| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Commentary | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch advisory board Veep Hugh Fitzgerald on the situation in Iraq. If you read no other article today, or even this week or this month, read this one:
From Anthony Shadid's story in the Washington Post about the demonstration:"The cheers yesterday were for Sadr, interspersed with denunciations of the United States, Isarel and Hussein."No, no to the Americans," the crowd shouted. "Yes yes to Islam."
"We're defending our country, our people, our sacred places and our beliefs," said Ali Abboud, 21, standing atop a fence and waving an Iraqi flag. "We have one set of beliefs and the Americans have another. We won't let them stay."
The Administration, and some (but not all) of the enthusiasts about the current policy in Iraq (which now include those who were critical of the first stage of the Iraq war -- the sensible part) apparently cannot bring themselves to distinguish between disarming Iraq (legitimate and necessary) and the subsequent "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project” that some in the Administration have convinced themselves will work — without much discussion or analysis of what Islam teaches or even of what Iraq itself is like. What studies convinced them that Iraq was just the place to build a nation-state? This reveals the refusal, or perhaps inability, to take an ideology seriously (unless it is called "Communism" or "Nazism"), as if the invocation of the magic word "religion" is a kind of apotropaic talisman, used to ward off the "evil" of critical scrutiny by Infidels.
Or what is worse, there is occasional reliance on learning just a bit about Islam from those who are apologists for Islam. A taxonomy of the four main groups of apologists is useful.
The first group consists of those born into Islam, but are unstated dissidents. Although they recognize the source of the problems, they continue, out of filial piety, or embarrassment, to refuse to state publicly what it is about Islam that causes Muslims to behave as they do, to perceive the world as they do, and to conceive of non-Muslims as they do.
The second group, the smallest, consists of Muslim "converts." They are, in the main, bizarre specimens whose own knowledge of Islam is imperfect, and who, if they came to Islam as the Last Stop on their Spiritual Search, are ill-inclined to get back on the bus: they will remain, from here on out, with Islam -- even if it is not the real Islam, not mainstream Islam, but an imaginary, willed construct, possibly what they encountered at a particular moment, in a particular place, where all the stars were in propitious alignment (say, in Bosnia in 1990, with local Muslims, already modified in outlook by decades of living in and around powerful non-Muslims, favorably inclined toward their recent American saviors). These carriers of My Own Private Islam, while comical, if they are able to persuade others that they (new to it, but sudden experts) "know all about Islam," can be a menace. And of course if the convert in question is given to portentousness, being a "Muslim convert" at this point may make one somehow more interesting, to oneself and to others. Or at least that is the expectancy and hope. Sometimes it works.
A third group consists of non-Muslim students of the Middle East who, through financial dependence and hope of future gain, have been bought, directly or indirectly, by Arab and therefore Muslim interests. If someone is paying for your well-endowed bottom to sit on a well-endowed chair, or has supplied the wherewithal for your Center for Muslim-Christian thisandthat, how likely is it that you will produce books that do not pooh-pooh the Jihad, but instead provide a coffee-table guide to Islam, heavy on the illustrations of ravishing mosques, tulip tiles, and turbaned Turks or gurgling fountains of Guadalquivir water in Córdoba?
A fourth group consists of those who know better, but have decided that they cannot tell the full truth about Islam because it "just won't work," so we have to pretend that it is otherwise. They shun Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and plump up those whom, we allow ourselves to believe, at least are "moderates" who can be enrolled in the fight against the worst -- i.e., Wahhabi -- Muslims. But of course this does nothing to prevent the kind of folly we now see in Iraq, which is based entirely on the premise that the problem is not Islam, but only "Wahhabi" Islam, and that "democracy" is the cure for what ails Islam, and, and...."
A fifth group consists of those who (the very nice James Woolsey, for example) who have learned all about Islam from one man -- Bernard Lewis, who is Never Wrong (except on the Oslo Accords, except on his proposal for his friend Prince Hassan to become the new king of Iraq, except for his denial of the Armenian genocide, and except for his belief in the entire Iraq Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations venture, which J. B. Kelly tried to explain would not and could not work). They ought to be aware that Lewis has never made dhimmitude the object of study. His analysis of anti-Jewish activity in the Muslim world treats it almost exclusively as an import from the West, as if without European antisemitism the 1350-year treatment of Jews, as of other non-Muslims, as dhimmis was irrelevant. He has not helped Bat Ye'or, and finds her too "polemical" -- whatever that means. He is internally self-contradictory, and constantly. How can one who claims that there is really nothing wrong with Islam then worry aloud about the "islamization of Europe" which will be "inevitable" well "before the end of the century"? If Islam does not imply all sorts of grim things, then what's the worry?
But Lewis is, compared to those who have attacked him -- Said, Esposito, half of MESA Nostra -- so impressive that many tend to overlook those personal and professional ties (being lionized in Istanbul can go to anyone's head) that have caused him to mischaracterize Turkish treatment of non-Muslims, not least the Armenians, but also, for example, Jews in the Ottoman Empire (see, e.g., Joseph Hacker). In his mass-market survey "The Middle East," exactly 3 small paragraphs out of 400 pages are devoted to the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam. Two of the paragraphs are exculpatory.
Those are the main groups of apologists, or semidemihemi-apologists, or apologists who do not even know they are part-apologists but who refuse to see or delineate the full truth, or to put proper emphasis on certain aspects of Islam.
So here is what we now have:
Under Saddam the demonstrations organized by the government were called to denounce the demonized "United States, Israel, and Iran." The United States and Israel then represented the Infidel enemy -- that is, the most powerful or immediate parts of that world. Iran represented Shi'a Islam, enemy not only to Ba'athist Arabs but, underneath the Ba'athist veil, to the Sunni Arabs who used Ba'athism as the ideology to protect their continued position of dominance in Iraq (as the semi-syncretistic, and islamically suspect minority of Alawites in Syria have used Ba'athism to maintain their control).
And the word "Iran" stood not just for the external enemy, but for the Shi'a who opposed Saddam Hussein within Iraq, and who were crushed in the 1991 uprising -- that is to say, almost all the Shi'a of Iraq.
After more than two years of warfare, with 1600 dead and more than 10,000 seriously wounded, with great damage to American weaponry from desert wear and tear, or in some cases to supplies that seem to suffer a good deal of tare and tret, with other damage done to the citizen-army of Reserves and National Guard (my, silly of those Reservists to think that they were just that -- "Reserves" to be used in case of absolute National Emergency; how ridiculous of those National Guardmen to think they were to be on call to defend the home front, or to help out in times of disasters at home -- hurricanes, fires, terrorist attacks, civil unrest. Neither Reservists nor National Guardsmen realized that we were, apparently, in a World-War-like situation, and there was no way to "win the war on terror" (which has no end, and can't be "won" and is not on "terror" in any case) except through the prodigal use of the most expensive military operations.
And the $300 billion that is now being spent is being done so without many, or possibly any, at the top even trying to understanding, even thinking it might be worthwhile to understand or to create a cadre of aides able to understand Islam. And the only dissident voices are so silly and shrill, against the entire war, and against the very idea that there is any problem with the Muslim world or with the nice Muslims all over the world, that the opposition to the current campaign is led by those whom one finds even less informed than those who seem to think that a New Day is Dawning in the Middle East (it isn't and it won't) and that the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims will Win the Day (they aren't, they won't, not as long as the Infidel world does not embarrass them into doing something).
And that will happen only when a sufficient number of Infidels show that they have studied the theory and practice of Islam. That means, in turn, that those Muslim "moderates" who, objectively, further the jihad at present by continuing to mislead about Islam will and should be treated as part of the problem, and not the solution.
More people in the government need to be less prodigal in attempting to bribe Muslims into what can only be very temporary good behavior. The Jihadist impulse, and the hostility inculcated against Infidels, does not go away, and does not depend on the wealth or poverty of the Believers. It depends only on the strength and power with which the texts of Islam are received, distributed, believed. That's it.
If the hundreds of billions now being spent on foreign aid, direct or indirect, to Muslim countries, was instead spent on nuclear and solar and wind energy, on conservation measures, on figuring out how to appeal to and enlarge the fissures and resentments within Islam -- of non-Arab Muslims for Arab supremacist ideology within Islam, of Shi'a for Sunni oppressors in Pakistan and Iraq and Bahrain and Kuwait -- it would save -- oh, save enough to save Social Security, and give everyone in the United States a full scholarship to college, and a few other things like that.
Again one keeps coming back to what should be obvious: the ideology of Islam, not poverty or wealth, not democracy or despotism or variants on either, is for Infidels and Believers alike. It is the source of the Great, if sometimes seemingly intermittent (in those periods of quiescence when Muslims lack the wherewithal to act on their beliefs) and Permanent Divide. That Divide comes from immutable, canonical texts.
Those texts -- Qu'ran, Hadith, and Sira -- are now spread far more efficiently, in capillary fashion, even unto the farthest village, through the technology available for the Western world through a system of distribution -- audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television -- far more potent and therefore far more dangerous, than what has ever existed before. And out of ignorance and criminal negligence, Western governments allowed large numbers of Muslims into their own countries, to the now-obvious great distress of the indigenous Infidels, and damage to the civil institutions and way of life, of those Infidel lands. Among some Infidel populations, the dawning of comprehension, still imperfect, has come with some spectacular event (the killing of Theo van Gogh and attitudes revealed after it). In many countries, governments are working furiously to shield their Infidel populations from learning about, or discussing openly, the problems that need to be discussed. Self-censorship, so as not to offend the supposedly delicate sensibilities of Muslims, who play constantly upon this with a blend of smiling Muslim discussion of "peace," "tolerance," the "example of Andalucia," and "Dialogue" -- and with, at other times, threats that range from litigation to physical harassment to violent demonstrations in the heart of cities ("Death to France," Muslim rioters chanted in the middle of Paris last year), to threats of murder, to murder.
It appears to be difficult, or even impossible, for Western leaders, Western chanceries, and even those who for some reason present themselves as stout defenders of the West but too often are simply young and not-so-young men on the make in so-called "conservative" magazines and newspapers, to begin to comprehend the simplest matter: what people are taught to believe matters. And the more complete that system of belief, the more it attains to the condition of a Total Explanation of the Universe, with a division of that universe between Believer and Infidel, the more dangerous to the outsider, the enemy, the Infidel, that belief-system is and always will be -- whatever the nice visiting Americans do to improve the schools, the hospitals, the power grids, the bridges, the roads, the oilfields, and no matter how many toys, how many soccer balls, and how much candy they give away to the children, or how many contracts to clamoring locals. Gratitude, even if occasionally unfeigned (those children, still too young to have been completely brainwashed to hate the Infidels, probably are grateful for that candy and those soccer balls), is transient. Islam is, for these people who have little or nothing else in what thin spiritual or intellectual life they may be said to possess, the only thing going -- and it is permanent.
It is now mid-April 2005. About $10 billion a month is being spent on the military campaign of this "war on terror." Many other billions are being spent on security within the United States. Hundreds of billions more have been spent all over Europe on similar security.
Whatever it cost to destroy Saddam's weaponry was well worth it. But now? Why, especially when the price of oil has doubled, should American soldiers be risking their lives to keep the Iraqis from being at each others' throats (for when the Americans leave, at each others' throats they will be, sooner or later) when having them at each others' throats is not only to be expected in a country which was originally composed of three distinct Ottoman vilayets (Mosul, Baghdad, Basra), but in which, during more than half of its brief history, the regime has engaged in the persecution or even mass-murder, of Kurds by Arabs, of Shi'a by Sunni? The 10-year regency (with the British as the Regents) ended in 1932. The Hashemite monarchy lasted for 26 years, during which non-Muslims (the Christian Assyrians in 1933, the Jews in 1941 and again in 1948, with continued persecution and murder of the Jews who remained from 1948 on) were murdered. The country exhibits not one but both kinds of fissures within Islam that it is very much in the interests of the Western, Infidel world to do nothing to discourage, and certainly nothing to attempt to lessen: the clash of Arab and non-Arab (Kurdish) Muslims; the clash of Sunni and Shi'a. Yet the Americans continue to damage their citizen-army, to use up weapons, and to show continued inability within the army to tell the truth about Islam. What does it mean when one colonel has to take aside a few officers and discuss with them "privately" the nature of Islam -- and even to worry about news of this conversation getting out, when the nature of Islam, and the history of Jihad-conquest and dhimmitude, ought to be the subject of courses at West Point and the Army War College?
What were those January elections? Did Iraqis march off to cast their ballots not as "Kurds" or "Arabs," nor as "Shi'a" or "Sunni," -- but as "Iraqis," the free proud yeoman who had thoroughly internalized an understanding of democracy, and of guarantees for the rights of minorities, and of limits on power, and of the centrality of the rights of the individual -- all those things that make Western (i.e., "real") democracy more than a matter of mere head-counting? Or did they go off to see justice done, to get as much power for the "Kurds" or the "Shi'a" as they could, doing the bidding of some leader, voting as told, and of course proud to think that they had done something that was "just like" the democracy they have in the outside world. But it wasn't. It isn't. It won't be.
In the old days, they would denounce "America, Israel, and the Shi'a." And now? Now they denounce "America, Israel, and Saddam." What a difference two years makes. Shall we keep it up? Shall we stay, because the forces of Moqtada al-Sadr tell us to leave and we never ever want to do what one of our enemies tells us to do? Or shall we stay, until the Iraqi government is "good and ready" for us to leave -- putting our own soldiers' lives, our own limited wealth, our own attention, and our own policies in thrall to what Iraqis, for god's sake, want or think they want? If they want us around as their police force, while their soldiers remain with their training-wheels, to come in and rescue them in any and every operation, and if they want us around to leave even more American money on the table, on the ground, stuck to the walls -- and how they do -- well, it's understandable. In our refusal to cut aid to malevolent Egypt, in our continued bribing of Pakistan, in our belief that we should "economically develop" the unviable "state" of "Palestine" (there is no two-state "solution"; if one builds up "Palestine" one threatens Israel -- it is a zero-sum outcome, despite all the insistence that "both parties can live in peace and prosperity") we show the deleterious effects of the government-wide and society-wide refusal to look squarely at the realities of Islam.The international jizyah -- disguised even from those paying it -- has got to end. And the demonstration yesterday was one more bit of evidence: "No, no to Americans. Yes, yes to Islam."
What did you expect?
But someone asked me, "Hugh - what do you propose, in lieu of the Bush administration's attempt to begin to defang Islam by creating a democracy in Iraq?"
The "defanging" took place when weaponry was seized and destroyed, and weapons were projects interrupted, and weapons scientists were arrested or brought to the West, along with all sorts of information about who was helping Iraq, and how and what and where. Iraq is now "defanged." "Democracy" follows upon the development of some rudimentary civil society. It also must be demonstrated that "democracy" will constrain Islam. In Iraq the opposite seems to be the case. The primitive and temporary "democracy" that has come about in this three-vilayets-under-one-flag misconceived state will do nothing to force those in Iraq to face up to the failures, political, economic, intellectual and social, of Islam.And why are we staying in Iraq now? To build up the Iraqi army? Why? To make it more difficult to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, by having soldiers held hostage to Iranian retaliation? In order to spend another $100 billion -- with about half-a-billion earmarked for the giant American Embassy alone? Because the Administration cannot say, publicly or even privately, that it should not really care if Iraq holds together, and that a free Kurdistan, and Sunni-Shi'a fighting, are not bad things, but possibly highly desirable things? We should constantly attempt to fixate on the fissures within Islam (that exist, that were not created by Infidel outsiders, and which Infidel outsiders should no nothing to discourage).
Educate the public, or the educable public, about the doctrine of Islam. An educated public will understand why Muslim migration to the Western world is ill-advised and dangerous. Attempt to bloc all Muslim powers and peoples from acquiring major weaponry. If they are supplied with anything dangerous, make sure whatever tanks or planes they get have been specially outfitted (as the super-computers supplied to the Soviet Union ) so that they can be sabotaged, if misused, from afar. Stop foreign aid to Muslim states. Instead, recognize that every bit of aid they get makes their own lives less devoted to scrambling constantly for their existence, and that time on their hands always ends up being devoted to Islam, and more Islam. And realize that a free-market ideology would not have enabled the Manhattan Project to proceed, or many other important projects requiring the kind of investment only governments can make, and the same is now true for energy projects.
There's more. But that's a start.
Posted by Robert at April 12, 2005 8:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
It's becoming more and more apparent that we are dealing with a hopeless situation. Tens of billions of our tax dollars have liberated these ingrates from Hussein, but will never liberate them from themselves and their stone age beliefs.
Tax dollars being wasted on those who will turn on us in the end should be used to secure our own borders, and rid America from the remaining Wahhabis still slithering around among us.
What a terrible and disgraceful waste of our hard earned money.
Posted by: DCWatson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://swap.stanford.edu/was/20100322163935im_/http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 12, 2005 10:52 AM
Hugh!
Excellent work as always!
The Administration's line should be something more along the lines, of , well we tried fighting this war of annihilation with the "liberal war" tactic, it's not working, so let's re-group at this point, rather than persist the Polyanna-ish "faith in democracy" at all costs. And what costs!
Magazines like National Review are doing a terrible disservice to their readers and indeed to the entire nation, by simply parroting the administration Polyanna line. These magazines must be the eyes of the government. They must see what is ahead and be a warning signal, not just a cheering section for the administration, so long as it's Republican. It sickens me to think NR has sunk so low in such a short time.
"If the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a ditch."
A ditch is surely where we're headed. Thank you for your timely and provocative work. And thank you for your consistently insightful postings too.
Thank you Hugh!!
Rebecca Bynum
at April 12, 2005 10:57 AM
My Gawd! I can't believe what I'm reading! From a US newspaper? Unbeliebvable! The vlitude, islamaphobia, and hate speach from such a prestigous newspaper!
Wait until you see what CAIR has to say about this!
How long before the Wasington Post fires Mr Shadid to absolve themselves from the lies and misleading statements? And of course the law suits...
I'm starting a pool. Any takers?
Posted by: BillR at April 12, 2005 11:20 AM
Why isn't this article on the front page in 90 point type?
I can't find it in the Post!
Posted by: BillR at April 12, 2005 11:29 AM
Another opinion of Iraq's general state and Al-Sadr's little flexing of muscle, courtesy of FrontPageMag.com's Warblog section, April 11/05:
IRAQ'S LIBERATION AND WESTERN MEDIA BIAS
Earlier tonight, I linked to Mohammed's thoughts on the second anniversary of Baghdad's liberation. Haider Ajina, an Iraqi who lives in California and has sent us many valuable translations of articles in Iraqi newspapers, has sent his thoughts on this anniversary, along with this photo:
If you relied on the mainstream media for your information about the second anniversary of the liberation of Iraq, all you probably read about was an anti-American demonstration by adherents of the dissident cleric al-Sadr. Haider puts those stories into perspective by pointing out that many other Iraqis turned out to demonstrate with a very different agenda. The sign in the photo above says, in English: "The mass graves are proof enough to find Saddam guilty and hang him."
Haider continues:
Iraqis take to the streets on the second anniversary of the liberation of Baghdad. Iraqi government declared it as national day, the day Iraq was freed from Saddam’s barbaric rule. Many of the banners call for the Trial of Saddam and his gang. Other banners condemn terrorist and terrorism. Al-Sadr (who received no seats in the current parliament, because very few voted for him) is taking this opportunity to call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq. His request is counter to what the elected government is asking for.
Haider makes a very fundamental point here, one that is absent from all of the MSM stories I've seen on the al-Sadr anti-American demonstrations: Al-Sadr's slate got so few votes in January's election that they didn't get a single seat in the Iraqi parliament. Yet, it seems, their ability to turn out a few tattered demonstrators is enough to garner headlines throughout the U.S. Why? Saturday, April 9, 2005
www.powerlineblog.com
at April 12, 2005 11:52 AM
Rather than repeat what you said in every paragraph with comments of agreement and gratitude, let me focus on that last paragraph and add a thought or two.
There are many respectable commentators who have half the truth. After the pro-Islamist lobby, the far left apologists, and ridiculous devout believers (or liars), these commentators look sane and wise by comparison. Unfortunately, half the truth is still half wrong.
In addition, there are those who vilify America, our intentions, and our (misplaced) generosity. Thus, those who come to the defense of our country appear correct and they are for the most part (as with the need to take down vicious dictators with WMD ambitions). However, for the most part still leaves much to be desired.
The challenge for those of us who are critics – but respectful patriotic critics – is to raise the issues of prudence, misplaced generosity, prejudice towards Islam, and general ignorance of the constraints of this culture and ideology. I believe you gentlemen are doing it. Excellent overview of the sources of misinformation!
at April 12, 2005 12:31 PM
To Hugh and the other above posters: thank you. Yes, this should be printed in a large and conspicuous font in every major newspaper. The President of the United and his advisors should be receive a briefing and the full text along with information about the continued displeasure of the American public on the state of the borders.
This is not rocket science. Common sense tells us to get the hell out of Iraq and to beef up security at home.
As some commentators used to say at signing off: "And that's the way it is, folks...goodnight!" Hugh has said it: This is the way it is and will be until we "wise up".
Posted by: epg at April 12, 2005 1:04 PM
The media is simply another tool from the cultural revolution that has been hammering and sickleing away at Western culture for about 100 years. News that benefits Western culture is silenced as it doesn’t fit the larger agenda which is the destruction of the family first and then ultimately the destruction of Western society. The traditional family is viewed as patriarchal, with women and children having the status of property. Christianity is viewed in the same hateful way with God as the ultimate patriarch. These are viewed as a microcosm of the larger family, which is Western culture which must be destroyed so that equality and freedom can finally be achieved. This Marxist ideology has been infiltrating Western institutions for decades. It has largely succeeded in indoctrinating the population and destroying the family with human devaluation through genocide, birth control, abortion, careers, materialism, feminism, drugs, movies etc. The indoctrination begins early through sex education administered to elementary school children that equalizes all sexual practices along with no absolute morals or judgments. To object to any of this is to be ridiculed as a phobic of one sort or another, racist or mentally unstable. To repeat, hatred of Christianity is the motivating factor, hatred of the middle class and all it stands for and hatred of the family which makes up the backbone of the system is what is being systematically dismantled.
Posted by: cross at April 12, 2005 1:41 PM
"Iraqis take to the streets on the second anniversary of the liberation of Baghdad. Iraqi government declared it as national day, the day Iraq was freed from Saddam’s barbaric rule. Many of the banners call for the Trial of Saddam and his gang. Other banners condemn terrorist and terrorism. Al-Sadr (who received no seats in the current parliament, because very few voted for him) is taking this opportunity to call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq. His request is counter to what the elected government is asking for." -- from a posting above
But those who oppose Al-Sadr are demonstrating against Saddam Hussein, not in favor of the Americans. And it is entirely coherent to dislike the Infidels, to wish for Islam to play a major role -- no, not the "Iranian-style theocracy" but how about an "Iraqi-style theocracy" where it is not the direct rule of the rightly-guided ones, but the indirect rule of the rightly-guided ones -- a difference for which we Infidels are all supposed to be grateful, and relieved.
There is a difference between a rally against Saddam and a rally for the United States. Other than a few words from Allawi (when he was visiting the United States) and other than those nice, pro-Western, sensible, rational -- and non-Islamic or non-fervent bloggers from Iraq about whom so much is made (The Mesopotamian et al.) --where is the vast outouring of gratitude to the American rescuers?
Al-Jaffari and company want the Americans to stay. They want that protection. They want some of that weaponry to be left behind, and no doubt right now are persuading gullible military men to train them on American vehicles and please, as you go when we tell you can go, leave it all here, and just think of it as "pre-positioned" equipment for your new, trueblue allies in Baghdade.
They don't mind the Americans as targets. They don't mind the Americans risking their lives to protect Iraqis from one another. They welcome it. They don't shed tears over the American dead -- they don't give a damn.
They want us to stay, as well, to distribute every last drop of that $18.2 billion in foreign aid. And they want to see that $590-million dollar embassy erected -- even if it is never used. These are Big Dig projects, full of employment opportunities,and contracts for Iraqis. Let the Americans worry about protecting the oilfields, let them dredge the port of Umm whateveritis, and when we, the Iraqis, or some subset of them, decide that we have squeezed whatever we can out of them, and with absolutely no change in the basic attitudes toward these Infidels, these Americans, we can boot them out.
And the American government appears to accept this idea -- we'll leave when the Iraqis are good and ready to have us leave, and not one moment before. So Iraq -- you decide the fate of American soldiers, you get to decide about the Reservists and the National Guard. You get to pocket -- even at a time when oil has doubled in price -- even more American aid, beyond the several hundred dollars in expenses connected to the overthrow, and aftermath of that overthrow, of Saddam & Sons, Incorporated.
This willingness to spend huge sums, and risk many lives, and cancel weapons programs that might be important in Asia, and the unwillingness to engage in the study of Islam, as a belief-system, and to think about what the failure to recognize this belief-system for what it is has already done in Europe, a negligence that could lead to the islamization of Europe -- without which the very idea of the "West" becomes comical -- infuriates.
What one notices is the absence of any demonstration of a real, and permanent change, among Iraqi Muslims, and not a change based only on the desire to engage in short-term manipulation of the powerful Infidel how present.
We are asked to take in the news that a rally against Saddam was larger than that organized by Al-Sadr's men.
So what? What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
Posted by: Hugh at April 12, 2005 1:41 PM
I think the Islamization of Europe is a foregone conclusion. Immigration will continue due to declining EU births. Eventually all the countries of Europe will have too many Islamics and the fear of terrorism will paralyze them to oppose any Islamic demands. Europe has already swallowed the suicide pill and it’s just a matter of time now, give it 75 years.
Explain how without Europe the West becomes “comical”? I don’t feel that we (the US) should protect the EU anymore. Why should we continue to spend money and lives defending a godless self absorbed decadent society that won’t reproduce and is doomed to fall in the next generation or two anyway?
at April 12, 2005 2:41 PM
There is a sixth categoy you didn't touch Hugh.
As exemplified by Amira Hass a daughter of Holocaust Survivors (her mother was imprisoned in Belsen), she lives in Palestine and reports for Ha'aretz and Benny Morris:
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001. When I try to argue in defense of the state of Israel I find myself having to confront personages such as these.
And of course Mordecai Vanunu, who did at least speak this truth, he said "Israel wants the Palestinians to use violence, Palestinians bring violence onto themselves Last part is important, because regardless of the "sins" or "faults" of the Israeli's, the continuous, non stop Palestinian violence is the cause of their own misery.
And the Hass, Goodmans, nor none of the critics mention or seem to care, that the Arab/Muslims (aka Palestinians) have no interest in living in a secular democracy, and have but one goal, that one voiced by Arafat and Hamas an Islamic state.
And what self respecting, intelligent person would care to live in dhimmitude (provided any Jews remain in Islamized Greater Palestine.)
Posted by: Giaour at April 12, 2005 2:58 PM
To repeat, hatred of Christianity is the motivating factor, hatred of the middle class and all it stands for and hatred of the family which makes up the backbone of the system is what is being systematically dismantled. Posted by: cross
No Cross, the problem is that YOUR Christianity resembles nothing at all of the Christ from which you claim belief.
Your Christianity is as hateful, rigid, intolerant, and warlike as the Muslims and in many respects, (especially the patriarchial social order) indistinquishable.
I don't think anyone has any problems with a religion that is simply that, a relationship between a man or woman and their god, but when it becomes militant, political, sticks its fingers into the lives of the nation and fellow citizens, then it loses respect.
Which is essentially the problem with Islam.
For many of us, Evangelical and Catholic Christianity is pretty much indistinguishable from Islam, peas in a pod, a battle for god, a clash of fundamentalisms, whatever you want to call it.
You make the same claim as the Muslims make for their ideology.
Two sides of the same coin. Two self righteous ideologies, and in fact you ape the Muslims with your self pitying whine.
So the new public relations game is to see who can whine the most, cry persecution all the while holding behind their backs their own sword of persecution.
Disgusting and farcial.
Posted by: Giaour at April 12, 2005 3:05 PM
I'm not Catholic. I don't agree with religious dogma and pompous ceremonies. Christianity to me is a faith that doesn’t require a mediator like a priest or a pope or an imam. An individual has a personal relationship with Christ and God and that is all that is necessary. Where to you get the idea that Christians are out to dominate the West and control your every move? It’s just the opposite. Your atheistic religion is the one that is attacking Western tradition and threatening our freedoms. The fruits of which are intolerance and repeating the same lies over and over. Tell me what is it you get from this, how do you benefit from overthrowing the present system. Is there something you do or want to do that you currently can’t do?
Posted by: cross at April 12, 2005 3:26 PM
I went over to Giaour's favorite site and read a little bit of their rants. There was quite a bit of Jew hatred there, but to be fair there are a lot of differing opinions on all sides. Some people there have the idea that D.James Kennedy and Pat Robertson are some kind of fourth reich. I have listened to both of these preachers many times, and I definitely do not get the impression that they want to rule the world. What the Christian leaders of today want is to have the US become the country that the founding fathers intended. It is all there in print, at least until the revisionists get hold of our historical documents. Read the Mayflower Compact sometime. The people who made that very dangerous trip across the Atlantic Ocean had their ideas about what this land should be, and it wasn't some godless workers' paradise.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights spells out our freedoms, Christians just believe that we should be as free as anyone else here in the US. We should not have to be afraid to speak our minds. If one of our children wants to read their Bible on the school bus, they shouldn't have to worry about being chastised by the school district (yes, this has happened, called "illegal") A school child shouldn't have to have their drawings taken down from exhibit because the subject was "forbidden". All of this and a lot more has happened here in the US, and it sounds more like Red China. We want a FREE USA,the way it was before the chipping away began.
at April 12, 2005 3:54 PM
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/mayflow.html
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 12, 2005 3:58 PM
Cross~ I suspect the Only version of Christianity that giaour doesn't consider idealogically the same as islam- is the one that would be Extinct under his idea of how the world should be run.
Or at least he would like anyone who even Hints at believing in a Higher power, to keep their mouths shut.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32146
(btw, giaour, this is the First article by Falwell I have ever read)
Posted by: Gary at April 12, 2005 4:08 PM
"Explain how without Europe the West becomes “comical”?" -- from a posting above.
The British Museum.
The Louvre.
The Prado.
The National Gallery.
The Uffizi.
The Rijksmeum.
Alte Pinakothek.
The Vatican Museum.
The Library at Chatsworth.
The Concertgebouw.
The canals of Venice.
The Piazza della Signoria.
Florence.
Umbria.
The Dulwich Gallery.
Paris.
Toledo.
The Tivoli Gardens.
The Boboli Gardens.
The Jardin des Plantes.
Las Ramblas in Barcelona.
The Juderia in Cordoba.
The Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam.
Trinity College Great Court.
Rome.
Pushkin's house and library in St. Petersburg.
Musee Guimet. Musee of Nissim Camondo. Jeu de Paume. The Luxembourg Gardens.
Versailles.
Tolstoy's house at Yasnaya Polyana.
Linnaeus's house in Uppsala.
Uppsala.
Tsarskoe Selo.
The Dulwich Gallery.
Dickens's House.
Samuel Johnson's House.
Oxford.
Cambridge.
The National Railway Museum in York.
The islands of Lewis and Harris.
Chartres.
The house of Bourges.
The birthplace of Hans Christian Andersen in Odense.
Stratford-on-Avon.
Swans on the Avon River.
The Thames.
The Seine.
The Ebro.
The Tiber.
The Danube.
The Palazzo of the D'Este family in Ferrara.
The Palazzo Pubblico in Siena.
The Pinacoteca in Siena.
Spoleto.
San Gimignano.
The Villa Lante.
The caves of Lascaux.
The caves of Altamira.
St. Sulpice.
The Palazzo Farnese.
The Piazza Farnese.
The Piazza Navona.
The Spanish Steps.
The house of Gogol at 47, via Sistina.
The house of Keats (now called the Keats-Shelley House).
Via Condotti. Via del Babuino.
The obelisk in the Piazza Minerva.
The fountain in the Piazza Navona.
La Barcaccia.
Trinita dei Monti.
Musee de Cluny.
Mont Saint-Michel.
Ile de Re.
Musee Andre-Jacquemart.
The lavander fields in Senanque.
The Bibliotheque Nationale.
The Colosseum.
The Parthenon.
Arezzo.
The street of alfarrabistas in Lisbon.
Lisbon.
The mist on Malvern Hill.
Tintern Abbey.
The gardens at Chiswick.
Lac Leman.
Prague.
Cracow.
Buda.
Pest.
And all the rest.
The King James version of the Bible. The Wyclif. The Tyndale.
Wynkyn de Worde. Sir Kenelm Digby. Sir John Maundeville. Boswell. Bosworth Field.
And lest we forget, Geoffrey and William and John, and Jane, and Charles, and Philip. Michel, Andre, Victor, Charles, Paul, Marcel, and Georges and Philip. Wislawa and Zbigniew and Czeslaw. Jaroslav. Jorge, Teresa, Francisco, Miguel, Teresa, JorgePiet, Harry. Gavriil, Aleksandr, Nikolai, Fyodor, Afanasy, Lev, Anton, Ivan, Mark, Osip, Marina, Boris, Vladimir, Vladislav, Mikhail. Jacopone, Guido, Francesco and Dante, all the way up to Giacomo, Eugenio, Dino and Primo and Italo. Christoph, Johann, Franz, Karl.
Have I left anyone out? Yes, because I only have 3 minutes to place this post before other duties call.
So fill it all in yourself. Don't forget a few it may be, in all the fuss, simply to overlook -- you know, such as Mozart, and Isaac Newton, and Spinoza, and Hume, and Rembrandt, and a few people like that whom I just forgot to list. Gosh, I left out Leonardo. And Michelangelo. And Beethoven. Oops, I keep thinking of new names, new places, new things to add.
Goodness, this could go on for more than five minutes -- I'm now up to seven minutes.
Not all Europeans are named Patten, Solana, and Prodi. Not all are called Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, George Galloway, and Gerhard Schroder. Some of them are worth thinking about.
Everyone has his own private list. I open to my own O and find Odile, Oswyn, Osvaldo, and Oscar, and...well, you do it with your own mental address-book. And ask yourself, would you like to turn your backs on all of these people, and have them, or their descendants, live in an islamized Europe, with all that that implies?
You don't care? They deserve what they get? But aren't you looking forward to the American version of a British original -- "The Office" -- tonight? You're not?
Why not?
at April 12, 2005 4:29 PM
I especially liked the last paragraph of the article where the economic aspects of the fight are highlighted. We do need to stop sending money in whatever form (aid or oil money)to the Muslim world and their supporters. See iags.org for some very good stuff regarding energy security, how each of us can fight back today and the military aspects of oil.
Posted by: Papa Bear at April 12, 2005 4:45 PM
Thanks for your reply Hugh,
After centuries of achievement and global expansion, Europe is now receding like a glacier that’s situated under an ozone hole. I’ll admit you have listed many reasons to salvage it but in the end it’s up to the inhabitants of Europe to respect themselves and the 40,000 years of European history to preserve it. Perhaps they will find a way. The current trend however is baby boom birth rates in muslim and asian countries and look for China to retake about half of Russia in this century. Times they are a changin.
at April 12, 2005 4:45 PM
Hugh, you are so right, not that we necessarily become comical without the Europeans, but that Europe will either wake up and get a grip on the situation or they will become The Great History Lesson of cultural suicide. If Europe does Islamize, I hope they send their art treasures to us for safekeeping. We will preserve their literature, we will preserve their music, we will preserve their languages, if it ever comes to that, and I'm not betting against it.
It's all so unutterably sad.
Rebecca
Posted by: rb at April 12, 2005 5:26 PM
UN calls for fighting "defamation" of islam
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8157194
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 12, 2005 5:35 PM
Cross, you condemn in the same sentence, as if they were equivalent:
'genocide, birth control, abortion, careers, materialism, feminism, drugs, movies '
If you don't mind me asking, are you a little potty?
Posted by: Interested at April 12, 2005 5:37 PM
Hugh, I am sitting here wishing I could tour Europe with you as my guide. Thanks for all your hard work, your thoughtfulness, and your cultural capital, obviously having been stored up over years.
Giaour -- You make me sad, because your preconceptions prevent you from using the intelligence you possess. Potentially you would be a strong ally against Islam, but you need to read the Koran first and the New Testament. I don't ask you to convert, but you will understand that the two texts in question are not comparable in tone or in content. If you have read both, and you still think the same way, then you are useless in this cultural war. You must have a mind that is flexible enough to absorb new information, and you must be brave enough to modify your stance on Christianity, particularly based on textual evidence.
In another thread, you called me a phoney. I assume you question my claim as a former liberal. Perhaps you are right. I was NEVER mindless and irrational; I have always prided myself on my independent thinking. Perhaps you will find you're a "phony" liberal, too. Good luck.
Posted by: former liberal WF at April 12, 2005 6:24 PM
PS: Did carolyn aka squirrel hunter get booted? Haven't seen a post in while.
Posted by: cross at April 12, 2005 6:57 PM
PS: Did carolyn aka squirrel hunter get booted?
I'm still here cross, I think you mean Catherine.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 12, 2005 8:22 PM
Not all Europeans are named Patten, Solana, and Prodi. Not all are called Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, George Galloway, and Gerhard Schroder. Some of them are worth thinking about.You're on a roll, Hugh. You should have named Laetitia Casta or Monica Bellucci to seal the deal. Posted by: Beagle
at April 12, 2005 8:51 PM
In a voice and with a modulation that annoys Basil, Mrs. Fawlty often gossips on the telephone with a female friend. Having recycled Prunella Scales's words at Jihadwatch at least once before, I'll do it again: "I know. I know."
Posted by: Hugh at April 12, 2005 8:58 PM
Carolyn, Yes, sorry I meant Catherine.
--------------------------------------
Cross, you condemn in the same sentence, as if they were equivalent:
'genocide, birth control, abortion, careers, materialism, feminism, drugs, movies '
If you don't mind me asking, are you a little potty?
by Interested
Not at all. Some are worse than others but they have the designed intent of contributing to the destruction of Western civilization.
Posted by: cross at April 12, 2005 9:22 PM
Hugh I re read your earlier post defending Old Europe. The famous figures you mentioned have been dead for a long long time. Is that all Europe is a collection of museums and artifacts and living in the memory of bygone glory. Old architechture and modern comedy is that Europes post modern claim to fame? How many more times will the US be called on to save Europes bacon? Like Janet Jackson says, what has Europe done for us lately? Now I will have another beer and enjoy some good ol fashioned American cable. No offense.
Posted by: cross at April 12, 2005 9:57 PM
Hugh-
You forgot to mention the statue of Theo Van Gogh that will be erected near the street in Amsterdam where he was slaughtered on our last election day.
When the Dutch get the testicular fortitude, that is.
I see:
A standing bronze, something like Rodin's Balzac.
with Theo V.G. holding out one ironic arm, and making a gesture with one hand, where his thumb and index finger are about an inch (16 mm) apart, to signify:
1) a piece of movie film; 2) the size of the average schmuck's "schmuck" who killed him; and 3) the perilous distance between freedom and slavery.
(I've been idly making sketches, and, if anyone knows of a grant open for such a work, I'd be glad to submit a macquette... although I can't imagine ANY university or government or foundation on Earth with the guts to honor such a modern martyr to human liberty, do you?)
Posted by: BigSleep at April 12, 2005 10:03 PM
I am currently reading a book on the final days of WW2. I was reading of an account from an American officer, who said a wounded german youth being treated by an american medic asked the officer if there was any jewish blood in the plasma he was being administered. The officer replied "I am not sure, in America, we don't consider such things". The German youth said he would rather die than risk jewish blood in his veins. The American officer told the medic to let the boy die, and he did.
I remembered thinking as I read this, how does a person get to that point? Where your hatred is so blind, that you will let yourself die, rather than risk the "contamination" of jewish blood?
We know from history that Hitler programmed the youth of his country to hate the jews. To view themselves as superior to all others, and that all others should be your subserviants.
Sound familiar? Of course it does. I have very often heard of Islam being compared to Fascism. Muslim youths are taught that their way is the only true way, and all others are less than them, especially jews. The programming continues as they reach adulthood, by Imans, their government, and their press. In their hearts, they believe they are right. How do you defeat this ideology? By preventing furthur generations from being programmed in this way. The current muslim generation is lost. How do we save the next? By forcing democracy down their throats, as in Iraq? Maybe. But do we do this in Syria as well? In Iran? I am at a loss, but I find myself caring less and less about the rights of muslims. It pains me to say it, but if they will not co-exist with others, than they should not exist at all. Islam will not have a future if more people feel as I do. And only the everyday muslim can change that.
at April 12, 2005 10:20 PM
Bring on Pax Americana. Who cares about feet dragging coalitions of the nausea-inducing? Imagine a Fortress America without Muslims.
I actually once gave a rat's ass when I read about Chicom' Cultural Revolutionaries who were making Muslim imams shovel pig crap. Radio Free Europe is on the Bush-Wolfowitz Coalition-Spinworks:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/04/a3857708-6fd0-4de1-843b-b3010171ae5e.html
However, Cuba and China are aping the chimp chorus on defamation of the murder-cult.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=2537
Delegations from Cuba and China, which has been accused by rights activists of repressing its own Muslim Uighur minority, were among the countries to take the floor during the debate to back the OIC resolution.
--------------------
I couldn't invent this crap if I tried.
at April 12, 2005 11:09 PM
Awesome article. A masterpiece that ought to be read over and over again, especially by suicidal politically correct liberals.
Posted by: angry_kafir at April 13, 2005 12:04 AM
UN calls for combating 'defamation' of Islam
shouldnt the un and its arab dictators and european terrorists appeasers get back to the important stuff
like trying to get 500 resolutions passed against israel which will be automatically vetoed by the U.S,
way to go arabs, funny how the one resolution brought before the security council against an arab country syria got passed, so much for the french I geuss they the syrians missed a payment.
Posted by: Pegcity at April 13, 2005 1:59 AM
Wow! That's the best Hugh rant yet! Awesome!
Posted by: markjames at April 13, 2005 3:20 AM
Hugh
The Islamic world has what we want. Petroleum. We are interested in the free flow of oil at reasonable prices from the Middle East. This is why we are engaged in Iraq and the Mideast
Our war may be misguided but you offer nothing better. Better as far as getting oil from these primitives. All cold fusion, solar panel and wind turbine farm ideas fall far short.
Your idea that chaos in Iraq is OK is quite silly. This only reduces Iraq's ability to export oil. I hope for the best, that Iraq oil exports rise upward as order is restored. You offer no hope, only the realpolitik of Islamic chaos. Which would be fine by me if it didn't impact on oil production and shipments
Posted by: dennisw at April 13, 2005 3:23 AM
Hans
When you think about Islam think about being stuck in the 7th century. When their so called prophet preached and plundered.
Posted by: dennisw at April 13, 2005 3:28 AM
Hans, i agree. You put it well.
Hugh, i always enjoy your work, and the occasional run to the dictionary does me some good as well, however,
i find myself in strong disagreement with what appears to me to be a facile short term solution that you support.
First, for almost ever, we have supported almost anybody, in that area who could guarantee stability. Their governance was their problem; a stable supply of oil to the world was ours.
Now, when oil supplies to the world are more critically balanced between supply and demand than ever, now is the time you are willing, almost eager, to let chaos break out in Iraq and the area !
Let em fight each other; what exactly do you think would happen to the oil supplies? How long before the chaos overflowed into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc.
Your solution would be a catastrophe, for us, and for the industrialized world.
Putting all the rhetoric aside, America will withdraw when an Iraqi govt can maintain control; ie. we need stability; think oil.
That Iraqi govt may well need the backing of the U.S. for many years, at a much lower level than now, and that suits America just fine.(If you need us, you better work with us.)
Similar to the Saudi need for the U.S. as long as the threat from saddam was there. Now the U.S. has taken away the 'saddam' threat, the Saudi need is much diminished, reducing U.S. influence there.
Replacing that is the Iraqi need, which should insure U.S. continued influence for some time.
There are many other good reasons why your proposals, however eloquently put, are non-starters.
The U.S. intervention into Iraq was a brilliant move; not costly in lives, not that even one life lost is not a tragedy; costlier in treasury than expected, but that will be partially, or more, recompensed through oil contracts i assume, and then grabbed back to the U.S. govt. in taxes.
The intervention also puts the U.S. right next to Syria and Iran, where they want to be right now to apply pressure.
How does this affect the war on terror ? I think it enhances the American, the western position, though not in a direct fashion. We could certainly debate this point.
Always appreciate your erudite pieces Hugh; don't always agree with you though.
Posted by: dby at April 13, 2005 3:45 AM
Hey, thanks dennisw,
we cannot let Hugh get away with that one.
at April 13, 2005 3:54 AM
We could get rid of oil based transport tomorrow. Sure we might need some of the stuff out of the ground, but the first actual diesel engine was actually run on diesel made from peanut oil.
In my neighbourhood, there's a bloke who hasn't bought fossil diesel for a few years. He makes all his own bio diesel from cooking oil from the greasy spoon take aways. Now theres an opening for McDonalds!
Then you have the fuel cell technology - what about the new fuel cell motor bike that does 110km per hour, only pumps out water as a byproduct, no carbon menoxide.
Fact is, those who own the oil, and our governments who get the taxes from the oil, are addicted. The pay off?? Increased Islamisation of our culture, and our pollies don't give a dam about us OR the environment.
The Muslims know that technology will overtake fossil fuels within 10 -20 years. Its why they are turning up the "heat" on us now. Give it 20 years they will have NO revenue to kill us.
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at April 13, 2005 4:43 AM
DBY
Chaos in Iraq and Saudi Arabia mean less oil for the world. This is the crux of the problem. Telling the Arab Muslims to go f themselves and fight with themselves gets us nowhere. Either we invade and administer all Arab oil or we try to moderate the situation as best as possible
HUGH. Do you think your Prius makes you comparatively safe from this chaos? Just joking. But you too will damn Arab chaos when your home heating oil goes to $4.00/gallon.
at April 13, 2005 5:17 AM
DBY
Chaos in Iraq and Saudi Arabia mean less oil for the world. This is the crux of the problem. Telling the Arab Muslims to go f themselves and fight with themselves gets us nowhere. Either we invade and administer all Arab oil or we try to moderate the situation as best as possible
HUGH. Do you think your Prius makes you comparatively safe from this chaos? Just joking. But you too will damn Arab chaos when your home heating oil goes to $4.00/gallon.
at April 13, 2005 5:17 AM
Cross, good posts.
Posted by: Kepha at April 13, 2005 5:29 AM
Hugh,
A free market does not place constraints on legitimate national defense. The Manhatten Project would have proceeded very nicely under a free market every bit as well as it did under the increasingly mixed economy of the WWII era.
Any policy which is consistent with the Constitutional requirement to defend the nation against enemies internal and external is legitimate in a free market.
Obviously, such a policy must be consistent with other Constitutional requirements too, such as the Bill of Rights.
It might be of interest to consider how much the programs cost that exist but are NOT required by the Constitution, and which would NOT exist in a truly free market economy. How much money would it take to pay for the Constitionally mandated functions, even the very expensive ones?
A WHOLE lot less than the tax bill we will be paying on this Ides of April, I'll wager!
Posted by: cubed
at April 13, 2005 12:46 PM
tell gm and ford and chyrsler to start making hybrids, hybrids are awesome, the new highlander is a perfect example, same performance as the regular gas version cept it gets 36mpg, americans and canadians can have there cake and eat it too.
Posted by: Pegcity at April 13, 2005 3:13 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)