excuses it by saying that was normal practice when a city would not surrender (true, a fairly universal practice, and you can find European armies going on looting sprees in, say, the Penisular War (although not slave-taking afterwards) but would the excuses have come out if it had not been an Muslim army?); he states - falsely - the better to lick the Muslims' boots and the better to kick the Christians - that Jews had known "great security and prosperity" in Muslim Spain (tell that to Maimonides; tell that to those wiped out in Granada in 1066).

Hmmm ... so far I'd say the book's agenda is dripping off it, but I'll carry on reading for now.

Diana West, though entirely correct in identifying the incompatibility of Shariah and Democracy, adopts the inborn American view that we can retreat to our shores, isolate our society, and thereby insure our existance as a free country. This view is in fact defeatist, and such an action would only be seen by the mohammedans as a victory for them. The sad reality is that American liberty is already infected by the insidious effects of mohammedism, and won't be removed here until it is eliminated completely from human civilization. Like it or not, we have engaged the enemy. Do we retreat and adopt a defensive position, or do we push ahead, recognizing and correcting our misperceptions of the foe as we march toward victory? As a nation, we must overcome our ignorance and failure to accept the truth about mohammedism and not only defend against it, but defeat it wherever it is found.

As long as the we ALSO recognize that we must confront the enemy wherever he lives with overwhelming force, I can buy the proposition. But to simply hole up and battone the hatches will not make the problem go away. The problem is: ISLAM. We MUST outlaw it at home and attack it abroad with every means at our disposal. We have been saying for years that you can't make a good muslim a good "democrat" because HE HOLDS DIFFERENT VALUES and cannot, if he is true to his religion, submit to a form of government that gives equality to a non-muslim. When are we going to wake up and see what the enemy is?? Again, the enemy is ISLAM.

DP111- "The time for such a declaration was within a day or two after 9/11 at most. Instead, what we had was Islam was a noble religion, a religion of peace, and visits to mosques by GWB - in effect handing the right and justifiable causus belli and the high moral ground to an enemy that will never cease in its goal to take over the world."

We have all been on a learning curve, DP. Every day I go to the school of 'islam'. THEY teach me all I need to know. A woman filling her baby's bottle with explosives. You and I could write editorials and rant and rave till we are blue in the face and not accomplish one-hundredth of what that does to educate people.

As Kinky once sang, "They ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore"

And speaking of Friedmans, Thomas actually had an editorial yesterday that began to make sense. Of course, he has no idea HOW to make that oil cheap again -- he might do well to consider the ideas of Hugh and others -- to make absolutely certain that investment in alternative energy is not undermined once more AFTER oil is cheap again.

This is yet another brilliant and important piece by one of the clearest minds out there. Congratulation again to Ms. West. If the NYT ever got serious about defending freedom, they would hire her in a heartbeat.

"anti-Shariah defensive"

Words like those are not coming out of this President's mouth. It will be up to his successor. I only hope that the next one has guts.

I believe that there are two kinds of courage, physical and intellectual, some say moral. Some people have both; some have neither, and some have one or the other. The courage to face bullets and bayonettes does not always mean that one has courage to face criticism and condemnation. I will not say that George Bush lacks physical courage. Anyone who will climb into the cockpit of a hand-me-down, National Guard jet fighter, has enough physical courage. What I think Mr Bush lacks is the mental stamina to face disapproval from anyone, therefore, he tries to please everyone, especially the Saudis.

Kreuzueber Halbmond, suggest you wait for 'part 2'. I don't pretend to know what Ms West has in mind, but I also wouldn't dismiss the fundamental notion of isolating parasitic islam, politically, economically, and socially. Left to their own means, these societies will implode. Without the $trillions in wealth that we have transferred to these disfunctional societies, they would have imploded long ago, much less successfully projected their diseased culture into the West.

"I also wouldn't dismiss the fundamental notion of isolating parasitic islam, politically, economically, and socially. Left to their own means, these societies will implode."

It is quite likely that they will implode in the long run, but there are two problems with that situation
1) Islamic society has, for a long time, been dysfunctional, and they have been continuing like that. So dysfunctional societies are not new to Islam; rather, they are endemic.

2) Whenever they have had serious internal problems, they have resorted to war (both covert and overt) against infidel (or sometimes even Muslim) societies. It is easy for them to go claiming a grievance, and given our media, you can wager what you like that they will have media support for any of their campaigns. `Palestine', Pakistan, Chechnya, Bangladesh, Iran - you can see plenty of examples which are waging jihad just to remain one entity. So - isolating them may not be possible, since they will resort to attacking others, if you try to isolate them.

Excellent column, and nice debate.

My problem is: WHY don't we have A SINGLE LEADER IN THE WHOLE WEST, and in the whole Free World, able to speak like that ?

When I get very pessimistic I tend to think that the oil money has bought politicans and journalists.
When I am not so pessimistic I think that tens of years of subversive propaganda (marxist subculture, political correctness, multi culturalism etc. etc.) have dug a deep hole in the soul of the Free World, so deep that now there is no energy left to face the truth.

The war of islam against Freedom will grow and grow and the only thing we can do is to raise a generation of fighters who know the truth and are able to regroup and start the Reconquista.

It will take an awful amount of time, many of us will probably never know if Freedom will survive.

I am just glad and proud to be an American and to fight this great historical battle for Freedom together with the other Patriots.

To witness's "Counter Prediction", I would add that even if Americans burst into a "backlash" against Muslims after another major attack -- and I doubt that backlash would be composed of significantly more numerous people than the eensy weensy minority represented on virtually the only public place one ever sees ordinary people condemn Islam (i.e., the Internet) -- the police and National Guard would nip it in the bud in a NY second.

"the better to lick the Muslims' boots and the better to kick the Christians - that Jews had known "great security and prosperity" in Muslim Spain " Just another reason for all good Christians to always support Israel and the Jewish people.

The Saudis phoned up GW and berated him for using the term Islamofacist and he caved and changed his descriptive lingo to "folks" do ya really think he'd be so bold as to say anything along the lines of the subject column...
Saddly Bin Laden was right about 1 thing, Amerian do not have the stomach for casualties. On the whole prosperity has made the "average" American citizen complacent and unreceptive to "reality" and the dangers on the horizon. Most have grown up with the idea that freedoms are "free" because we have not had to "fight" for freedoms on our own soil. All that 'nasty, mean' stuff takes place thousand of miles away and the average Joe is insulated from sacrifice of any means in teh support of 'freedom' in general. Even the memory of 9/11 has faded and has become 'history' because it effected not 'my immeditae' family but 3000 'other familes' and we felt sad when we saw it on TV but now we have moved on and back to watching American Idol, CSI and Desperate Housewives. The average American will not support or feel the effect of any 'global war' or take it seriously until it hits them personally. Rationed gas, food and a ruined economy perhaps by a dire strike, such as dirty bomb or nuke on multiple American cities or a biological outbreak like smallpox. Then and only then will average Americans have the stomach for a real fight. The average Joe just does not feel "threatened" enough because he lives in such comfort and does not want these COMFORTS threatened, sad but true. Freedom sounds like such an emotionally,pleasing, wave the flag,Fourth of July, apple pie kind of warm fuzzie...until one must fight for it. My father fought for it WWII, I have his purple heart and his dog tags...may the average Joe American remember what our fathers fought for and how fragile these times are, and may we have the courage our fathers had.

Maidros, by isolating islam, I'm talking about putting up a big wall along those 'bloody borders'. Any projection of muslim agression outside those borders should be crushed, period.

To Television and witness, you underestimate the armed American citizen. Many of us regard the Second Amendment not as a political trifle, but as our founding fathers did, as a guarantor of all our other rights as free people. However, I do share the fear that our politicians could ignite a civil war instead of having us focus on our common enemies.

"Maidros, by isolating islam, I'm talking about putting up a big wall along those 'bloody borders'. Any projection of muslim agression outside those borders should be crushed, period."

That would work to an extent. But it is not enough, and I doubt it will hinder the jihadis to any great extent. I do not know how many illegal Muslim immigrants are there in US, but in Europe, Russia, India, China, and Thailand, there are millions, more likely, tens of millions of illegal Muslim immigrants *already*. Who is going to notice a few more? It is physically impossible to keep watch on every single Muslim at all times. Even if you put up fences, and walls, it is not likely to deter the determined jihadis. People will always get round static defences, and worse, the old principle of deterrence does not work against these maniacs. This is what scares governments most - the enemy is already within the borders. Al Qaeda is invulnerable to conventional attacks precisely because it does not have a geographical base. At worst, Muslim countries will be threatened by the west to cooperate, and Islamic rulers will hand over a few prisoners and corpses to satisfy the western demands for justice. Conventional defence techniques are not likely to deter this bunch. We will have to find other ways of fighting these guys.

Witness's Counter-prediction is worth a second reading. As far as I am concerned, Witness has the situation just about right.

When the spaghetti hits the fan, the FBI will be standing with their backs to the mosques, facing down good American patriots, otherwise known as "backlashing" Christians. And, of course, almost every one of those citizens will be unarmed, because it is not in their natures to go on the attack. Just like law-abiding store owners who don't go around your neighborhood armed and hunting for shoplifters.

This society moves slowly. There will be many "wake-up calls" and horrible reminders of our New World War. All will be ignored by the masses who want only to go to productive work, make their homes comfortable and attractive, nurture and educate their children, and experience the joy of a new car every few years.

These people, the backbone of America, Britain, and other civilized countries, are slow to recognize danger, and, even when they have done so, look mostly to their elected and appointed leaders to work through the problems. If they don't like the current crop, they "vote the rascals out" and elect some new rascals.

America has gone soft. So has England. Canada, too. Europe is mostly a lost cause, although the Eastern European countries recently liberated from the workers paradise of communism still remember tyranny and the personal constraints that were so debilitating that the air in those countries seemed thicker than everywhere else. Those people remember.

Nazi Germany was a long time in the making. Some jews fled. Many waited too long, even though the threat was evident. Many, many more walked to their deaths under their own power, HOPING that something would happen to spare them, something beyond their own control. Masons, evangelical christians, and the mentally retarded never saw it coming. They died too.

When Hitler came to power, it was legal for citizens to own firearms. Guns were freely available. But not for long. Hitler required registration. And then, only a few weeks before Krystalnacht, Germany started confiscation. This was a "law and order" issue. You know, public safety. Hitler was a big advocate of law and order. Everything was done legally. When the German insurance companies were faced with huge liabilities on the arson losses and the insured plateglass destroyed on Krystalnacht, the government declared the events a civil insurrection which was excluded in the insurance policies.

The Rule of Law failed in Nazi Germany, and the LAWYERS AND JUDGES HELPED IT FAIL. It can happen here. I hate to say that, because I am a lawyer. But I have to point out that there was nothing unusual about the LEGAL MECHANICS of that tyranny. It was gradual, incremental, and "legal." But it lacked a resolute moral compass that valued human life and individual freedom.

I see the same thing happening today, here. And it is not the political "right" that is pushing the agenda. The tyranny is coming, and will come, from the "left" just as it did in Germany, with the National Socialists. Everyone here is equal, but some people are more equal than others. The stage is being set, right now, for the enshrinement of sharia law. Free speech has been curtailed so much, through political correctness, that we even police ourselves. For example, there are half a dozen racial slurs that would get this post immediately deleted from jihadwatch.

Everybody's "feelings" are too important. No standard is secure from deviation based on claims of bad parenting, childhood poverty, discrimination, racial entitlements, sexual perversion, or some other social favoritism.

No, most Americans will not take this war seriously until their relatives are maimed in a bombing, and their own lives are impacted on a day to day basis. Right now only airline passengers are bothered. Illegal aliens aren't even inconvenienced unless they arrive by plane.

World War II is instructive on the home-front. Everyone was reminded daily that we were at war. There was strict rationing of sugar, whisky, chocolate, automobile tires, rubber goods, shoes and leather goods, nylon and silk hose, meat, and butter. There were campaigns to save and donate stainless steel, copper, aluminum, cooking fats (for explosives manufacturing), and rubber. Coinage was changed to eliminate scarce metals (pennies in 1943, nickels throughout the war). Everything was in short supply. Today, everything is in great abundance. Our biggest national problem (aside from the fact that a billion people want to kill us) is obesity. Too much food and not enough hard work.

No, there won't be a violent backlash. But there will be a few nuts who throw some gasoline on a mosque or three. The backlash will exist only in the millions of news articles that say so, over and over.

By that time, the muslims will have run out the white folks from this community or that community. Little towns. Elect themselves to city council. Appoint the police chief. Get homeland security training and government grants. Attend the FBI National Academy with the other police chiefs. Get more government grants. Buy some machine guns for the police department. Maybe even one of those big armored personnel carriers like the SWAT teams use in big cities. Christian drives through town (you can tell by the bumper sticker, or by the little fish emblem). Stop him. Hassle. Tail light out? Ticket. Muslim judge. Maximum fine.

Pass a sharia law. No booze. Bars close. No rock videos in the store. Store closes. No bacon at the corner cafe. No sausage. No ham. Cafe closes. Amend the zoning ordinance. Appoint muslims to zoning board. Remove height restriction so mosque can have big minaret. Amend noise ordinance. Let mosque broadcast calls to prayer. Make businesses close during prayers. Amend animal ordinance. Outlaw dogs. Dog-owners move out. Christians move out. Jews move out. Even liberals move out. Muslim city. Rename it. Majority rule. Start own newspaper. Buy more machine guns. Tear gas. Construct bomb shelter. Now, Wait.

And most of the people shot outside YOUR fallout shelter will be frightened neighbors that only wanted to beg some food and water.

We have a LONG LONG way to go.

Texan,

Thank you for your post. I agree with the way you tell German history and I agree with the prognosis of the islamic invasion.

The islamic attack is
terrorism PLUS
inmmigration PLUS
oil blackmail.

The stages of the invasion:

silent
noisy (claiming special rights ets.)
violent (from individual attacks to genocide)

The whole process goes on worldwide, PAID by us (oil) and ignored by the whole Leadership of the Western World.

The only difference from the past (nazi regime, or other phases of islamic imperialism) is that THERE IS a minority that KNOWS what is going on and it is SAYING it loud.

Will this make a difference ?
I think it will.
As I wrote above, we CAN build the kernel of a long term fight, we can educate and teach, we can raise a new generation of fighters who will raise another one and so on.
Of course there is no reason for optimism in this, but there is no reason for pessimism too.

Freedom is an historical process and not a static condition: it has already defeated the ancien regimes, fascism, communism. All that took TWO CENTURIES. The fight against islamic imperialism could take even more.

Whatever. This is just intellectual onanism--it makes you feel better, but it's not the real thing.

No US president would ever give such a speech.

By educating oneself and others, by spreading certain views, one creates the climate in which things once unsaid out of misguided motives can be said, and eventually there can be someone, even a president, who can say things, if not head on, then slightly obliquely at first, then closer and closer to the truth. It is important to offer up these speeches, not because the current president, unintelligent and obstinate and a sentimentalist about so many things (but not about money, where suddenly all sentimentality and fellow-feeling disappears), can every speak them, but because others may get the idea of how to express what needs to be expressed.

There have been four or five such mock speeches at Jihad Watch, all about how to gracefully withdraw, offering up plausible reasons rather than what should be the real and only reason (to weaken the camp of Islam by no longer attempting to prevent, but now by welcoming, and attempting to exploit, the sectarian and ethnic divisions that exist in Iraq, that will eventually, no matter how long Americans stay or what further gigantic sacrifices they are asked to make for people who are not grateful to them, who wish them ill because they are Infidels, and who, by and large, have behaved hideously and will continue to -- fit either for anarchy, or for despotism, but not for Western freedom which would require freeing them not so much from this or that particular despot, but from the despotism of the belief-system of Islam, and everything else -- the inshallah-fatalism, the discouraging of free and skeptical inquiry, the limited means of artistic expression, and all the other impoverishments that are the natural result of Islam, and of a society suffused with its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics).

A useful exercise. One hopes that somewhere, some aide to some politicial figure is beginning to get the idea, and that that political figure will simply begin to start uttering home truths, recognizable truths, and not the usual nonsense, about Islam. Philippe de Villiers is doing it in France, and possibly nudging Sarkozy along to do more, to be less disappointing. Why should it be impossible here? What are politicians afraid of? Or is it simply laziness, the same kind of laziness that for one-third of a century prevented the slightest move by our rulers to plan some kind of sensible energy policy, but instead to entrust it all to the kindness of strangers, the Saudis, whom we hardly knew, but know all too well when it is almost too late.

Hugh: the approach you're describing is way too slow. There is no time.

What is needed is to have the anti-jihad/America first poltical forces crystalize into a third party . Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will ever be truly and completely anti-jihad. What is also needed is a news cable channel that would carry the message of this new party -- kinda like GOP's Fox News, only intelligent and informed.

Democratic reform that takes away freedoms is not 'reform' at all. After four centuries of quiet, islmist sharia is on the move again. Here are some steps to be taken immediately:

1. Rewrite our anti-hate laws to include all islamic hate crimes against non-believers, which is all of us. Demand the same from Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. Stop granting new land for mosques, since these become breeding sites of hate, restriction on new mosques to stay in force until they show democratic and religious reform. Close down each mosque where teachers of hate spew their poison. Demand other religions be given freedom to build their churches and temples in muslim countries.

3. Stop legal and illegal immigration to our lands from Sharia states, like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Hezbollaland, Hamasaland, and all countries where the migrants are a danger to our freedoms and way of life. Demand Saudi Arabia allow other religions to live in peace with equal rights for men and women, and free to practice their given religions.

4. Severely restrict applicants from these lands for any kind of 'asylum', wish them 'salam aleikom' in their own lands. Exempt are those who swear allegiance to our way of life, our laws, and our freedoms.

5. Educate the media and academia of what islam is all about, so they stop confusing its religion as on parity to other religions. Encourage those who teach or write about islam to go and spend at least one month in shariah lands.

6. Demand equal rights for non-muslims in all muslim countries, with full protection under the law, to freely practice their religion. This applies especially to our 'allies' in the war against muslim jihad, such as Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, among others. Demand democratic reforms for freedom of religion in these countries, including building of new churches and temples.

7. Remove all muslims from our armed services and decommission their mosques on base, they are a security threat. Remove muslims from security sensitive positions of all kinds. Until we see real democratic reforms in muslim lands, this policy must stay in force.

8. Make all muslims swear allegiance to the countries where they reside. If they fail to do this, whether legal or illegal, assume they are security threat, keep extensive dossiers on their activities, monitor all their activities. Monitor all muslim demonstrators who support terrorist activities and parties, subject them to deportation as un-American activities. The same for CAIR.

9. Start deportations for all muslims who pose a risk to us. Those who are Americans, who swore allegiance to defending our country against their muslim terrorists are exempt, but their job in uniform can be administrative only, not with weapons.

10. Forbid female conversion to islam by our women who mary islamic men. To convert, they must leave our lands. They will be welcome in 'democratic' states like Iraq and Afghanistan, or Egypt.

11. Close down every religious school of islamic studies. Children should not be abused with teachings of hate at such an early age. Stop child slavery in all lands, including muslim lands.

12. Recall our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and redeploy them to Iran. Iran is behind this latest round of 'hate the infidels', so it will be the next big war. If they want the reappearance of their hidden 12th imam mahdi, we'll give them the reason for it. They must not be allowed to have nuclear capability under any circumstances, unless the theocracy of Iran is abolished and decommissioned.

Once these policies are in place, redefine our freedoms so all us people who are non-muslim have an in-depth understanding of what our social and political culture is all about, under rule of law and our democratic principles. We cannot have an enemy from within. Our laws apply to people who respect each other's right to live free of attacks, especially by this barbaric religion of hate. Close our borders to these infiltrating invaders. Treat them as you would any social predator, the way we treat our sexual child molestors. Understand that the muslims who had not sworn allegiance to our way of life are hostile to it, and must be deemed a security threat. If they are a security threat, then treat them as potential spies, not guaranteed due process of law, and should be summarily expelled.

It will be war. But it already is war. Until true democratic reform, including religious reform takes place in muslim states, we must do what war demands. We've been attacked enough, time to turn the tables.

...they can make plans, in the Pentagon but not only the Pentagon -- the Pentagon still stuck in the idea that the only way to make war is through combat, when the best and most effective weapons will hardly ever require those famous boots on the ground we hear so much about,...

In the mid 80s, we were given a presentation from a flag officer. Reagan was president and the Iran-Iraq war was on. A fellow trainee asked which side should be supported. The answer was, and this paraphrase is real close because it stuck in my head, 'we'll support the weaker side because its better for them to be fighting each other than fighting us.'

The idea is not foreign to the Pentagon, just suppressed.

Pelayo; That Ask-Imam.com site is a find. I forwarded a couple of his answers to my wife (on cosmetics), watch out.

I understand that Ms West has more to say, so I hate to jump the gun, but I think that this policy needs to be part of a larger war on radical Islam.

I am no expert, but it seems that every time we withdraw from an area of the world, it is perceived as weakness and the evil Islamists move in. Look what has happened in Somalia, Lebanon and even Thailand since the Tsunami.

It is tempting to give up on our friends in Europe and England, it is easy to forget how many allies we have in Indonesia-even in France and Germany when all the media show you is the anti-American feeling and the hatred.

I have family in England and as a Military dependent we have travelled all over the world. It is not true that America is universally hated, the media just want you to think that you are. My husband is from India and agrees that the worst thing that America can do is give up on Democracy and go home.

Democracy should be instituted in its entirety, not in small bits and pieces. One cannot give up on it after a few months just because the Mullahs have misappropriated it. Too many of our soldiers have died for this, we should not just throw up our hands and just go home-too much is at stake.

America took a long time to be born, perhaps this is why we must stay a long time in Iraq. Despots like Sadr need to be taught some hard lessons, Democracy only works if you have the Rule of Law. We can make this work, but only if we keep the weak-knee'd politicians and the idiots out of it.
I believe we owe our soldiers this much.

"Democracy should be instituted in its entirety, not in small bits and pieces. One cannot give up on it after a few months just because the Mullahs have misappropriated it. Too many of our soldiers have died for this, we should not just throw up our hands and just go home-too much is at stake.

America took a long time to be born, perhaps this is why we must stay a long time in Iraq. Despots like Sadr need to be taught some hard lessons, Democracy only works if you have the Rule of Law. We can make this work, but only if we keep the weak-knee'd politicians and the idiots out of it.

I believe we owe our soldiers this much."
-- from a posting above

"One cannot give up on it [democracy in Iraq] after a few months just becuse the Mullahs have misapropriated it."

What does this mean? American soldiers, and American civilians, have been in Iraq for longer than the United States fought Nazi Germany. Is that not long enough for all of us? The United States, a country that needs to conserve and not squander resources, has already spent, or committed to such things as the lifetime care of wounded soldiers, and the replacement of desert-degraded and war-degrated military equipment (including equipment of the regular army, the Reserves, and the National Guard), about $400 billion. Are you suggesting another 3 years? Ten years? Another 400 billion to be spent, when it would be far more effectively spent on energy programs to deprive the Arabs and Muslims of their main weapon, oil revenues and what they can buy, from arms to an army of Western hirelings?

And what do you mean "mullahs misappropriated it [democracy]"? Are you referring to the fact that the Shi'a Arabs, who constitute 60-65% of the population in Iraq, took power through democratic means? Shouldn't they have? Isn't that the main point of "democracy" -- the ballot box? And having done so, and being Muslims with no hint of any sense of compromise, and being naturally violent, and with a score to settle with the Sunnis, they have no intention of relinquishing power or making any of the compromises the naive Americans expected them to make, or may still expect them to make. That naivete is similarly reflected in Bush's apparent incomrprehension as to why the current leaders in Iraq will not thank the United States publicly as they apparently have done "privately" -- i.e. to him and to other Americans from whom they want things, want the Americans to stay to fight their enemies and thus weaken the Sunnis, want the Americans to train them and build up their forces (ridiculously called the "Iraqi" army and "Iraqi" police) so that once the Americans leave they can use those forces to really smash the Sunnis, and of course want as much money and goodies as they can possibly inveigle out of those endlessly naive and endlessly generous Americans who lack all guile, and the officers who finally see how phony and unpleasant and meretricious the local tribal leaders or other bigwigs are, and their people too, are then replaced by others, green and fresh who have to learn what the officers and men they replaced already had learned.

"America took a long time to be born." It did, indeed it did. It took centuries. It took the Magna Carta, it took the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution and the slow development of parliamentary democracy over many centuries. It took the Boke called Glanvill, it took Bracton, it took Edward Coke and the entire development of English law (insert all of Maitland's "The History of English Law" and don't leave out the assize of novel disseisin because property law too is part of that history, part of that attention to individual freedom), and then it took Hobbes, and the European Enlightenment, starting with Spinoza its true father, and then the Encyclopedistes, and it took Locke, and Bentham and Mill (insert here Halevy's "The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism" in the nice Beacon Press edition), and then it took the Corn Laws, and the expansion of the suffrage, and the end of the Test Oath, and Walter Bagehot, and Edward Barker, and all those nice Balliol men who ruled and ruled, and then, and that was only in England the onlie begetter of American freedom, its legal and political institutions, and then companion for quite a while across the seas, until America got on its feet.

And meanwhile, on this side, there was the Mayflower Compact. There was Roger Williams of Rhode Island and religious freedom, made so obviously necessary by the different founders of different colonies, from Penn in Quaker Pennsylvania, to Lord Baltimore in Catholic Maryland, and then there was John Peter Zenger, and now let's fast forward to the Stamp Act and the all the other acts (insert Bernard Bailyn and Edmund Morgan here) for revenues that Lord North stupidly insisted upon, and then the Revolution, and the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, and The Federalist (Jay, Hamilton, Madison), and John Marshall with Marbury v. Madison claiming for the Supreme Court the right of final decision as to the constitutionality of any law or act, and then forward faster, please, to the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address and then the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and on through Holmes and Brandeis, with all those free speech cases, and now let's go faster all the way to today, and how much time do you think we should take, in Iraq, and how much money, and how many lives of Americans, and how much of our attention, should further be squandered on people who, as Muslims, are taught to hate us and many do, while others silently acquiesce and certainly never demonstrate gratitude or friendship, and who have further been taught that the ideal society is governed by the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, and that it is an offense against Allah to dare to think that any government owes its legitimacy to the governed, for what mere mortals want doesn't matter, they are slaves of Allah, and the only thing that matters is that the ruler be a Muslim.

Given all that, how in god's name do you think democracy, as we understand that term, can conceivably be transplanted in Iraq if we are unable, or unwilling, to pull up by its roots the upas tree of Islam -- not that we could, not that it is not permanently implanted in the minds and hearts of Muslims.

For god's sake, we can't spend another year there, much less another 20 or 50 years. All over the world we face terrible problems fromthe Jihad, and all of its instruments. This Iraq business is madness, craziness, obstinacy for which all those who persist, at this point, in supporting, will not be treated kindly by posterity, and should not be.

We won the damn war. We did what could be done. The removal of Saddam Hussein has set in motion an inevitable clash, or clashes, both ethnic and sectarian, and now it is the business of Infidel governments, of our government, if it can find enough people who rightly understand things, to9 exploit the fullest those sectarian and ethnic clashes, so that they will have repercussions in Bahrain and Kuwait, in Yemen and Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and in the Berber lands of North Africa, and among other non-Arab Muslims inspired by the revolt of the Kurds against their Arab masters. And in this way, while the Infidel world educates itself, and gets a grip on such things as immigration, and develops far more sensible and less sappy-sentimental views, the world of Islam will be riven, one hopes, with instability and conflict, dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam, and forcing the squandering of its resources, including men, including materiel, but above all, using up their unmerited OPEC money.

Hugh is correct. We can't win. Let's spend the money on programmes to free ourselves from the tyranny of moslem supplied oil.

See:

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_041115_britsinmesopotamia.htm

which I found to be very revealing.

Dominic.

PS.

Please remember that there are UK troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, also. This is not an exclusively USA war. A little acknowledgement of our dead and our support for our ally wouldn't go amiss now and again. We, too, have the bodybags (coffins, actually, but that is nitpicking) returning to our homeland draped in our Union Flag almost daily.

D.

Hugh, there are many reasons not to leave Iraq:
1. It would disrupt oil supply.
2. Iraq will become an extension of Iran, and weigh in against America.
3. America will be completely humiliated, and it will have to face many obstacles should it want to pre-emptively strike another country, say Iran. You seem to know your history. It doesn’t make sense to destroy a country, and be done with it. What would you have accomplished? It would be deemed a massacre.
4. Iraq is a strategic militarily position in the ME.
5. Iraq can serve as an ally to fight other ME countries.

To be frank, giving up Iraq would be the stupidest thing to do, and I’m shocked when people and politicians recommend it; the politicians especially, it shows how dangerously short-sighted they are. It will not go like you say will happen; at least, not until there are 2 billion Muslims in the ME.

Another note: Being in Iraq does not mean we cannot and should not get strict on Islam. On the contrary…. Like West said, Iraq made its stand on Islam/fascism, now it’s time to show us ours.

In a previous post when I spoke about the Mullahs misapropriating Democracy, I was referring to the fact that somehow they have managed to pervert the original concept. I suppose in my mind I was thinking about Ms West's essay in which she referred to Afghanistan's constitution which now incorporates Sharia Law and also the lunatic Sadr in Iraq whose idea of Democracy seems to be his own personal army and a string of revenge killings.

I am very sorry that I didn't make this clear.
I certainly didn't mean that the majority of the Shia who won their power through the ballot box, should have that power taken away from them.

I happen to believe that the Koran is nothing but a handbook for killing Jews and Infidels, is this a little less sappy and sentimental!

You guys are incredible, I own everything that you have ever published and look forward to the new book. I cede you the moral and intellectual high ground. Thank God for blogs like yours.

I forgot that Americans can vote for their own police chiefs.

I remember that when the Orange people were popular (whatever happened to them?) they had their very own police.

I've often wondered what countries were more vulnerable to islamification, but I think that America, with it's popular voting for the police, as well as voting for school boards by the people is much more vulnerable.

What will happen when muslims comprise whole sections of cities?

Will you have all muslim police and the Koran being taught in schools?

Forget Iraq, worry about your own societies.

"... there are many reasons not to leave Iraq:
1. It would disrupt oil supply.
2. Iraq will become an extension of Iran, and weigh in against America.
3. America will be completely humiliated, and it will have to face many obstacles should it want to pre-emptively strike another country, say Iran. You seem to know your history. It doesn’t make sense to destroy a country, and be done with it. What would you have accomplished? It would be deemed a massacre.
4. Iraq is a strategic militarily position in the ME.
5. Iraq can serve as an ally to fight other ME countries."

1. Pressure them by NOT buying oil from OPEC. Our economy will not implode, if we understand what we are doing. Their threat can be used both ways, just like in an Arabian bazar, haggle with them. They need us as much as we need them, and don't forget we have technological knowhow where in the future we'll not need them. There is enough oil in Colorado and Utah to last us a century, estimated reserves, not counting western Canada, in the trillions of barrels of oil, surpassing reserves in ME. Oil tar sands are profitable at $40/bbl, oil shale rock at $60/bbl. Oil today is over $70/bbl.

2. Let Iran show it's hand in Iraq, then we join forces with the free world to fight Iran there, whether in Baghdad or Tehran. Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan. Control the middle, and you control both sides. It will work better for us.

3. Cut your losses and explain why. There is no humiliation in having tried to bring civilization to a barbaric Islamic world. What we accomplished was break the cozy Saddam to al Qaeda relationship. Saddam was a financial supporter of Jihad terrorism, when it suited his purposes. We make no apologies for deposing him.

4. So is Iran, and the Persians are more sophisticated as a civilization and better at becoming a democracy than their desert caravan raiding Arab masters. I'd place my bets on Iran any day, rather than keep losing money and lives in Iraq. We gave them 3 1/2 years, that's enough. If they can't handle it here, they will not be able in 50 years. We, Britain, the US, and the Alliance of nations, gave them a chance. If they squandered it, their loss. We spent enough on them.

5. Iraq will never be an ally of ours, but only have their hands out for more largess from our world. Their world is spiritually and materially bankrupt, like the Soviets were before the fall. The Arab world, including Saudi Arabia, needs us more than we need them. Let them stew and simmer in their Shari'a for next few decades, falling further behind the rest of humanity. Make them a repository for all expelled Muslims from Europe and other countries. This could work.

BTW, Hugh, an excellent post as always, great insight, once again.

Battle of; here's my shot:

Of course; I made campaign contributions and have the signed picture of George and Laura in Crawford. But this issue is deeper than supporting the troops. I’ll try to respond to your points:

1. The oil supply is already disrupted. A breakdown between Sunni and Shia would kill OPEC. Should exports stop (which they won’t), gas prices could spike. But Iran would suffer more from the lack of cash than we would suffer from $6 per gallon gas. If OPEC falls, gas prices would as well. $6/gallon gas would get the productive members of our society moving on alternatives to decaying plant matter.
2. The current democratic Iraq IS an extension of Iran. Chaos would free the millions of Sunni to do their will.
3. Name one potential ally who isn’t already blaming us for being ‘bad’. It was a big massacre before, it’s a small massacre today, and it will be a bigger massacre in the future. Our image in the world will not be materially changed.
4. Iraq is strategically located. We need to maintain an air-base to support ABM systems and special forces in Kurdistan, a relatively friendly part of the world. We need to maintain airspace jurisdiction throughout Iraq for this purpose.
5. The Muslims of Iraq will never side with you.

These folks hate each other more than they hate you. Let them turn their energies inward.

Voltaire; We've also got something called the Second Amendment. Please don't underestimate.

Voltaire; We've also got a little thing on this side of the pond called the Second Amendment. We'll be fine; thanks for the concern.

oops...

A Declaration of War against Islam would allow identification of alien Muslims as enemies of the state, permitting their internment and deportation. It would also permit rounding up and internment of suspected subversive or even all Muslim citizens into detention camps for the duration, as was done in WWII. At the same time the mosques and other facilities could be confiscated, closed or destroyed.

Internationally to avoid unlimited attack by our forces, Muslim countries could either chose to resist us or surrender unconditionally, or become allies with us against those that chose to resist.

A declaration of war is the only way to insure our survival, particularly against the internal Muslim threat, against which our Constitution is otherwise a national suicide pact.

"What we accomplished was break the cozy Saddam to al Qaeda relationship."
-- from a posting above

Two points:

1. There is no evidence for this "cozy relationship."

2. If the enemy is rightly identified, then there is no need for the government to have such evidence as justification for attacking Iraq. That is something the Bush Administration never understood, so it exaggerated what evidence existed, and in part was mislead, as was everyone, by the deliberate policy of Saddam Hussein, with Iran and not the United States as the intended audience, of pretending he either had or was close to producing, weapons of mass destruction.

Had the Administration used the time between 9/11/2001 and early 2003 to educate people, even obliquely, about the origins, scope, and full menace of Jihad, had it allowed the understanding to penetrate into the public mind that the acquisition of that kind of weaponry by any Muslim people or polity was a threat to Infidels, and had to be prevented wherever possible, then it would not have had to make such a case, an unconvincing case, for this Al-Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection which it was never necessary to demonstrate in the first place, but the Administration, not knowing where to put its feet or hands, failed to realize this. It could have explained that Al Qaeda was one among many terrorist groups identical in their view of Infidels, identical in their ultimate if not their local goals, and that Saddam Hussein's regime had a long history of supporting "Palestinian" terrorists, of giving money to the families of suicide bombers (a way to gain credit among Believers in Iraq), and no further connection was needed. In fact, the Administration could have made the case, had it had the wit, that the acquisition of such weaponry by any Muslim state, whether run by Saddam Hussein or, for that matter, by one run by Sadat or the Shah of Iran, would be a long-term threat to Infidels, given the nature of Muslim peoples and the uncertain future of all semi-decent and semi-rational regimes in the Muslim world.

The triumph of Enlightened Western Civilization is inevitable and islam and all its sons of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Believe it; proclaim it. Never doubt it.

Should be an OFFENSIVE against sharia all over the world. One must eradicate a cancer, not merely contain it.

Should be an OFFENSIVE WAR against sharia all over the world. One must eradicate a cancer, not merely contain it.

The West has had a long history of turning its collective back on those besieged by Islam. Europe rather than aiding Byzantium, weakened it and then abandoned it to its fate. France rather than lining up against the Turks as they lay siege to Vienna, negotiated a treaty with the Turks to remain neutral; things haven’t changed much with France have they? The US stands virtually alone resisting Jihad but as Ms. West observes, a refined focus is urgently needed. The first step towards victory is identifying the true nature and identity of the enemy and the most dangerous enemy by far is the enemy within. Ms. West would make a fine US president but perhaps her best role would be that of Secretary General of a United Democratic Nations organization.

Hugh Fitzgerald is the most erudite and brilliant man I know of outside the realm of the hard sciences (think Einstein). His analyses of and explanations for many events and situations which were previously misunderstood (the Carter-brokered "peace agreement" between Israel and Egypt, for example) or viewed by me as simply unfathomable (such as why Turkey, and Iran under the Shah, unlike the rest of dar al-Islam, were not hostile to Israel) have been revelatory. His prediction concerning the futility of our efforts at nation building in Iraq has been spot- on. Yet, I am less confident about Hugh's argument that we simply leave Iraq to self-destruct. My concern is that the Shia, who substantially outnumber the Sunni, will, by virtue of their greater numbers and certain acceptance of military help from Iran, render Iraq an oil-rich Iranian client state. (Yes, I know that our insistence on free elections there is causing this as well.) If we leave Iraq, as I fully believe we should - Afghanistan, too, incidentally - we should somehow make certain that the Saudis provide material support for the Sunnis and are committed to a proxy war with Iran, in perpetuity. Othewise, I think matters will become even worse, and more dangerous for us. Comments, anyone?

"1. There is no evidence for this "cozy relationship." " Hugh's, above re al-Qaeda link to Saddam.

Technically correct. This is still an issue of debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

After Desert Storm war, Saddam issued a threat to America, saying something to the effect he will have an "army" living amongst us waiting for his instructions to strike. Idle threat, perhaps, but this threat makes the 'terrorist link' more credible. But not to quibble over minutia, the Saddam al-Qaeda link is tenuous, probable but unproven. In my opinion, he was a murderous deceitful lout, not a nice man. After seeing how Iraqis (who we liberated) came out in force to support Hizbuallah, I'm coming to conclusion they deserved him in the first place. That was my epiphany. I think we cannot conquer Jihad with military force, unless we strike at the head. Iran is now rearing it's ugly head... Islamic Jihad, Shari'a, the quranic 'cherries of wisdom' by their pedophile moon god worshipping prophet, are the evil fruits coming to harvest - after nearly four centuries of dormancy. Our pro-freedom 'cherry pickers' better be out in the field when these fruits fall, before they hit the ground. Or else better kill the tree now.

Commonsense

Certainly things will get worse and isn't that the way it always works with the USA. We make the wrong moves always, refuse to take the words and actions of our enemies seriously and generally wait until it is almost too late. Someday the waiting until it is almost too late will become the too late we should dread. I hope this is not the time as we obviously..at least to us, have never had a more vicious and relentless enemy.