Of course not. We're way beyond "victory" now. Everyone knows that enemies are defeated by building schools, roads, and hospitals.
In any case, now we know that Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan is not intended to subdue (much less "kill every member of," as an Obama aide describes defeating them) the Taliban. What it is for is not so clear.
"Obama pressed for faster surge," by Anne E. Kornblut, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung for the Washington Post, December 6 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):
His chance came at an Oct. 8 meeting of Obama's principal advisers, presided over by Jones -- the "dress rehearsal" for a full-scale National Security Council gathering the president would hold the next day. Speaking by video link from Kabul, McChrystal began with the policy underlying his approach, established by the White House review, hastily compiled in February, that led to Obama's March 27 strategy announcement and the deployment of nearly 22,000 new troops through the spring and summer.In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a slide: "Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population."
"Is that really what you think your mission is?" one of those in the Situation Room asked.
On the face of it, it was impossible -- the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. "We don't need to do that," Gates said, according to a participant. "That's an open-ended, forever commitment."
But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan -- the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.
"I wouldn't say there was quite a 'whoa' moment," a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. "It was just sort of a recognition that, 'Duh, that's what, in effect, the commander understands he's been told to do.' Everybody said, 'He's right.' "
"It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent" of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. "I'm not sure that in his position I wouldn't have done the same thing, as a military commander." But what McChrystal created in his assessment "was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended."
Whatever the administration might have said in March, officials explained to McChrystal, it now wanted something less absolute: to reverse the Taliban's momentum, deter it and try to persuade a significant number of its members to switch sides. "We certainly want them not to be able to overthrow the government," Jones said.
On Oct. 9, after awaking to the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama listened to McChrystal's presentation. The "mission" slide included the same words: "Defeat the Taliban." But a red box had been added beside it saying that the mission was being redefined, Jones said. Another participant recalled that the word "degrade" had been proposed to replace "defeat."
Already briefed on the previous day's discussion, the president "looked at it and said: 'To be fair, this is what we told the commander to do. Now, the question is, have we directed him to do more than what is realistic? Should there be a sharpening . . . a refinement?' " one participant recalled.
Said a senior White House adviser who took extensive notes of the meeting: "The big moment when the mission became a narrower one was when we realized we're not going to kill every last member of the Taliban."
"Defeat" = "kill every last member"?
Daddy doesn't know where he wants to go out for dinner. So he asks his extended family where they would like to go. Hours later they finally agree but when thy arrive the place is closed. Apparently, the restaurant owners had HOURS of their own.
"Defeat" = "kill every last member"?
Well so they [the Taliban] would have us believe.
As was the case with the similarly fanatical Japanese in WW2.
The question is does the rhetoric match the reality? Can the Pak/Afghan madrassas keep up the supply of willing suicide fighters indefinitely?
I understand that despite the 30 years of war, the Afghan and Pakistani populations are growing fast and getting younger, so perhaps the answer is yes. At least as long as we facilitate their actions by supplying all kinds of aid to them.
Words such as "defeat" and "victory" are inappropriate here.
There is a world-wide push, by adherents of Islam, to suppress further the non-Muslims who remain in lands conquered by Islam (the outflow of Hindus from Pakistan, Bangladesh; the war on Christians in the Moluccas and pressure on Hindus in Bali; the war on indigenous Christians, who were there before the Arabs and Islam arrived, in Egypt, with the Copts, in Iraq with the Assyrians and Chaldeans, in Lebanon with the Maronites). There is a world-wide push to prevent non-Muslims from defending themselves, from retaining, or putting up, any obstacles at all to the steady spread, and effort to make dominant, Islam.
This "war" is not, in the main, conducted through open qitaal (combat) or through terrorism, though terrorism is certainly a venerable weapon of Islam ("strike terror in the hearts of the Unbelievers" etc.), and one that is being used. But far more common is the promotion of Jihad (the struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam) through other means-- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa and, in Western Europe, above all, demographic conquest, as predicted by Arab leaders (Boumediene at the U.N. in 1974, Qaddafy in more recent times), which could lead to the takeover of Europe, of the countries of NATO, of the historic heart of the West, simply through a rise in numbers, and in influence, accompanied by constant efforts to make the West forget what it is, to forget what it is in danger of living (its science, its art, its political freedoms, its solicitousness for individual autonomy, its equality of the sexes, its everything), to forget that it has a perfect right to defend itself. In large part, the class of collaborators -- the word fits, for already
Europe is being occupied, and already there are the early Resistants, and the plausible, easygoing, smooth collaborators with their siren-song, is working to avoid any real resistance, anything to rock the boat or rather pot of slowly-boiliing water, until it is too late. Why they do this, what worldview or greed or stupidity explains the individual case, or the collective case, can be argued over but it should not be the focus of attention. How many of these people are simply members of a political or media elite who did nothing to stop, failed to recognize, over the past several decades when this unprecedented event occurred -- the large-scale penetration of the West, settling within the West, of the bearers of an ideology as subversive of the advanced West as were Soviet Communism and the Nazism of Germany under Hitler.
We see it in the reaction of the elites, but not of sensible people, to the vote on minarets in Switzgerland. Such a vote is symbolic, of course, because there are only a handful of minarets in Switzgerland at present. But as Ayaan Hirsi Ali noted in her article on the vote, symbols are important. A "small group" wanting to fly the fylfot (Hirsi Aligoes out of her way to describe the "swastika" indirectly, geomgatrically), now a symbol of mass-murder, or the hammer-and-sickle, the symbol of mass state oppression, would not be defended by the kind of people now deploring the Swiss vote. The minaret -- see Erdogan -- came into Islam as a deliberate symbol of power, o'ertopping the Christian bell towers, to inspire awe and fear among the population. It has the same function today, and is otherwise not necessary, in an age where wristwatches and cellphones give the time of day, and can be programmed to give the time of prayer. In any case, the spectacle of everyone from Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, to the government of Iran, being "outraged" by the minaret ban is absurd, is beyond any conceivable hypocrisy. Do they think we don't know what the Shari'a says should govern the repair or building of churches or Jewish temples? As for others, as Hindus, non-monotheists, why don't even ask. And are we not all capable of observing what happens to churches that exist (ask the Copts, or the Chaldo-Assyrians) in the Muslim-ruled lands. or what happens if the millions of wage-slaves in Saudi Arabia dare even, behind closed doors, to sing Christmas carols -- much less what would happen if they tried even to suggest that a church should be built for the millions of Christan workers who keep those rich primitives afloat?
Hugh sez:
"...which could lead to the takeover of Europe, of the countries of NATO, of the historic heart of the West, simply through a rise in numbers, and in influence, accompanied by constant efforts to make the West forget what it is, to forget what it is in danger of living ...."
and this is actually more terrifying than the jihadists that carry AK47s and RPGs....and is the greater threat to peace and freedom as you grew up with...asinine immigration laws and the narrowminded allowance of polygamy will help the jihadists achieve their goal of world dominance....all this Islamic violence around the world is merely a diversion...
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Ann Coulter
September 14, 2001
Pithy, and more right than anyone wants to admit.
Instead we used our military and billions of dollars to establish an Islam subservient constitution and overall the mission is a failure nearly a decade later. The only reason that just picking up and leaving is the right answer is that we could continue doing what we have been doing for another 100 years and nothing would change. At some point, whether it is 18 months as Obama said or 18 years or 1800 years, we will just pick up and leave. Doing what Ann Coulter said however would result in real change, change we could believe in to quote a phrase.
The US Military is excellent...But it has been severely hampered by controlling politicians who are steeped in PC and other types of ineptitude. Does anyone actually think that Rasulullahhaha Obama knows what he is doing? How much military experience did you say he had?
If I were a Taliban, I would laugh at the US antics...Then go kill as many of them as possible. Thirty thousand new targets is a blessing from Allah...
The problem with the conversion bit is, you'd wind up with a bunch of piss-poor "Christians", the sort that use their religion as a club with which to beat others over the head with - using it exactly the same way as they do Islam.
"I am a Christian, you have to believe everything I say" - while lying through their teeth.
"God made woman out of Adam's rib, therefore you are inferior, woman, and must obey me".
"Look at Sodom and Gomorrah. Run the fags out before that happens to us."
And so on and so forth. I've run into way too many of these types to be under the illusion that conversion will automatically make a bad person better.
I lived with one of these for 10 years. The more he was excused, the more he got away with, the worse he got. Sundays were especially terrifying for me. No, he wouldn't actually go to church (unless he wanted something), but would accuse me of "always" trying to "ruin" Sundays, and no matter how lightly I treat upon eggshells, he always managed to find something to go ballistic and physically violent over.
He hated Jews, too. Yes, I know, he would have made a better Muslim than a "Christian". That's exactly my point.
Remember, it's not just the "leaders" who are running around doing honour killings, beating up gays, spewing REAL hate speech, etc - it's the "average" Muslim.
A vile person will find any excuse he can to continue being vile.
And as far as optics goes, good Christians don't need more of that sort running around.
The definition of Taliban is "student".
They are students of Islam. A Pashtun is a Pashtun and many are sympathetic to the Taliban so the Afghans and Pakistanis cannot be trained to kill their own people.
There are Taliban madrassas throughout Pakistan.
How does Obama hope to achieve total victory over the Taliban unless he also plans to invade Pakistan and destroy the madrassas and kill all the students? It will never be achieved.
General McCrystal needs a way out of Afghanistan because it is simply an unwinnable war.
The war with Islam is within our own borders. When are the mainstreamers and politicians going to wake up to this fact?
Afghanistan and Pakistan and any Islamic country in the OIC will always be a place to plan attacks within our borders.
The mistake of invading Afghanistan and failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden has been made. But that matters not. There will always be a replacement for bin Laden. Islam is Islam and it will always pose a threat to the west.
It must be eliminated once and for all just as Nazism and Communism were subdued. Sure there are still the Nazi and Communist ideologies alive and well in the world but they do not hold sway as they used to.
Islam is the new political power to be reckoned with.
Obama, as quoted: "To be fair, this is what we told the commander to do. Now, the question is, have we directed him to do more than what is realistic? Should there be a sharpening . . . a refinement?"
So, to this Orwellian president, sharpening and refining means "fuzzing things up."
Mr. Obama: These are soldiers you are talking to, not your minions. The soldier's job is to close on the enemy forces, kill them in large numbers, and break their will to fight on. Your non-delegable job is to define the enemy. You, sir, are derelict in your duty to those who serve.
If the enemy is not the Taliban, then who is it? If there is no enemy in Afghanistan, the soldiers don't belong there. They are not policemen. They are not social workers.
Really don't want to waste a lot of time arguing with you on this point, but just to respond once anyway. Your judgment of Christianity based on that one person is no different than the fools who judge Islam to be good based upon the one Muslim they know who is such a nice person. For all anyone knows your roommate may have been psychologically ill or perhaps only pretending to be a Christian or even someone who like millions of others thought they were being a good Christian but really were clueless. The idea that "becoming a Christian" would work like a metal stamping machine in a coin mint and produce perfect Christians just as reliably except for the very rare exception is really and truly idiotic and completely unworthy thinking for anyone. As to the existing problem of Afghanistan and similar so-called Islamic states, THE PROBLEM IS ISLAM. Once that FACT is established then we can move on to possible solutions. Setting up a constitution that is subservient to Islam is bitterly insanely idiotic - but that is exactly what the United States of America DID. Converting them to Atheism, most likely your choice, would not work, as they are "believers" in the notion that there is a God, ONE God, and they even make claims to being in agreement as to the fact that that God is the same as that of the Jews and Christians, of the Bible. So to the extent that you are going to get them to change to anything clearly Christianity would be the one. It is the religion that Muhammad rejected. Christianity, not Judaism, is the option for gentiles. But the key here is not that you are going to stamp out perfect Christians, it is that they are each going to have the INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to choose or reject. Some would choose atheism, some might choose Christianity but be poor Christians as you suggest your roommate was. But allowing Islam to remain in power and ELIMINATE the ability of anyone to CHOOSE their faith IS THE PROBLEM. It not only affects their faith, their soul and what happens to them in the next life, it affects the current life by crushing the spirit of the individual and thereby eliminating the ability of them to rise up against totalitarian politicians or other fraudsters in their midst. That is why the corruption is so rampant that it cannot be fixed even by the military and billions of dollars.
I wasn't criticizing Christianity at all, mate. I was merely criticizing those who abuse it for their own ends - the people who give the religion, and people like yourself, an undeserved bad name.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want these scumbags calling themselves atheists, either. I don't think ANY group would really want to claim them.
Islam is ready-made for the people like I describe - that's why you get your converts from all races and nationalities. Once they realize what Islam has to offer them, they find it's the best "fit" for them. Islam does not just MAKE rotten people, it ATTRACTS them.
Take away the Islam, and even giving them a choice of what else to be a part of, they will still be the same crappy people (sure, you'll get your ones that were born into Islam, and now welcome a choice to follow something more enlightened - and just about anything is more enlightened than Islam - but what about the rest who LIKED the idea of being able to lord it over others, to have multiple wives, to hate?) Sure, they might have to find something else - but in their minds and their actions, that something else will come to look a lot like Islam.
What no one else needs, or presumably wants, is a bunch of bad apples falling into their carts. Yes, you're going to get some anyway, in any cartful of apples, but why seek to add them, or allow them to be dumped into your cart? Customers will simply stop coming by your cart.
Ideologies are memes. Memes are a sort of "metal virus" (and can be good or bad). The vector for memes is humans, and only humans. A bad meme (or memeplex, rather) like Islam, is like a kind of disease. If the vectors can neither be inoculated or cured, than the affected population - the individual carriers of the disease - must be culled for the good of the rest of the population.
That's what we're supposed to be in Afghanistan for - to inoculate, to cure, AND to cull when the first two options fail. Unfortuately, Western governments just don't have the stomach or the genital fortitude to enact this basic principle of wildlife management on diseased populations of bipedal apes.
(If that sounds harsh, well, the provincial government a couple of years ago, in the area where I used to live, committed genocide against all the deer in a large area, out of fear of chronic wasting disease. Frankly, I think Islam is much more of a real danger than deer with CWD are to anyone, and if one supports the idea of wiping out deer because they MIGHT be infected with a disease, then where's the problem in the idea of culling those KNOWN to carry a disease more deadly than CWD, AIDS, cancer, etc, combined?)
This might get deleted. Yes, it is drastic sounding. No, I don't consider it "genocide", as no particular RACE is being targeted, and those willing to be honestly free of the disease would be spared. And I stand by this opinion as to what must ultimately be done, before this Islam-disease rots out the heart of all non-diseased populations.
The war against spreading Islamization will never be won unless we do take drastic action.
It would also have the side benefits of easing up on that massive immigration problem, and might ease strain on limited resources globally as well.
I don't think all those so-called Muslims are the lost cause you do. They had no choice in the matter. And the ones you describe who are taking advantage of it for their own ends are only able to do that because the others have no choice. If all Muslims were given the choice of being Muslim or not (which of course is impossible since then Islam would not be Islam anymore) many if not most of them would eventually leave. Simple statistics would indicate that. 99% of a population won't choose anything let alone Islam. Break the hold that Islam has on the population and get some percentage to reject it and choose something else, that is what must happen. Rather than kill off individuals, the West needs to directly attack and mock the ideology of Islam. Perhaps direct attacks on high value targets, mosques, imams, so-called holy sites, etc. will also be needed, but never-ending propaganda directed at exposing and discrediting Islam is central. Also, in Afghanistan for instance, protection for anyone who renounces Islam. Set them up in a separate province even. And help them build up their infrastructure while ignoring the Islamic areas.
Yes, Islam needs to be discredited, wholeheartedly. This is part of the inoculation process.
However, I do not trust people as deeply as you might do. In fact, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them any more. When dealing with this kind of mental rabies called Islam, one has to keep in mind the taquiyya. Which is why any supposed apostates would have to be tested, and re-tested, to be sure that they are truly disease-free (for the record, the deer in my allegory above were never tested - until after they were dead. The Muslism would be getting off VERY lucky to be tested while alive.)
And I did mention those who would welcome the chance to think freely. But what about the multitudes that wouldn't? The ones that truly hate us, that will still work to destroy us, from within or without?
As I said before, it isn't just the leaders. It all comes down to individual Muslims. They're the carriers of the rabies, the ones that keep the disease alive, the ones that spread it, that cause the death and destruction of others in their rabid fits.
And even if, as you say, 99% percent of 1.2 billion people would want the change (which I doubt, and think is horribly overgenerous) that still leaves an awful lot of people in that 1% - enough to cause great damage to their non-Muslim neighbours.
If you, say, set up a non-Muslim state out of part of Afghanistan, and just left the Islamic part alone, you'd have another Israel situation - a small enclave of healthy population surrounded by, and threatened by, a diseased population.
The thing about religion is, it entrenches itself into the heart and mind, and is difficult to remove. If one truly believes that one will suffer hellfire if he co-operates with infidels, or worse, leaves Islam, then he's going to hold onto that idea, even to the cost of his life. We see all too often with the suicide bombers, that they are perfectly willing to kill and die for avoidance of hellfire, and the gaining of their brothel-like paradise.
Islam, see, speaks to the basest of mammalian instincts. Breed as much as possible, destroy others not quite like yourself, overrule, dominate, grab as much for yourself as possible, spread your genome (or memeplex, in this case), outcompete or eliminate the competition. Something that resonates with instinct, combined with fear of the supernatural, is especially hard to eliminate.
Discrediting their ideas won't work with the ones who wish to serve their basic instincts and who truly believe that what is in the koran is the way to paradise, any more than giving an aspirin to a rabid animal will cure him. Some might be not-so-affected, yes, and can be salvaged, but I don't think there's so many of them that many would like to believe.
I didn't say 99% of Muslims would leave, I said 99% of any population wouldn't choose anything. The proof that Islam uses force is that 99% of a population claim to be Muslims. If they had free choice a certain percentage would choose something different. One doesn't have to know the individuals involved to say that categorically. And in the beginning the percentage that would leave is not the most important thing, it is just important the Islam lose the monopoly. Once there are choices the whole house of cards comes down.
So then one says, well they are creating havoc in the West and they are less than 10% there. True enough, but the premise is still at the root of the problem, that they are Muslims and can't leave, that their families have no choice, etc. etc. Break the rule that Muslims can't leave and eventually that breaks the back of Islam.
We should declare regions where are troops are in Afghanistan to be Islam-free zones, and just stay there permanently. Ultimately, we need to promote a non-Islamic government for Afghanistan if that country is ever going to be stable and peaceful. Otherwise, we will just be handing that country over to more Sharia and never have true democracy.
This morning on the NBC program Meet the Press we saw a glimmer of recognition of the problem from NYT columnist Tom Friedman.
He asserts that "a war within Islam" has been going on since 9/11, implying that the opposing sides have been actively battling for control. Yet in the next breath, he notices that when Jihadists attack fellow Muslims, the "quiet, silent majority" of Muslims say and do nothing.
He's sniffing around the problem, but can't quite bring himself to acknowledge the obvious. Still, his conclusion (his last sentence) is correct.
Here's the transcript:
MR. GREGORY: The other question had to do with whether the strategy makes Americans safer from terrorists. And, Tom, you actually referred to this in a column you wrote this week, and I'll put it up on the screen, in terms of the reverberations of policy. "Iraq was about `the war on terrorism.' The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the `war on terrorists.' To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving al-Qaeda of a sanctuary--period. I never though we could make Afghanistan into Norway--and even if it--we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders the way Iraq might." Is this the antidote to terrorism, getting Afghanistan right?
MR. FRIEDMAN: It could potentially be, David. But I think you're right to--let's widen the aperture a little bit. What's been going on since 9/11? What's been going on since 9/11 is a war within Islam, a war within this great faith community over whether, how, to what degree it should embrace modernity. That's what's actually going on. And we've been dragged into it and, and dived into it, to some degree. There's a minority, a violent, Jihadist minority, that wants to take Islam back to the 12th century. There is a quiet, silent majority that wants to go into the future. Unfortunately, David, they need to have their own civil war. We had a civil war in this country some 150 years ago. We had some people who believed some really bad stuff. They believed you could discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. We defeated those people so badly that three generations later their offspring haven't forgotten it. If they don't have that war within Islam, nothing changes. That's why the most important story of the week was the one Secretary of State Clinton referred to. There was a bombing in Rawalpindi Friday. The Friday, day of prayer, week after the eid, OK? A suicide bomber walked into a mosque and blew it up in the middle of Friday prayer. Where was the mass protest in the Muslim world against that? In Pakistan, we saw a million people take to the streets to protest Danish cartoons that insulted the prophet Muhammad. Tens of people killed in a mosque, real people created in the image of God? And unless you get millions of people protesting that, saying that is haram, that is forbidden, that is not on [sic], there is nothing we can do to win this war. [Emphasis as stated]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/34299293#34299293
What a deal!
I think I will buy an island in some backwater, and threaten to go Jihad and maybe do a little light piracy.
Yo Ho Ho, Kah-Ching let the foreign aid money flow! Houses, yachts, cars and maybe a destination tourist resort, whoops oh yeah, schools an hospitals too, so my local people will have err alternatives to going Jihad.
I guess every few years we could schedule an uprising on the other side of the island, just so we don't get kicked off the gravy train.
It's a great idea, do you think someone figured it out first?
The only enemy President Obama wants to defeat is Israel's Jews. Obama is going all-out in an effort to defeat the Jews. He's got his house or court Jews (Rahm Emanuel David Axelrod, etc.) helping him.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134824
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134811
The Afghan muslims are fighting a generational fight. They've fought and defeated "invaders" since day 1. They'll happily take the schools and hospitals and money, and then happily plant explosives to level the said schools and hospitals and whatever else we infidels build them.
Three years to them is nothing.
But in America, for example, Muslims ARE allowed to leave Islam. The problem is, other Muslims don't think so. Because that's what Allah said. And Allah's law is higher than man-made laws or ideas.
Freedom of religion isn't helping Rifqa Bary very much right now, it's not helping past, current, or would-be victims of honour killings.
Simply telling Muslims that other Muslims have the right to leave Islam isn't going to do any good, they're not going to listen or pay any heed at all; they will do what they are wont to do regardless of the risks of civil punishment. Even if one is given the death penalty for killing his wife or child, he will simply be comforted by the notion that he has gained a place in Paradise. that he did "good" despite what man-made law says.
As Al-Kidya made note in the last post, Islam is like a line of twine - everything is interlaced. To destroy one thread, you need to destroy them all, and you don't have twine any more. Banning of apostasy is but one thread in the overall line.
Islam itself needs to be destroyed - and to do that, one really needs to destroy the people who keep that twine together. And yes, most of those will be your "regular moms and dads". You need not only discredit what it teaches (to avoid new people joining, or to encourage members to leave) but you ultimately also need to destroy the real carriers, and spreaders, of Islam, the ones who will not give up their beliefs and murderous ways.
Pathological narcissm. That's what Islam is, and serves, in a nutshell. And pathological narcissists cannot be disabused of the notion that the world owes them something, and that they are somehow superior to everyone else, and that they can do no wrong. (This is exactly what my ex is. This is how I can so easily recognize it in the texts of Islam. And believe me, even his stints in prison never did him any good, and never will. His life, when he gets out of prison, will be destroyed. However, he will never accept that it's his own fault. It will be his accuser's fault, for laying charges against him. It will be my fault, for leaving him while he was imprisoned. It will be my boyfriend's fault - if he finds out about him - for "luring" me away from his wonderous self. It will be ... everyone else's fault but his own. Sound familiar?)
To do otherwise - to try to "win hearts and minds" without acknowledging that some very dangerous hearts and minds can never be won, and can only be exterminated - is simply to continue down the path the West has already been following, to no avail.
"Whatever the administration might have said in March, officials explained to McChrystal, it now wanted something less absolute: to reverse the Taliban's momentum, deter it and try to persuade a significant number of its members to switch sides."
Persuade them to switch sides? WTH! That's like planning on persuading the oceanic tides to change their course -- it ain't gonna happen.
Obama is a Muslim at heart, so this change in strategy comes as no surprise to me.
Obama is dangerous, and this 'Plan' of his not only undermines our military, but why we're there fighting in the first place; and he's jeopardizing more lives with this diabolical plan of his.
You wrote: "He (Tom Friedman) asserts that "a war within Islam" has been going on since 9/11, implying that the opposing sides have been actively battling for control. Yet in the next breath, he notices that when Jihadists attack fellow Muslims, the "quiet, silent majority" of Muslims say and do nothing...."
I was listening to nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Savage this past Friday evening. Savage has interviewed R. Spencer on one or more occasions. Micahael Savage (formerly Michael Weiner) is known to be a stalwart defender of traditional conservative values.
I wonder if Savage has read any of Spencer's books. Savage and Friedman are now apparently kindred spirits on Islam. Like Friedman, Michael Savage made a point about this "Muslim on Muslim" violence in response to a caller. Savage has concluded that the Jihadists who kill fellow Muslims have indeed "hijacked" the religion of Islam just as former president George W. Bush insisted.
You begin to wonder. Who can we believe in anymore? Who can we trust? Has everyone sold out to political correctness?
Many Muslims will fight to save Islam no matter what the West does but to the extent that the West does anything it should be to push for freedom of conscience. And that at least, in the UN and elsewhere puts the issue right out in the open and out front. It is more important than pushing for issues like hijab or women's rights even. And it would be a way to separate Muslims and protect those who want to leave. Systems could be set up to protect apostates from Islam even in the Islamic world. If the military is needed for anything it would be to protect the infidel fortresses with apostates in the heart of the Islamic world. And as their living conditions improve compared to those outside the fence in the Islamic wastelands more will leave Islam.
Rifqa would be given immediate assistance by the state instead of the outrage presently going on.
As for you, better hope your ex doesn't convert to Islam in prison!
Even Rush Limbaugh does that. They all choose their words very very carefully. It would be easier to make a list of anyone in the media, that is, on TV or radio, or in a mainstream newspaper, who does speak the truth about Islam. Most of them will tease you with bits and pieces that lead you to believe they know the truth but they may just be afraid of coming right out and saying it. There are always caveats and clarifiers. But who can blame them? They don't want to lose sponsors or even their job. They don't want to have to live in hiding or fear that their family will be killed by followers of the Religion of Peace. Savage already moves from studio to studio and house to house apparently. If they knew the government would protect them perhaps some of them would speak out but they are really on their own. Look at Savage, he doesn't even speak the truth about Islam, he always talks about the extremists, but look at his reputation and he was banned from England. No one sticks up for him, not even other conservatives in the media with a few exceptions. What is needed is some sort of Radio Free World which would operate with a black budget and broadcast the truth about Islam worldwide 24/7. The government would protect those involved physically and their identities would be protected as well. It could be simulcast on the internet for those behind the Islamic Curtain.
You wrote: "They don't want to have to live in hiding or fear that their family will be killed by followers of the Religion of Peace...."
Exactly. Savage calls Limbaugh, "the golfer." Little doubt Limbaugh does not want to alter his way of life. Thus Limbaugh carried water for George W. "Islam is a religion of peace" Bush for better than seven years. I thought better of savage. I guess he's tired of hiding. He's no better than Limbaugh, or Hannity, whom he disparages as the "wall banger," or Glenn Beck, "the hemorrhoid." These are all terms of disparagement and abuse Savage heaps upon his cowardly competitors. I thought better of Savage. He is apparently no better than those he disparages.
My Irish friend who's staying with me informed me that carzy, to all British people, please correct the spelling, is an East English slang word for shit house. So Mr Karzai is talking a lot of crap. And what do we expect from the Taliban? Even more crap anyway.
Savage doesn't attack them with those names because they won't speak out about Islam, he just attacks them for things they say and stands they take. It is just giving them a good ribbing is all. Hannity is one of the worst on Islam. Savage is hard to figure out sometimes, he does go into history pretty thoroughly and will touch on the truth about Islam at that time, but he in the end, like all of them, won't come right out and say that Islam is the problem.
If we are having this much trouble getting anyone in the media to speak the truth about Islam at this time, with such a small minority of Muslims in America, imagine how impossible it will be if Muslim immigration continues for another 25 years and there are millions more here, and also consider how impossible it is to get anyone to speak the truth about Islam in any country with mostly Muslims in the population and an Islamic government on top of that!
If for NO OTHER REASON than that there must be at least one place on earth where debate and discussion about Islam can continue in relative safety, all further immigration and expansion of Islam in America must be stopped dead ASAP. It is the last hope even for those in Islamic countries who hope that something could be done at some point in the future.
Well, yes, the ideal is, of course, to separate the sick from the healthy and the curable.
However, when it comes to something like ideology, it's a little harder to separate the two, as humans will lie to serve their ends; it's a little harder to test them for their thoughts than for a virus or bacterium.
The obvious "unhealthy" ones, of course, have to be dealt with - and the Wsst doesn't seem to have the stomach to deal with only thing that can really be done to stop them from spreading their sickness.
If you still I'm harsh, well, it's because my special problem is that when I'm threatened, any fear I feel is instantly reprocessed into rage. I don't take threats very well. And in this case, I see a threat to my lifestyle, and to the culture in which I grew up in, which allows me to live my lifestyle (more or less) and, well, allows me to be me. I don't take any more kindly to that threat than I do to personal threats.
As for the ex converting to Islam, well, it wouldn't make much difference, IMO. And besides, he's not my problem any more; I cut the last ties that bind just last week. I just regret that he may do what he did to me to someone else.
I am in hiding, more or less. But I made damn sure that when he gets home, he'll have more important things to worry about than my whereabouts.
'O' and company don't have the first idea of what war is and really don't want to have anything to do with it. The first is ignorance the second is willful. What planet are these leftards from?
I just wish that McChrystal had stuck to his guns (pardon the pun). He should have said or given the pres. the correct definition of war. And if he did not get it resign his commission. The Army needs to stand up for the people not this foolish idiot. 'O' and company want to play like Johnson did in Vietnam, bad idea.
As far as Ann Coulter's comment and several responses. That is the idea I had months ago. Spirit Wolf you don't know the power of God. Your characture is not a real Christian. This process of bringing the lost to Christ takes time and would or could involve decades. Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not the west is what it is because of the influence of Christians through the centuries. Sadly the west is abandoning its roots and this is what is wrong with our society. The break down of the family, fatherless children and depraved sex everywhere you look. This lends to the argument that the enemy uses against us.
I would like to see 30,000 missionaries for a start. Oh, BTW I know of clandestine efforts in Afgan and other middle eastern countries by missionaries. Christs message is finding fertile hearts. They are a minority but genuine when you consider what they lose by converting. These souls will go and tell others and eventually a change will come, Lord willing. Christianity has always been strongest when under persecution.
John 1:5 The light shines through the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.
يوحنا 1:5 والنور يضيء في الظلام ، والظلام لا يمكن اخماده.
How can you get very far,
If you don’t know Who You Are?
How can you do what you ought,
If you don’t know What You’ve Got?
And if you don’t know Which to Do
Of all the things in front of you,
Then what you’ll have when you are through
Is just a mess without a clue
Of all the best that can come true
If you know What and Which and Who.
~A.A. Milne
If a Bear Of Very Little Brain understands this, why not our leadership?
Re Karzi,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=karzi
A Community Organizer mentality!
Again - I never said I was a Christian.
No, I don't trust people in general, Muslims much less so. They lie quickly and easily to serve their own ends, and are allowed and encouraged to do so against non-Muslims. I personally experienced that "smile to their faces" thing - until they had the upper hand; then it was threat-time.
Before that incident, I didn't give a damn what religion or nationality someone was. It taught me a real, hard lesson. Coming to Jihad Watch only made me understand the reasons why, and what was really behind it.
Do you think they wouldn't lie about converting to save their skins, or to continue infiltrating the West? Of course they would. They'd put on an act until they could strike out of the blue.
Or you'd wind up with "Christians" with Muslim attitudes.
Yes, some would genuinely abandon Islam. Our own poster here, SaleemSmith, is a great example.
But how many would take the stealth option? Probably more than anyone would like to think.
You can't be hard on just the leaders - you have to weed it out of the general populace as well, or the mind-disease that is Islam would still just fester and keep spreading.
Inoculate, cure, cull.
"depraved sex everywhere you look" - WHERE ARE
YOU LOOKING? Poor analysis...I tend to agree with Spiritwolf.
"depraved sex everywhere you look" - WHERE ARE
YOU LOOKING? Poor analysis...I tend to agree with Spiritwolf.
To Spirit Wolf:
Ah Grasshopper, Your words are wise. The true victim of
ideology is the truth. Religious/political blindness due
to ideology is almost always uncurable.
The country of Afghanistan is pure "tribal". It can not be rebuilt because there is nothing to rebuild. There is only one word for this war: OUT!
XXXXXXDEGRADE.
Thus says the Great Equivocator.