"The cloud in the silver lining of the Iraqi elections"

Hey CathaGary, aren't you going to call Spencer a "defeatist"? LOL... that's what you call me when I say stuff like this. LOL... best get back to the Rush Limbaugh newsletter and make up some new insults.... LOL.

From the linked article:

Symposium
Q: Does President Bush have a realistic plan for bringing democracy to the Middle East?
Posted March 27, 2003
By Robert Spencer

No: Insisting that the nations of the Middle East choose between Western-style democracy or the terror state will do more harm than good.

But Dhimbya and his lackeys "think" that repeating "Freedom's on the march" will change everything. Again from the article:

...Bush, however, has nothing but harsh words for those who claim that Middle Eastern culture is so different as to rule out democracy.

And angry monkeys everywhere follow his petulant example. Right, CathaGary? Later on, Spencer says:

...Ataturk's reforms created "a shock wave through the country which has not yet died out." Pious Muslim Turks blamed every setback the country suffered on the enforced secularization...

Sound familiar, CathaGary? LOL.

....Turkey's experience may be unique, but there is no reason to think that any secular democracy established in an Islamic country will escape pressure from Muslims who want to restore Shariah. None has so far. Even Muslim reformers have recognized that an Islamic democracy would be quite different from the polity designed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...

Well, CathaGary? What say you now? (Please take your medicine prior to responding.)

Love,

KJ

*Part of the American Tribe, Truth Never to be Silenced

*-sarcasm

Here is a telling excerpt from the article:

"The most striking change has come from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the largest single party in the UIA. An avowedly religious party, SCIRI was based in Iran for over 20 years and is still in receipt of Iranian funds. SCIRI refused to have any public dealings with the US until August 2002, although there had been some discrete meetings in Kuwait. Shortly after the fall of Saddam, SCIRI reaffirmed its hostility to the US. Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, then the deputy leader of SCIRI, demanded on April 23, 2003 that the US leave, stating that "The American presence is unacceptable and there's no justification for it staying in Iraq."

Nearly two years later, and following the assassination of Abdel Aziz al-Hakim's elder brother, Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim in August 2003, SCIRI's stance is notably different. SCIRI fudged the UIA's electoral platform that called for a negotiated timetable for the US-led coalition to withdraw. One of Hakim's aides, Haitham Al Husseini, told The New York Times on January 2, 2005 that "we all see the necessity of American troops for the time being," a conveniently indefinable length of time."

It is unclear what the writer of the piece makes of this change of heart by the religio-political Shi'a group known as SCIRI. But whatever his own stance, the meaning is surely this: of course those who wanted American troops out two years ago now wnat them to sstay "for the time being." But this has nothing to do with any change of heart about America, or Infidels, or anything else. It only means that the Shi'a are perfectly happy to have the American soldiers risk their lives in maintaining security, even as the Shi'a consolidate their power. And the Sunnis, were they likely to succeed, would do the same. The House of Al-Saud is happy to have Americans nearby, not out of any love for America or Infidels, but in order to be the final guarantee of its own security. That's it.

Quaere: why should, under those circumstances, when staying will cost more in men, materiel, money, and morale, and not lead to any lessening of the power of Islam in any of the countries concerned, Americans remain?

The goals should be these:

1) preventing any Muslim state from acquiring major weaponry or tying it in knots if it has already acquired such weaponry

2)educating a sufficient number of Infidels in Europe and America about the theory and practice of Islam, so that they, in turn, will demand:

a) an end to Muslim immigration

b) an end to Saudi money being used to pay for mosques and madrasas and Islamic propaganda in the countries of the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels

c) the creation of conditions that will make it harder for Muslim Believers to settle in permanently, and to prosper, and to extend the tentacles of Da'wa through the prisons, schools, wherever concentrations of the alienated, or disaffected, or gullible are to be found.

3. Diminishing the unearned and unmerited OPEC oil wealth, by increasing taxes on gasoline, subsidizing mass transportation, and subdizing solar, nuclear, wind and other sources of energy. The Manhattan Project did not rely on the free market, but on the government. When the nature of the war now underway is better understood, it will be easier to convince our heedless leaders that the "Free Market" simply cannot alone deal with the problem of OPEC oil revenues as the "wealth" weapon for the Jihad.

The public should be made constantly aware that a certain percentage of every dollar spent on oil is a Jihad-tax, used to make the lives of Infidels more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous.

4. Increasing understatnding about the political, economic, intellectual and social failures of Islam. In politics, the natural bent toward despotism. In economics, the natural bent toward reliance on the "jizyah" of foreign aid and Western technology, medical care, education, or as in Iraq, of "reconstruction," and inshallah-fatalism (Allah provides the oil he oil, or something else) which limits the development of economic activity; in intellecutal life, the mind-forged manacles of Islam, which limits artistic expression and inhibits, and has done so for at least a thousand years, free and sketpical inquiry without which almost nothing is possible. And in asking pointedly to Islam "what have you done for me lately" one can remind everyone that the handful of names constantly repeated (Averroes, Avicenna, Al-Farabi, Ar-Razi, etc.) were all from a time when large Christian and Jewish and other non-Muslim populations were significant, still able to fructify a handful of "Muslim" thinkers and scientists who, while they would have been punished or silenced for their heterodoxy once the "gates of ijtihad" had swung shut, were in the first 200-300 years following the initial Islamic conquest to produce before the veil of mental darkness descended completely, and all was Islam, and only Islam.

KJ,

Since you use a fake email address I cannot email you privately.

Tone down the personal attacks, insults, and foul language (not all of which is evident in this post, but others have been brought to my attention) or I will ban you.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I'm still waiting to hear Mr. kerry's ideas kj. Where are they? What would he have done differently? Why isn't he suggesting these things to the President? Why is there no effort from the millions of MoveOn people to bring these alternatives to the attention of the government, the people, or the media (whom would be more than pleased to report any alternative thinking on the subject).

Not even kerry's website has any proposals listed on it.

Would you rather Saddam was still skimming billions off the UN oil-for-food scandal, while thousands of Iraqi childgren starved. Or that Khadaffi had not turned over (at least part) of his work towards nuclear capability. Or that the Iranians are so desperate to achieve nuclear ability that they are going to find themselves in another revolution. Or that there were NO pressure at all on Syria at this point, to even consider pulling back their troops.
Or are all of these situations a lie?

Mr. Spencer has a much deeper view of these things than either of us. But I don't hear your side offering anything to be done differently. I'm not talking energy policy, I am talking Foreign policy. We should at the very least be hearing complaints from the Democrats that their efforts to advise the President are being rebuffed, where are they?

And by the way, my apologies for yesterday's explosion of language on my part.

"Arabs voted not for liberals but for Islamists"

Duh. What did we expect? Lets topple Saddam so the people can vote in an islamist regime. Great plan...

Before I get flamed and accused of being a Kerry supporter (which I am not), in my opinion the Bush administration seems to be absolutely clueless when it comes to dealing with Iraq, the Middle East, and islam in general.

What should be done different? The obvious thing would be the isolation and economic asphixiation of the islamic world that Hugh suggests. Until I see Western policy along those lines, I have little faith that the threat from islam is being addressed appropriately.

Hugh, great piece on strategy, I could not agree more. That is what we need to do, there is no other way.

'The obvious thing would be the isolation and economic asphixiation of the islamic world that Hugh suggests.'

Gladly. Lets do it. All we need is the EU, the UN, Russia, China, et al to sign on.
Yes, I am being pessimistic here. If the US could do it unilaterally, fine. To even get the EU or UN to agree there Is a problem with islam would take years if not decades. Witness the attempt to take Hezbollah off the terrorist list.

It will take a Major disaster or war to get the ball rolling. If we can do it thru grassroots organizations, that would save a lot of grief- but the next generation at least is going to have to keep watch. Asphixation of an entire subset of civilization (however one views that subset, or even considers it part of civilization) will take decades, while other groups/nations race to protect it in the name of 'diversity.' Or cut deals with it to protect their own interests (or hides, in the case of European countries already well down the road to becoming Eurabia).

This comment/question is probably more suited to the dhimmi site but I will post it here since the topic is the elections in Iraq. Two days ago the Washington Post had a small article about a petition signed by 7,000 Iraqi Christians in California to nominate Ayatollah al-Sistani for a Nobel Peace Prize for his positive role in the elections. This is the same fundamentalist who would not even meet with the US officials because he did not want to be defiled by the unclean infidels. It has been open season on Christians, Mandaeans and other minorities in Shiite-dominated areas in the past year. I do not understand the American-Iraqi Christians; they should know better and keep in closer touch with their cousins who have to live in Iraq.

I have great respect and admiration for Mr. Spencer and have no doubt that his comments on various aspects and sects of Islam and Islamic tradition are accurate.
And, in the case of Iraq I am not clear what we could be doing differently that would be a better alternative that what we are doing currently.
Although I agree with Mr. Spencer that Bush's comments about Islam being a "religion of peace" are probably misplaced, if Bush said differently wouldn't this erode what remaining little Muslim support we have and make it more difficult to prosecute the war on terror?
And if we retreated from Iraq now, wouldn't this be a victory for jihadists?
It sounds to me that what Mr. Spencer thinks might be necessary to significantly erode jihad ideology and terrorism involves no less than a major Martin Luther type reform of Islam itself. If this is the case, I'd like to know what Mr. Spencer believes we should or can do as a nation or individually to achieve this rather ambitious objective. And that is basically my question to Mr. Spencer, what should we be doing as a nation or individually to try to undercut and diminish jihad ideology? Undercutting such ideology seems like a monumental undertaking, especially given the PC "multiculturalism" that prevails in many quarters which views any criticism of aspects or sects of Islam as "hate speech" or examples of "Islamophobia".

...and before I go to do my taxes, I would like to add:

http://www.co-jet.org/

This is one grass-roots organization that is already off and running. Everyone pile in!

To go with Shangalla's last post:

Hindu Kush:
http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Feb_1/msg00089.html

It is not incumbent upon John Kerry or myself to do anything. It's up to Dhimbya to do something RIGHT. But since you asked, how about if we focus on getting Bin Laden (you may remember him)?

How about if we focus on cutting off Saudi Arabia and getting our oil from Russia, Venezuela, etc? Oh wait... we can't do business with Venezuela, Saudi is much preferable.

How about if we focus on the growing militant movement in Indonesia?

How about if we focus on the separatist civilian/tourist killers of the Philippines?

How about if we focus on stopping the jihad-genocide in Sudan?

General Clark had an idea: form a joint Special Operations unit with Americans and Saudis, AND MAKE SAUDI FUND IT, that would go after Bin Laden and the other Saudis that start terror all over the world.

But unfortunately it makes some small demands on the precious Saudis. They can't be bothered with their more important missions, like destroying Israel and America, so the idea is no longer even being considered.

*************************************************

Thanks for the warning, Mr. Spencer. I thought that I was only answering in kind. Would it make any difference if I start bringing the insults, personal attacks, and foul language of others to your attention?

Well as you can see Gary, from now on you can walk all over me and I will have to restrain myself as best as I can.

I can only promise to do the best that I can. Maybe if I hurt anyone's feeeelings (Glenn Beck sneer) we could all meet up again at the co-jet.

Perchance at some future time the same standards will be applied to all of us. Until then, every post could be my last.

KJ

LLLL

PS... Mr.Spencer, you know that I am a sincere reader and admiring fan. You know that I am serious about jihad/shariah exposure and awareness. The email address I provided when I registered as a commenter wasn't fake at the time that I provided it. I have switch ISPs since then. And given the jihadi tendency to study computers and hack sites, and maybe even to murder dissenters they meet online, I switch again soon, and every so often thereafter.

It is not incumbent upon John Kerry or myself to do anything. It's up to Dhimbya to do something RIGHT. But since you asked, how about if we focus on getting Bin Laden (you may remember him)?

How about if we focus on cutting off Saudi Arabia and getting our oil from Russia, Venezuela, etc? Oh wait... we can't do business with Venezuela, Saudi is much preferable.

How about if we focus on the growing militant movement in Indonesia?

How about if we focus on the separatist civilian/tourist killers of the Philippines?

How about if we focus on stopping the jihad-genocide in Sudan?

General Clark had an idea: form a joint Special Operations unit with Americans and Saudis, AND MAKE SAUDI FUND IT, that would go after Bin Laden and the other Saudis that start terror all over the world.

But unfortunately it makes some small demands on the precious Saudis. They can't be bothered with their more important missions, like destroying Israel and America, so the idea is no longer even being considered.

*************************************************

Thanks for the warning, Mr. Spencer. I thought that I was only answering in kind. Would it make any difference if I start bringing the insults, personal attacks, and foul language of others to your attention?

Well as you can see Gary, from now on you can walk all over me and I will have to restrain myself as best as I can.

I can only promise to do the best that I can. Maybe if I hurt anyone's feeeelings (Glenn Beck sneer) we could all meet up again at the co-jet.

Perchance at some future time the same standards will be applied to all of us. Until then, every post could be my last.

KJ

LLLL

PS... Mr.Spencer, you know that I am a sincere reader and admiring fan. You know that I am serious about jihad/shariah exposure and awareness. The email address I provided when I registered as a commenter wasn't fake at the time that I provided it. I have switch ISPs since then. And given the jihadi tendency to study computers and hack sites, and maybe even to murder dissenters they meet online, I switch again soon, and every so often thereafter.

'It is not incumbent upon John Kerry or myself to do anything.'~kj

Yes, we've noticed.

The US is not in Iraq to construct a perfect democracy nor to impose an American political template. Democracy, unlike dictatorship, has no single mold. Instead, it comes in more than 57 varieties with hundreds of potential electoral systems.

Only time will tell if Mohammadanism and democracy will coexist in peace, and not degrade into a massive power struggle among the different Islamic terrorist groups.

Keith:

"Thanks for the warning, Mr. Spencer. I thought that I was only answering in kind. Would it make any difference if I start bringing the insults, personal attacks, and foul language of others to your attention?"

Yes, thanks. Please do. I'll warn them too.

"Well as you can see Gary, from now on you can walk all over me and I will have to restrain myself as best as I can."

In fact, this is false.

"Perchance at some future time the same standards will be applied to all of us. Until then, every post could be my last."

If you keep assuming that I will not apply standards equally, it may well be.

"The email address I provided when I registered as a commenter wasn't fake at the time that I provided it."

Please email me with your real address, and I will send future messages there.

RS

According Amir Taheri, who understands the Islamic world as well as anyone on this site and beyond (and most importantly, he is on our side) the concerns over Ibrahim Ja'afari’s ties to Iran are greatly exaggerated.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/12534

That being said, any Westerner who fully trusts the newly-elected Iraqi government is a fool. Daniel Pipes said that a democratically-minded strongman was what Iraq needed, but what Pipes failed to take into account was the impossibility of our making this happen.

I doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there is NO WAY that ANY government installed by the U.S. or U.N. stood a chance once U.S. troops left Iraq. In effect, the Iraq elections were central to America’s exit strategy, even if they didn’t give freedom-loving civilized people the outcome they had in mind.

For a change, we must allow the Arabs to make mistakes they can no longer blame on Jews and Uncle Sam. Let them get a taste of what it is to control their own fate, even if the "Islamic learning curve" is more often than not, an oxymoron. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The best we can do is pressure the new Iraqi parliament to respect individual rights, lest they want to promote our withdrawal before the Iraqi army is able to stand on its own.

On the energy front, few things would make me happier than to see Saudi Arabia sink into the obscure poverty, but like it or not, access to cheap oil will still play a huge role in world affairs for at least another decade or two because no form of alternative energy comes even close to fossil fuels with regards to adaptability, convenience, and cost-effectiveness.

The biggest problem with using a punitive oil tax in order to fund a massive alternative energy project is that it will ruin the U.S. economy. After all, given that modestly high energy prices (of only a few cents per gallon) are hurting America’s economic recovery, imagine that havoc that would be created by a $1 per gallon federal tax on gasoline. Imagine what it would do for our trade deficit with China, a country that doesn’t give a rat’s ass what Saudi Arabia is funding with its petrodollars.

Taking all these factors into account, here is my proposal for raising money for alternative energy strategies while bringing Saudi Arabia to its knees:

1) A punitive luxury tax on oversized cars that are used for purposes other than work-related off road driving.

2) A punitive luxury tax on all recreation related boats and planes.

3) A massive add campaign to encourage Americans to used public transportation and save gasoline. Even as the price of gasoline gets lower, Americans must always be made to remember that wasting energy is unpatriotic.

4) Zoning laws that encourage businesses and shops to move to residential areas and discourage urban sprawl.

5) Most importantly, any new technology for extracting oil must be regarded as a strategic asset that CANNOT BE SHARED WITH ISLAMIST NATIONS. In this way, oil sold from friendly nations, that have access to the new technology, might be more compete more effectively with oil sold from the Persian Gulf.

5) Most importantly, any new technology for extracting oil must be regarded as a strategic asset that CANNOT BE SHARED WITH ISLAMIST NATIONS. In this way, oil sold from friendly nations, that have access to the new technology, might be more compete more effectively with oil sold from the Persian Gulf.~ Rublev

Yes:
1. Canadian Oil Sands.
2. ANWAR. The 2004 projection for ANWAR is approximately 10 years' use, reducing US overseas oil consumption by 8%. Yes I know, that is not much, but if strictly applied it could reduce use of Saudi oil to the US by 25%- which probably won't hurt them much anyway, but if we had it open, we at least have a huge backup to the Strategic sites.

3. I think in the long run it will prove out that individual families and/or small communities using solar and wind, will be more economic than wind farms covering thousands if not millions of acres, which would also threaten migratory birds...

To the best of my knowledge (and I am a scientist), Oil drilling in ANWAR will affect little more than the ecology of ANWAR. ANWAR isn't a "huge repository" of important species (species diversity is actually quite low in polar regions), it isn't the "lungs of the world," in effect, it isn't the Amazon rainforest, whose destruction would have much more global reprecussions. Furthermore, U.S. standards for oil drilling are way above some of the stunts they pull in developing countries.

I say go for it.