In his new book, Paul L. Williams argues that President Bush’s “War on Terror” is in fact a misnomer, that these Islamic terrorists represent the mainstream belief system of the Arabian peninsula, Wahhabism, and that “The Declaration of Jihad Against Jews and Christians,” of February 28, 1998 was signed not only by Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden but also by nearly every terrorist group from Egypt to the Philippines. A review of The Dunces of Doomsday.
The Dunces of Doomsday
By Paul L. Williams
Published by Cumberland House Publishing, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee, 2006
Bibliographical references, index, Ppbk
ISBN: 978-1-58182-529-9
"GOOD MORNING AMERICA, HOW ARE YOU?"
From the “City of New Orleans,” performed by Arlo Guthrie
Author Paul Williams, in his latest offering, The Dunces of Doomsday, takes to task every president since Jimmy Carter for their failure to address what has been a growing problem in our affairs with Islam. As Americans of every stripe now know, that “growing problem” has led to war, though we sense that it is a war, with the obvious exception of the 9/11 massacres, where death and destruction is taking place far away in Iraq and Afghanistan. Williams proffers the scenario that the home front may soon become the front, that our enemies are more than capable of winning, and that in the not too distant future America may be generating the Gross National Product of, say, Nigeria.
This is not a book that will delight the Bush Administration, their neocon supporters, or those heroic troops who are doing the heavy lifting because the most significant “blunder” (the author separates his book by “blunders” rather than chapters) is President Bush’s failure to define the enemy. Williams argues that President Bush’s “War on Terror” is in fact a misnomer, that these Islamic terrorists represent the mainstream belief system of the Arabian peninsula, Wahhabism, and that “The Declaration of Jihad Against Jews and Christians,” of February 28, 1998 was signed not only by Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden but also by nearly every terrorist group from Egypt to the Philippines.
Williams identifies the enemy as Islam, a religion boasting 1.4 billion adherents, with an army of “untold millions” that has “threatened Western civilization for fourteen hundred years.” Islam has “amassed nuclear weapons” and seeks parity with the death of four million Americans — “two million of whom must be children.” Islam, Williams notes, has defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Somalia and Lebanon.
The author provides an overview of the life of Mohammad — who did not practice the dictums of Buddha or Christ — and a critique of Islam as a “religion of peace.” This chapter alone is worth the price of the book and should dispel any notion on the part of readers that Islam is not lusting for war, that we are not prepared to properly respond to this very real threat, and if we continue to act in a pusillanimous fashion we may find ourselves living under Sharia law.
Williams’ analytical and historical reviews of the actions of the Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations will make you wonder where we get our “best and brightest” to operate the levers of government. From the born-again Jimmy Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran, to Reagan’s zany Bud McFarlane and his “crazy proposal,” to G.H.W. Bush’s establishment of American military bases in the “land of the two holy cities (Saudi Arabia),” to Bubba Clinton’s preoccupation with his sex life while sending arms to Albanian Muslims, to the current president’s moral failure to declare the religion of Islam the real enemy of America, the American people have been ill used by their leaders.
Williams tells us that when the United States invaded Iraq a leading Islamic cleric on behalf of the Wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa granting permission for Al Qaeda to nuke American cities. Osama bin Laden has targeted six American cities for a simultaneous nuclear holocaust. If he is even half successful the United States will be brought to her knees. Yet, the Bush Administration is focused on “bringing democracy to the Middle-East,” an action reminiscent of Woodrow Wilson’s myopic and meddlesome efforts to involve America in Europe’s problems. Our borders are open doors to terrorists while thousands of American Muslims either support Jihad or are waiting for a more propitious time, yet the FBI and Homeland Security refuses to utilize “racial profiling” to secure the country for fear of offending the “politically correct” leftists.
In two years the Democrats will probably gain the White House, if not the Congress. Unfortunately, the Democrats are even more inept, dishonest, and weak willed than the neocons. Paul Williams has written a chilling book that challenges the manipulated information provided by the major media. It is a reasoned, honest, and well-sourced assessment of what may be coming and I do hope he is wrong!
The Dunces of Doomsday is available on Amazon.com.
robertcheeks@core.com
Read more articles by Bob Cheeks
Very soon after the Islamic Terrorists killed over 3000 of our citizens in cold blood, even the lefty dunces understood that we had to do something about it. However, over time, conservative weasels and liberal diehards have nudged American back to indifference again. I, for one, am not going down without a fight. My country, my family and my way of life are at stake.
Comment by CoffeePot | June 9, 2006
This is why I hope we never catch Bin Laden. If we do, the Dems will declare that the terrorist threat is over and we don't have to worry about it anymore. Hell, they're already starting to say that now that we got Abu (Boom-boom) Zarqawi.
The problem with libs is that they just can't understand that these people don't want to negotiate and don't want concessions. They want us as slaves or dead. It's just not an idea a liberal can wrap his or her brain around for some reason. They feel that if we just say the right words or stop offending them that the muslims will just leave us alone.
What's ironic is that libs can see a threat in Christianity (which isn't threatening them) but can't see a threat with Islam. It would be funny if our lives weren't at stake.
The Roman Empire fell partly because of barbarians at the gate (and lots of inner turmoil). I wonder if the muslims are our barbarians at the gate?
Comment by Ron S. | June 10, 2006
At times it is not appropriate to use a broad brush. In this case however
an extra wide roller would be a good choice. When Bush said he would
treat any nation that supports terrorist as terrorist I was thinking that we
were now entering WWIII. I thought that if we had the war now most
people on the planet would survive because it would be so one sided. I
see now that Bush said one thing and is doing something else. Allowing
our enemy to arm is nuts and will lead to a massive correction in the not
to distant future. I was born in 1952 and have enjoyed a good life. I feel
bad about the young people today and how we are allowing the world to
become evil.
Comment by Frank Baginski | June 10, 2006
When will Islam undergo a reformation? How do you reconcile the murderous commands of Mohammed with the desire of reasonable people to live peaceful lives? Unless Muslims face these inconsistencies in their theology squarely, free peoples will always be forced to choose between war or capitulation, creation or destruction, freedom or slavery to Allah. It's all there in the book.
Comment by Andy Gardner | June 10, 2006
Bob Cheeks and I share a lot of opinions in common, but in this case I have to disagree. I agree we are missing opportunities and I agree that the problem is more than a few Muslims who are distorting the message of the Koran. Islam is the philosophical opposite of freedom, and that has kept it on a collision course for centuries. I also agree Bush is misinterpreting the message and implications of Islam (possibly a deliberate and useful misconstruction). However, the solution being recommended is an all out war on 1.4 billion Muslims, and with that I cannot agree.
Never has this country been about warring against a people, but rather against the imposition of disruptive objectives. Therein lays the key to our repeated success and future victory. In our fights over freedom, union, slavery, fascism, and communism, we have prevailed because we had the support, involvement, or neutrality of other countries, factions, or peoples who might otherwise come into the fight against us. We have also the support of our own people, without whom we cannot even put up a fight. By making the fight one of ideals and shared goals, and forcing the enemy onto the low moral ground while we take the heights, we alienate the enemy from his natural allies. In the present context, those 1.4 billion have far more reason to side with brother Muslims than with us. Only by persuading them Al Qaeda does not represent them nor share the same goals, do we keep them out of this particular fight.
We are in a fight on two levels. Ideological, it would greatly simplify and clarify matters enormously to lump Al Qaeda and Islam in the same basket; and there is much justification for doing so. However, this neither serves our purpose, nor does it give those Muslims sitting on the sidelines much of an option to come in with us. Without at least the attempt to limit the scope of war, our objects, rather than defining the high ground, have little more force than those we mean to defeat.
We have an opportunity, not only to defeat active Islamic terrorists, but also to shift Islam out of its historic channel of conversion and dominance through violence. Muslims, themselves, have for centuries been seeking a formula by which to alter the basic thrust of Islam created by the dual messages of its prophet, concomitantly to peace and war. So far, Muslims have tried reconciling Islam’s violent origins and exegesis with its counterfeit of peace (peace only for those who submit) by creating various alternate definitions of jihad; including morphing jihad into an internal spiritual conflict. These attempts have, so far, fractured without fragmenting the monolithic façade of Islam; yet Islam is ready to undergo a fragmentation in much the same way Christianity split in the 15th and 16th centuries. It would be better were Islam to change en mass, but that would require a wholesale repudiation of Islam’s mixed messages, even in those countries that depend on those messages for their dominance within the Muslim hierarchy. It may turn out the Wahabis and terrorists have provided an opportunity to cause their own undoing through our reactions triggering an Islamic catharsis.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a laboratory for effecting such a transformation. Here, we have implanted the seeds of an alternate philosophy, one that frees Muslims from the submission their religion demands of them. What they know of Western style democracy, heretofore, is merely a mechanistic approximation to it; with some of its forms but none of its substance. Through direct contact with American soldiers and civilians we are demonstrating our way of life is not the enemy of theirs, but its complement. We are providing the stability and choices their rulers have denied were even possible. As Muslims learn to play nice with others, they find greater commonality, inclusion, and respect. If not, they find themselves isolated and chastised. In the case of Iraq, our message has been well received by millions of Muslims who see us more as liberator than enemy; despite the frequent assertions by Al Qaeda that Iraqis are more with them. It is also finding acceptance outside of Iraq in countries that have long held there is no trusting anyone or any country that is not of their brotherhood. There is still a lot of suspicion, propaganda, and hate-tinged sophistry, but there is less of it and there is an acknowledgment that a head on collision with the West will not fix the fundamental situation of Islam’s place.
By discrediting the concept of forced submission to Islam, we can persuade Muslims to clean their own house. The alternative is to slaughter the greater part of 1.4 billion living beings to make the world safe for the remaining five billion. As gratifying as that may seem to our sense of justice, it is not what we are about and is less than we are capable. We have beaten worse foes in the past against greater odds. More significantly, we have defeated the ideas fueling their war-making.
All wars start with certain presumptions on each side. The impacts of war force each of us to reexamine our assumptions; keeping those that are valid and discarding those which prove false or the manipulations of some few upon the many. Al Qaeda launched this war presuming their fellow Muslims would rise up en mass at their call. Some have, but most are maintaining a wait-and-see posture. Al Qaeda has made it easy for us to show how baldly they lied and manipulated their brethren. That makes this contest ours to lose through treating all Muslims the same. All Muslims are complicit in the spread and defense of a pernicious doctrine, but they are not equally guilty of having acted on those beliefs. This must be the dividing line we draw between those we mean to make war on and those we do not. It does not absolve those who have shared in creating the environment of violence, but it does give them an opportunity to withdraw from it.
Comment by Bob Stapler | June 13, 2006
However much I disagree with many of Islam's beliefs and aims, it ought to be pointed
out that as a matter of historical fact, people calling themselves Christians have killed
vastly greater numbers of humans in history than have Muslims. September 11th was an
act of the lowest evil, but so was the assault by Christian Europeans on the natives of
the Americas. Point is, humans kill humans. Muslims aren't the worst we've seen. Wipe
out Wahhabism, and then get the other groups that make this world a mess.
Comment by Mark Otshine | June 19, 2006
There are many documented cases of genocide committed by the Islamists in their unrelenting march to world domination since the time of Mohammed. Here are just a few instances:
Turkish Muslims slaughtered over a million Christian Armenians in the early 20th century. Armenians lived in eastern Turkey for about 2000 years, most of them Christian. There were over 1 million there in 1914, but 10 years later were almost all slaughtered by Ottoman Turks (Muslims).
Genocide of the Hindus by Muslims is well documented:
Will Durant wrote in the book “The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage”,
"…the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.
Professor K.S. Lal's "Growth of Muslim population in India", wrote that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 8O million between the year 1000 and 1525, which was probably the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.
Several agencies indicate that the brutal Pakistani army (Muslim) repression killed 3 million Bengalis.
Arabian Islamists are committing genocide against African Muslims murdering more than 450,000 during the last three years.
Comment by Jerry Blackerby | June 20, 2006
Europe is a lost cause. The left controls the MSM and love the Muslims. ALL our politicians believe the problem is a few 'hijackers' of Islam. This is absurd. The 'hijackers' are following true Islam. Islam has been this way for 14 centuries. Murdering millions - ask the Hindus. There is no moderate Islam and no moderate Muslim. There are 'bad' Muslims who ignore the bad part of Islam but there are no moderate Muslims. There is no such thing. Those 'moderate Muslims' or pretend 'moderate Muslims' are leaders seek out are frauds, taqiyyamasters deceiving the stupid infidels. Quite a game and they are winning because we are so PC we can't name the enemy.
Comment by John Sobieski | June 20, 2006
First, regarding Frank's comment, I think a steam roller, as opposed to a paint roller would be a more effective tool.
Second, the dunce line up goes back to LBJ and Nixon with their lack of response to Arafat's aircraft highjackings that included American citizens. These clowns did nothing. Everyone since LBJ has rolled over and played dead like a pet dog to the Middle East Oil Sheiks.
Third, I am not an FDR Democrat, but at least that guy knew how to fight a war. FDR told people to forget the spending and vacations so our troops would have tires and gas. Bush II says go to the mall and of course, take that vacation, have a good time despite the fact that 3,ooo Americans were just murdered.
We need to face the fact that while we have not had a serious attack since 9/11, we are in a deadlock right now with the Islamofascists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our backdoor (the borders and ports) are essentially left open, and we are at serious risk for some serious attacks here. Most of our political "leaders" from the local to the national level need to wake up and take some action, need to forget the PC stuff, and everyone, including the the average citizen needs to get on the same wavelength as we did in WWII.
I have lived in that part of the world and like the Arab people. However, I think that Islam is leading Muslims in general to a path of destruction. That is my opinion, and I think history shows how Islam attacks everyone, even its own, until stopped by great force.
Comment by Another Frank | June 20, 2006
My country is being invaded. We are letting in foreigners who don't care about our constitution. Our values. Our culture. They want our possessions, our status and our power. The immigration system is a joke - and has never been properly enforced. Now it has been infiltrated. Our gvt is selling our country out to greed - greedy thrid world countries, greedy corporate America and even small business - all the businesses in my neighborhood are owned by foreigners and they employ foreigners - many MANY of them are illegal aliens. I don't EVEN HAVE THE CHOICE TO DO BUSINESS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH FELLOW AMERICANS ANYMORE. THERE ARE NONE.
I am getting ready for the Revolution. The Revolution is inevitable. Inevitable because I know America must survive - our culture, our country - and Revolution is the only way the American people can save themselves now. No one in the world is going to save the American people. Not even our gvt. It is the only choice we can make now.
Comment by Jill Michelle Miller | June 22, 2006
Jerry Blackerby has a far better handle on the death toll attributable to various ethnic and religious groups. The Romans, the Greeks, the Mongols, the Goths, Visigoths, and Ostragoths were not Christians either.
The Nazis were not Christians and the U.S.S.R. and the Khmer Rouge were not. The P.R.C., for the time being, is not. These were the world class killers. Christians did kill each other en masse in WWI but not because of some command inherent in Christian doctrine. But the Soviets, Chinese, and KRs killed because of doctrines inherent to their beliefs.
Maybe a tiny bunch of Spanish freebooters like Pizarro can be said to have been personal representatives of the Pope and all Christendom, for whose deeds Christians through all time must be penitent. I'd put my money on Spanish troops having a romp through South and Central America without anyone nearby to put the brakes on. Boys will be boys when they've got swords and it's a two-month journey back to the nearest CNN reporter.
Not to mention the issue of human sacrifice in local culture. We can talk relative merit here for just a bit, can't we?
Alos, for what it's worth, Wikipedia states as follows:
"The [European] diseases usually preceded [!!] the Spanish invaders, and the resulting population loss (between 30 and 90 percent in some cases) severely weakened the native civilizations' ability to resist the invaders."
Christian microbes perhaps?
Not quite the picture that Mr. Otshine wants to paint. Mounted conquistadors skewering Incas from dawn to dusk appears to be what he'd have us believe about Christians in America.
Did a lot of Previously Arriving Americans get killed after Europeans landed in N. American? You bet. Did lots of the PAAs kill each other off and enslave each other before and after that arrival? You bet. Was this the first time in human history that a more powerful invader killed weaker foes and took their land? No.
But, again it was not as a manifestation of Christian doctrine that this happened. If anything, it was despite it. The Quakers were much persecuted in Tidewater Virginia in Colonial times but they were a valued buffer in the Shenandoah Valley where they were respected by the PAAs for their fair dealings, including paying real value for what they purchased from them.
Mr. Otshine, you will have to do a better job of making your case for the perfidious, murderous Christians.
Jill Miller, I share your thoughts down to the last period.
The challenge of Islam is unique because it is so uniquely Islamic. National Socialism was a similarly debased doctrine with an inbuilt drive to commit foul and uncivilized crimes. The object of the exterminating or dominating urge is just different with Muslims and Nazis, who were highly influential among Arabs we hasten to point out.
We have made the fatal mistake of allowing Muslims into our midst in unacceptable numbers, with the willy nilly offer of the option of permanent residence, and without sufficient preconditions.
A Canadian author noted about Canada's own removal of its Japanese citizens from the coast during WWII that it was unfortunate for the persons so affected, but at least they did not have to endure a bayonet in the gut that many whites did when the Japanese invaded Singapore.
I have not a moment's doubt that what Muslims have in store for us is much worse than bayonets. They contemplate a most humiliating and terrific takeover and the imposition of all the gross ignorance that is part and parcel of Islamic pre-scientific, tribal thinking. American and Europe will slide into an awful and decadent future under Muslim rule. If you don't believe me, bear in mind that the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa in 1966 that the earth is flat!
I kid you not.
The search for the moderate Muslim is pathetically hopeless and I am sure Mr. John Sobieski will agree with that. It is an IMPOSSIBLE task to sort out who are the safe Muslims and who the dangerous ones.
We will only be protected if we establish a presumption that Islam is a mortal threat to the West and impose the duty upon individual Muslims the responsibility of proving that they wish to assimilate, they will not agitate for imposition of the sharia, and that they abjure as corrupt and demonic the Koranic concept that there can be death for apostasy.
Why should we pretend to respect any religion that believes that a believer can be murdered under religious law for apostasy (aka blasphemy, polytheism, secularism, modernism, anti-clericalism, equality of the sexes, non-Koranic education, independent thinking, etc.)? In this an a host of other particulars it is contemptible and politicians and judges who pretend that Islam is on a par even with The Church of What's Happening Now do us a monumental disservice.
Comment by Col. Bunny | June 22, 2006