View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by David Yerushalmi |
August 4th, 2006
Why is it that the West seeks appeasement with Islam when it is so clear that Islam has never sought co-existence with the West?
Islam seeks our destruction. No honest observer of this World State ideology could possibly marshal enough facts to deny this singular fact. To an untrained observer, it would then come as a bit of a surprise that most in the West are not prepared to name and fight this threat. Even after the relatively recent lessons learned in Europe in the first half of the last century, and the disastrous consequences of our capitulation to the Soviet threat at the end of the Second World War, one must wonder how it is that the West, and especially the Bush administration, refuse to confront this threat in any serious way. Put differently, why is it that the West seeks appeasement with Islam when it is so clear that Islam has never sought co-existence with the West?
There are two appeasement camps in America and the West today. The largest camp in the West by far is the active appeasement crowd, or what many call liberals. Because liberals (this includes libertarians) have such an aversion to national existence and peoplehood (see here, here, and here for a more detailed explanation), the failure to confront challenges to national existence is not hard to understand. Liberals seek a World State democracy, notwithstanding that few are honest enough, or have the intellectual integrity, to admit it. They cannot justify a People superior to “others” that should garner a man’s loyalty or sacrifice. Liberty, human rights, civil rights, women’s rights, homosexual rights, native Indians’ rights, native Hawaiians’ rights, immigrants’ rights – legal and illegal, disabled rights, childrens’ rights, right to choose, right to die, and so goes the ever growing list of UNIVERSAL rights. These rights are simply superior to national existence and peoplehood. This is how the Supreme Court could rule in Hamdan that terrorists who actively seek our destruction and who abide by no rule of law should be afforded the universal rule of law.
In this view, Man is not a soulful being tied to his family, his People, G-d, and world through meaning and purpose; rather, he is a material thing, measured by science, and demanding his heart’s desires all spelled out as rights. All of these rights collectively are the juridical approach to guaranteeing the absolute uncertainty of all opinion. The perfect democracy. In such an Open Society, multiculturalism is not a result of “pluralism” or freedom, it is a sine qua non for the existence of pluralism and freedom. In other words, democracy is the political expression of the collapse of political order into Uncertainty by virtue of the philosophical understanding of human existence as either scientific (i.e., certain) or mere opinion (i.e., uncertain). As such, democracy demands that man as political being not make political distinctions certain. If I have no certainty about my People as superior to others, or my national existence as inviolate, then invariably I will actively seek an appeasement of those who would claim otherwise and I will attempt to internationalize and democratize the conflict by garnering the support of the World State in making – the “international community” or “world opinion.”
The moment you begin to speak of a People, of citizens and their privileges and immunities apart from “others,” of nations one against another, you have violated the preeminent rule that these are all just unaccounted for opinions, which can only be subject to the method of democracy. Since truth is not certain except in method or due process as the lawyers speak of it, then the greatest truth is a World State democracy. Fighting for and defending America’s national existence is unjustifiable. Indeed, as we hear from the Elites, it is wrong, if not criminal (i.e., violates “international law”).
Conservatives, as the second appeasement camp, are only marginally better equipped to defend national existence, which is to say that practically they are failing miserably. Because they too buy into the science-democracy obversion, they are not prepared to demand absolute allegiance to national existence and Peoplehood (see, e.g., here). Instead, they speak of national existence and Peoplehood as if they were opposing opinions or ideologies to throw into the democratic mix. They battle other “opinions” through the vote and on radio and television talk shows and insist that the politics as usual approach is the way to defeat “bad” opinions. In their gut, most conservatives know that something is very wrong with this approach. They understand that just like Hamas’ electoral victory in Gaza, if the Liberals win at the polls or even among the nine Supreme Court justices, they must concede to the truth of the democratic method. We saw this in the president’s wholesale capitulation to the most unconstitutional usurpation of power in the recent Hamdan decision. Instead of declaring that the opinion was illegal and without precedent, the Bush administration announced that terrorists would now be governed by the Geneva Conventions, a policy that no rational man could or should defend.
Similarly, instead of declaring a war against Islam, conservatives define the war exactly as the Liberals — as a war against Terror, as if there is some “terror” ideology separate from Islam threatening the West. There is none. Even if you add up all of the non-Islamic terrorist cells that actually threaten the West, you’d have possibly 1,000 individuals making up little cells wholly unrelated one to the other with little ability to recruit new members. Islam is quite another thing. Here you have the world’s second largest religion, which has never had a peaceful existence unless it was itself conquered and subjugated or it had acquired an empire to rule over tyrannically where non-Muslims existed as subjugated infidels. In Islam you have one billion Muslims acting as a reservoir with the pumps of Jihad and the hatred of the West operating quite efficiently. In Islam you have the sovereign and oil-rich nation of Iran directing an international war against the West on several fronts. We can add to that list the Sudan, and the collective majority of Muslims that live in such countries as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Saudi Arabia. And, lest we forget the latest polling data, a sizable percentage of those westernized Muslims enjoying the benefits of living in countries like England and Canada. And, because conservatives are as beset by and beholden to the uncertainty of democracy as liberals, they are incapable of condemning Islam and targeting its adherents as the enemy.
There are of course those conservatives who recognize that Islam is not a “religion” in the Western tradition but rather a license to murder by the wretched of the world. But, they are frightened by a “religious war” against the Muslim Umma. Of course, it is only a religious war because Islam deems it a religious duty to destroy the West. It is hardly a religious war for us. For Americans, it is simply a war of national survival. But when we deny the fundamental threat posed by Islam, we do away with the only weapon we have to defeat the enemy: reality. Reality tells us that Islam is a World State ideology that seeks the destruction of the West and our national existence. Reality tells us that faithful Muslims and even not-so-faithful Muslims support this result. Some support it actively with their bodies; some with money; some with political support; and some passively in their prayers. If you believe polls, this group is somewhere between 35–75% of Muslims worldwide. The nations that house these terrorists and potential terrorists are not a military threat to the U.S. America could use aerial and economic warfare to isolate and marginalize these nations. The approach in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran should not be the establishment of a democracy, but an Ataturk-style military regime that establishes a secular government prepared to keep the peace.
But to do so, we must be prepared to fight a full-scale war against all nations and people who advocate, accommodate, or acquiesce to the Islamic world view. If we take the position, hardly supported by reality, that we cannot win the war against the Muslim Umma, then we have given up before the fact. We will never defeat “radical Islam” without defeating Islam itself because they are one and the same. Trying to defeat the “bad Nazis” or the “bad Bushidos” of Japan would have made the defeat of the Axis powers impossible. There could have been no justification for the mass civilian killings and bombings by the Allied powers if we had taken the “just kill the terrorists and jihadists” approach in that war.
In any war, whether it is against a nation, or a group of nations, or world-wide terrorists linked by a common ideology, the failure to identify the enemy and the failure to prosecute the war fully and unremittingly will always end in defeat.
dyerushalmi@saneworks.us
Visit their website at: http://www.saneworks.us
Responses to "Is the War Against Terror Rational?"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dear Mr. Yerushalmi,
I believe you have hit the nail on the head when you say that we in the West are at war with Islam. Islam never was and never will be a peaceful religion unless it is completely defeated and subjugated, just as the countries of Germany, Japan and their allies were at the end of World War II.
The only thing that concerns me is whether or not we in the West have the collective will to do what needs to be done: namely, to completely defeat and subjugate those Islamic nations that want to see us and Israel destroyed.
Where is our modern day Churchill? I believe we desparately need him today more than ever before!
Sincerely,
Mark Osmond
Newfoundland, Canada
Comment by Mark Osmond | August 4, 2006
Mr. Yerushalmi has 'spoken' the first insightful truth on the war with Islam.
I congratulate him on the excellence of his presentation and willingness to
express his opinion. Like the story of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", he says
with clarity that which no one in the State Department nor any among the Bush
administration is willing to admit. I urge that this be forwarded as 'mandatory reading'
to each policy staff members in the Foggy Bottom (and foggy thinking) Washington,
D.C. area. The mentally blind liberals who crawl in the misty swamp need mental
surgery so that they can recognize the truth. The self-replicating memes that now
infect them make it difficult to change 'business as usual.' What an awkward and
clumsy policy 'goal': "War on Terror." How about war to destroy our opponents and
to WIN! With mutually exclusive goals, if we 'hold and delay' until the Islamic
fundamentalists destroy us, we must lose our lives and our culture.
Thank you, Mr. Yerushalmi, for sharing your insightful presentation. More. Please
write more.
Comment by Brad Veek | August 4, 2006
Right on the mark, what I have been saying but not so very eloquently I admit. I can understand Liberals sucking up to Islam; most liberals are either naive followers, students of artificial academic settings or tyrannical dictators in disguise looking to bring in more slaves to their idiotic thought process. So Islam is an easy sell for them because it plays the victimhood role so well while subjugating women, the weak and non muslim in virtual slavery. It would be almost worth it to see the west taken over by Islam just to see the likes of most liberals subjugated to the very thing they spend their dollars and breath defending while bending over for allah.
The Republicans (notice I don't call them conservatives) on the other hand have no excuses in this role of appeasement. Bush and Co. speak of 'Hezbollah' as if they are some nebulous force from Mars that come and use mind control over the Lebanese when (like everywhere else in the ME) its the Lebanese themselves or the average ME muslim who is committing the terrorism, genocide and subjugation of others. Awesome article, we now need someone who is willing to say these things in the name of the US people because it’s true.
Comment by Dean | August 4, 2006
Dear Mr. Yerushalmi,
Please put on a uniform and get on a plane and start your fighting! Who's stopping you? Please take with you Rush Limbaugh,Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennet, Bill Kristol and all the other paranoid war-mongers who opted out when they had their chance to kill the bad guys. It sure is easy to sit behind your desk and demand others fight to salve your paranioa. You probably supported the war in Iraq because Saddam was such a big threat to our existence also.
Comment by David | August 4, 2006
Please read this urgent appeal from Conservatives and Republicans to all political bloggers in Arizona
http://www.theponderingamerican.blogspot.com/2006/08/urgent-post-to-all-political-arizona.html
Comment by jh | August 4, 2006
In response to the comment made by David on August 4th, 2006
When exactly did you decide that you were going to live your life without logic and reason.
You have not offered any intelligent argument! Just an ad hominem attack. Ah, you
represent the liberal mindset so well.
Comment by Sarah | August 4, 2006
Since David seems to imply that only those who are fighting are entitled to an opinion as to whether we should go to war, perhaps he would favor a military dictorship to run our government. Naahhhh. Sarah was right. He's just a liberal doing what he knows bets: personally attacking those with whom he disagrees.
Comment by M. Ray Johnson | August 5, 2006
David,
You say they should have killed the bad guys when they had a chance,
can you explain to us why it is not ok anymore to kill the bad guys today?
And because you say , in fact you admit , they are bad guys, then you must admit no one is paranoid about them being bad guys… right?
So what has changed?
Why are we suddenly paranoid and see bad guys where there are none, when you yourself have admited they were bad guys?
You admit they are bad guys but accuse us of being paranoid for thinking they are bad guys.
I'll repeat,
You say they should have killed the bad guys when they had a chance,
can you explain to us why it is not ok anymore to kill the bad guys today?
Please explain?
Comment by Friend of USA | August 5, 2006
Sorry Guys, I don't buy all the paranoid war hysteria. After all the b.s. we were fed about Saddam and his growing threat to the world I'm surprised you people buy anything the warmongers are selling. The involvement of the USA in the affairs of the middle east has been a complete disaster. I'm with the real conservatives who thought involvement in the 1st Gulf war was a mistake since no vital interest of ours was at stake and our involvement there would produce more trouble. In fact I'm so conservative that I think war is only justified in self-defense! Imagine that! No wars to spread democracy in parts of the world where democratic principles hardly exist. By the way, do you think we are in Iraq just to spread democracy? I don't believe war is just another means of advancing foreign policy. When it is used in such a fashion it is more suitably called mass murder. I think most Arabs are justified in their hatred of the USA and Israel, since their policies have brought so much death and destruction. In the simplistic mind of Bush you are either with him or against him. And if you are not with him you are with the terrorists. Sorry George, you are the one generating the terrorists! Some of us actually believe the US gov't has no business dictating to other countries who their leaders should be or what kind of weapons they can have. Since when are these conservative ideas? I do believe in killing the bad guys when they attack us, but when we invade their country without justification and start killing them I think we become the bad guy. Our gov't will always find a bad guy out there to justify the defense industry and it's costs. Many of the so-called bad guys are just people who don't want the USA and Israel telling them what to do. Quit swallowing the propaganda!
Comment by David | August 5, 2006
I'm sorry, David, but I don't buy your paranoid war hysteria. Our involvement
in Middle Eastern affairs had gone about as well as it can, with a vocal minority
of people demanding that we disregard the evidence of our eyes, and with the
laws of this country requiring that these people have a voice. You better believe
Saddam Hussein was a threat to this country! More of his WMD's are being
found every month! The rest were shipped out to other countries, and are
probably finding their way to foreign markets, even now.
America and Israel are not creating terrorists anymore than Jews create anti-
Semitism; terrorists are terrorists because their ideology praises and
rewards such behavior.
The only mistake we made in the first Gulf War was in not making Saddam
Hussein feel himself subjugated. We foolishly allowed this madman to keep
his dignity, and he misrepresented our kindness as weakness. Too bad
that we always have war-fearing liberals to prove such people right. Had we
put our boots to his neck, or deposed him and found a more suitable warlord
fifteen years ago, we would not be cleaning up that mess today. But in the
present Gulf War, we have people turning out in droves to free elections, and
in most of Iraq, the residents don't need to look over their shoulders to tell
jokes about government officials, nor need they fear a midnight raid to take
their families away never to be seen again. Our soldiers are building water
lines and power grids, and are contributing greatly to the quality of life out there.
You advise us, David, to "quit swallowing the propaganda." I say, "physician,
heal thyself."
Comment by Lane Russell | August 5, 2006
David,
People like you are amazingly nieve! You say that "I do believe in killing the bad guys when they attack us…" and completely and conveniently forget that the bad guys really did attack us! The most reasonable suspect was the Dictator in Iraq because we thwarted his plans! Again and again, I hear the leftist rhetoric and am amazed at your ability to ignore facts! More and more evidence is pouring in all the time about Saddam's plotting against both the U.S. and Israel and the leftists like you couldn't care less! I've come to the conclusion that it's going to take the destruction of a major American city to wake you up, if it's at all possible. Wake up!! This threat is real! So far, we've been successful in thwarting their plans, but with friends like you, who needs enemies!?
Comment by Don | August 5, 2006
"I’m with the real conservatives who thought involvement in the 1st Gulf war was a mistake since no vital interest of ours was at stake and our involvement there would produce more trouble."
Our vital interest was the freeflow of oil at market prices. Oil drives the world economic engine and from it we derive the safety and security required to live our lives in freedom as we choose.
"In fact I’m so conservative that I think war is only justified in self-defense!"
Self defense is not defined solely as striking an enemy only after he has taken direct military action against you. Self defense is also defined as premption of opponents planning such events and who finance and protect those planning to do so. Does this strike you as an illogical view David?
"I think most Arabs are justified in their hatred of the USA and Israel, since their policies have brought so much death and destruction."
Actually David, most "death and destruction" wrought upon arabs and Muslims in this world has been perpetrated by their fellows. It is the natural consequence of dysfunctional societies which have failed to evolve into something more modern as we would define it. Something which we call "liberal democracy" where individual rights are respected and the worth of the individual is not subordinated to the will of Allah.
You are ignorant of the world around you David. This is not a personal attack. It is my honest evaluation of what I seen in your writings. You still have the power to change this. Get informed. Expand your mind by opening it up to new possiblilities. And most of all, take your own advice.
Quit swallowing the propaganda!
Comment by Robert Vaughn | August 6, 2006
This is wholesale warmongering. What next, a call to gas all Muslims?
The irony here is that this kind of hate mongering only ends up lining the pockets of anyone who has a vested interest in war in the Middle East, be it Lockheed Martin, Exxon Mobile, Halliburton or OPEC. Not to mention the fact that the so-called 'war on terror' is the biggest single act of appeasement in the entire history of terrorism.
Bin Laden wanted American military bases out of Saudi Arabia. What does Bush do, he invades Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, sets up new bases there, and pulls right out of Saudi Arabia.
What else did Bin Laden want? Well, Osama despised Saddam Hussein and wanted to get rid of his secular regime at all costs. Again, George W. Bush was the man for the job.
In the meantime Iraq is plunged into near civil war, a state of affairs guaranteed to disrupt oil production in the region for years to come, thereby boosting the profits of anyone with a vested interest in oil production anywhere else (hint: Saudi Arabia). Restricting the supply of oil anywhere in the world pushes up the price everywhere else, especially if we are talking about Iraq, which has the second largest deposit of crude anywhere on the planet.
The neocons in one way or another are as bad as the Islamic fundamentalists. And they are ALL in it for the money, and the power that goes hand in hand with astronomical wealth.
Take the current situation in Lebanon. The Israelis can't do anything without American permission, Bush could end the fighting tomorrow if he perceived it to be in his interests. Iran also could threaten to cut Hezbollah off without a dime. Why don't they, because everyday that goes by, and the region becomes more and more destabilized, the price of crude on the international market goes up. Everyone's a winner, except for ordinary Lebanese people, who are currently having more terror rained down on them than we ever will.
So who has the biggest vested interest in spreading hate, wealthy conservatives, and their brainwashed followers, that's who, no matter where they are in the world, and no matter what country they originate in. Radical Islam it should be remembered is a highly conservative movement, you could almost describe it as being glued to the past. The Neocons also are ultra conservative, revolutionary only in terms of their tactics. Their goal is the same feudal, hierarchical divsion of wealth that existed in the dim and distant past, only with better technology for controlling troublesome serfs.
Wake up dummies, we are the bad guys. Iraq didn't attack us! The Bin Laden family and the Saudi Royals (and remember fifteen of the eighteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis) have benefited from the invasion of Iraq and subsequent chaos in many different ways, and will go on benefiting for years if not decades to come.
Why do you think Rumsfeld insisted on sending so few American troops into Iraq, against the advice of his generals? Do you think Rumsfeld is stupid, or incompetent? Hell no, he knew precisely what he was doing.
Get the facts, think it through for yourselves, and follow the money.
Comment by Max Godwin | August 6, 2006
Sorry Don,
Saddam has never been a threat to the USA, nor did he ever threaten the USA. I think it is beyond a doubt now that the war Bush started was unjustified. If you decide to swallow more propaganda go ahead! I'm in favor of going after BinLaden, after all he's the one who attacked us. I don't see how all this warring is benefitting the USA. The consequences are worse than before the war. You are naive if you think war is the answer.
Comment by David | August 6, 2006
Robert,
What makes you think Saddam, after his invasion of Kuwait, would have interrupted the free flow of oil at market prices? He was in the oil business. He was also told by our ambassador that we would not get involved in his border dispute Kuwait. Remember? The fact is the USA and Israel launched a propaganda campaign against him to remove him from power since he wouldn't do our bidding. Now the same people are after Iran and Syria.
Comment by David | August 6, 2006
Lane,
Let me get this straight. Saddam did have all those evil weapons and then didn't use them? What kind of a mad man illegally aquires wmd's and then when he is under attack sends them off to another country so he doesn't have them to protect himself? We can only wish all our enemies act like that! Wake up and smell the coffee! You have been duped!
Comment by David | August 6, 2006
Islam=Nazism, plain and simple. Middle Eastern muslims regularly use their beliefs to subjugate women in barbaric and inhumane ways along with the weak and non islamic followers. They perform barbaric brutal campaigns of conversion currently in SE Asia and in N Africa sanctioning the forced rape of young girls. The world does not need islam or its followers. Renounce Islam for what it is; a cruel inhumane form of Nazism.
Comment by Dean | August 6, 2006
The USA will always be the enemy of Muslims and Liberals. The Muslims hate us because of our freedom and our way of life. The Liberals actually hate democracy because it gets in the way of their convulated beliefs that they and they alone are the ones to solve world problems when actually if one looks at world history and all the past problems, their thinking only worsened everything. David, list any world wars that Liberalism solved.
Comment by gene | August 6, 2006
David said,
"…What kind of a mad man illegally aquires wmd’s and then when he is under attack sends them off to another country so he doesn’t have them to protect himself?"
Well although these were legal weapons, before Japan attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor, Rosevelt had contacted my government - the Canadian government to ask if he could send his war ship here to hide them and keep them safe from Hitler who had plans to attack America…
Nothing unusual there, it is in fact very common for leaders to do that.
Comment by Friend of USA | August 6, 2006
Canadian,
Protecting a fleet so it can fight another day is different than saving losing your regime completely. Why have the weapons if they're not to be used in the last resort?
Comment by David | August 6, 2006
If Islam seeks to destroy the West (maybe true, maybe not), it is still a far less serious threat than progressive secularism. The Islamic world is healthy- the Muslims are not aborting themselves out of existence, accepting homosexuality, or suggesting that free love is OK. They have not rejected the idea that law has a fundamentally natural and religious basis. Western Society is sick- it has done all these things, and more.
Furthermore, if Islam really is trying to destroy the West (again, debatable), then it has been doing so since the beginning, in the 7th century. They clearly are on a pretty slow timetable, and they still have a long way to go.
Progressive secularism, on the other hand, has done far more damage than "militant Islam" could have ever done, and done it in a fraction of the time. We cannot "confront Islam" until the sickness in the West has been cured.
Comment by Ted | August 6, 2006
Essentially, the "War with Islam" is a shell game- our pseudo-conservative leaders are trying to distract us from the real problems by pretending that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat that the West has ever faced. It isn't- and it probably isn't even in the top 25. The "conservative" leaders who claim to want to "fight Islam" are only doing so because they lack the guts and intelligence to battle the progressive secularist rot here at home.
If anything, Muslims might be our allies against these progressive secularists, because they share conservative religious conviction- but that will never happen, because the "conservative" politicians are propped up and supported by a progressive political system, and they accept all the fundamental principles of progressive secularist government.
The "War on Terror" and the "Clash of Civilizations" are like the proverbial "Bread and Circuses"- distractions, created by politicians to sustain their own power.
Comment by Ted | August 6, 2006
Let us line up all of our enemies and kill them. The question is which enemies? The ones in 1950? 1970? 1990?or 2000? We change enemies every 20 years. Once they were socialists, then fascists, then they were communists, then they were terrorists, now we are told they are islamists.
We also seem to declare our one-time friends as enemies ten years later and then remove them from power.
And all of these enemies hated us for our freedom? One would think that if they were in charge of their own countries and hated us for our freedoms, they would just make their own countries free. But perhaps they are not logical like us,eh? They do not think in terms of controlling their own destinies, of living their lives like they wish to,eh? They are different than us, aren't they?
I am no fan of extremism under any guise, but do we really need to demonize the population, the ideology, the religion, the philosophy and the mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters of a new enemy every 20 years?
Who will it be in 2010? The Chinese? Or India? Pehaps Buddhists? Perhaps Baptists? Perhaps Brazilians? Perhaps Canadians or Mexicans?
Ah, sadly, no. It will be a new enemy: one who is more swarthy than arabs, more cunning than communists, and more evil than Somalian warlords. What will their name be? I wonder. And I wonder if you will remember who your enemy was 20 years ago and that today you sit at his table, drink his wine, buy his goods, and invite him into your home. Not an enemy unto death, just an enemy of convenience, much like your friends.
One day the meek shall inherit the earth. And they shall do so because the war to end all wars will be the "war against extremism". And all shall be engaged in it.
Comment by Dale | August 6, 2006
Bravo to Max, Ted, and Dale. Maybe there are some intellectual conservatives out there!
Comment by David | August 6, 2006
Absolute crap. Do you know the first thing about true Islam? True Islam is fundamentally not much different than devout Catholicism. The problem isn't liberals, or conservatives. It's people like you who don't know the first thing about something but then formulate an opinion based on pyour preconceived notions or on what you want things to be like.
Comment by Michael | August 6, 2006
And Gene, Muslims don't hate us because of freedom. Most Muslims don't hate us (except those who are angry over our support of a LIBERAL Israeli government. Most Muslims are against the materialism and sexuality of the West, not the people.
Comment by Michael | August 6, 2006
David, you are the one duped. If I have to explain that Hussein shipped his
weapons out in the hopes of decieving inspectors that they truly were gone,
then retrieve them when the heat had blown over, then you will never
understand. Hussein thought he was safe! He thought, based on the policies
of Bush the Elder, the negligence of President Clinton, the oil greed of
Russia, France, and Germany, and the complacence and corruption of the
rest of the UN, that Bush the Younger would never get around to actually
doing anything! He thought he would still have a regime, so he shipped the
weapons out of country. We have Israeli General Moshe Yaalon's word on
this, as well as Iraqi former Air Vice Marshall Georges Sada's testimony.
Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for millions of Iraqis, Hussein
was wrong. He, like certain people in the political arena, "misunderestimated"
our President's resolve. President Bush has fulfilled what the UN pledged
long ago to do; to punish Iraq if they did not halt their weapons programs.
You seem to be bent on disregarding all evidence that does not fit with what
you have arbitrarily decided has to be the truth. Why are you all so bent on
fighting for Hussein, Bin Laden, or any Islamic threat to this nation? What
is it you fear about America that you will support those who have sworn to
kill us all?
Comment by Lane Russell | August 6, 2006
Its great to see that Max has dropped by to wow everyone with his paranoid "neocons are pushing a fake war against Islamic extemism in order to generate weath for the military industrial complex" theory. You can always count on him to make such sound, pertinent statements as:
"Wake up dummies, we are the bad guys. Iraq didn't attack us!"
and
"The neocons in one way or another are as bad as the Islamic fundamentalists. And they are ALL in it for the money, and the power that goes hand in hand with astronomical wealth."
Ted almost makes Max look grounded in reality by stating gems such as this:
"Muslims might be our allies against these progressive secularists, because they share conservative religious conviction."
Yes I certainly want to join with the ranks of murderous Muslim fanatics who preach that all must submit to the divine teaching of Allah. Animals who stone women to death for adultery. Who strap bombs to the bodies of thier children and then send them to blow up the children of their enemies. Yep that sounds like a great idea.!
Dale has uncovered fortunately the real "explain everything" theory. That being that there really are no real enemies. Just "extremism". Yes it all a "bread and circuses" designed to distract the population. Nazism and Communism weren't really enemies of America. Neither is radical Islam for that matter. No its all just a matter of us "demonizing" some poor unfortunate group of people who will fit the bill.
And just so you don't feel left out David I will address your sophmoric argument that Saddams annexing of Kuwait wasn't a threat to the freeflow of oil at market prices. Saddam had plans for the entire Middle East. He invaded Iran. He invaded Kuwait. He planned to attack Saudi Arabia. Why you ask?? Why would he do wush as dastardly thing? To control the majority of the oil and consequently the majority of the wealth of the Middle East. To fashion himself into the modern day Saladin that he so admired. Of course I'm sure all of this is just "propaganda" ginned up by evil neocons and joooooos to justify an evil immoral illegal etc war againt the peaceful and soverign state of Iraq.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | August 7, 2006
Terrorism has existed throughout the course of human history. It is an effective tactic that an inferior force uses against a superior force. Even if we could blow up all the terrorists, it wouldn't change a thing. Nature abhors a vacuum. More terrorists would surely follow. History shows that when you send out an army of angels, an army of devils will rise up against it. It is as if good is winning, but never wins - and evil is losing , but never loses. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the 20th century produced both Gandhi and Hitler, and that it was equally the most technologically productive AND the bloodiest. It IS possible that Gandhi's philosphy, the philosophy of Jesus, is in fact, the correct one?
Comment by John Ross | August 7, 2006
Lane,
Scott Ritter's book Iraq Confidential explained what happened with regard to the weapons inspection program. As for those who say they were moved out of the country, don't forget Curveball! Robert, your paranoia over Saddam's invsion of Kuwait is on parade. Even if Saddam had conquered Saudia Arabia what is that to us? Iraq was a secular government which allowed non-Islamic religion, women to be educated, etc. We will be lucky to see that in Iraq now.
Comment by David | August 7, 2006
Islam gives the earthling three choices: 1.) Convert. 2.) Be a slave. 3.) Die. If you kill the infidel there's an orgy with 72 virgins and 11 boys like "pearls" awaiting you. There is no charity in Islam. Money is given to kill. How does Arabia sit on almost all of the world's energy supply and still have their people live in abject poverty? This is why it's so easy to get them to kill. No hope of attaining any happiness in this world, or so they think. Islam teaches the destruction of Israel. "Moderate" Muslims are just states who are bit more pragmatic. True Muslims want Muhammed followed in the way described above. They see kindness as weakness. Authentic Islam recognizes only power and force. Christianity advocates you love your brother. It promotes making even the ultimate sacrifice to save the soul of someone, much less the body. There is no equivalent. Christianity is an invitation to Life. Islam is a death threat. Muhammed had 'wives' as young as 7. Muhammed asked for a Catholic Priest on hid deathbed. His followers may have killed him to prevent such an outrage. Muhammed told the desssert nomads that St. Gabriel The Archangel told him of this new way (sic) and kill every unbeliever in the city and steal their property. All debts were forgiven as well. Steal, kill, and be rewarded with an orgy! Any questions?
Comment by Joseph | August 7, 2006
I'd like to thank 'ahmdo' for making my point even better than I could. The root of all the hate is that Ishmael was disdained in favor of Issac. You cannot understand the World, the Middle East, and the day's events unless you are well steeped in scripture. Liberals hate The Bible. That's why their solutions exacerbate problems. The Secular Humanists are only passionately interested in sodomy and abortion, so because they perceive all 3 major Faiths rightfully frown upon those abominations they could care less and look to minimize religion's role in culture with revisionist history. Ahmdo, The Most Holy Trinity loves you. Divine Mercy is the greatest attribute of God. Yesterday was The Feast of The Transfiguration. Pray The Lord take you with His Apostles to see Him as He is. Love overcomes all hate. I will keep you in my prayers this week. FreeMasonry has 33 degrees of accomplishment. When you become a 32nd degree mason you learn that the God of Islam is the true God. During the 33rd degree you learn "the architect of the universe" you must adore LUCIFER! Be not deceived. Jesus, We Trust In You!
Comment by Joseph | August 7, 2006
Seems like Ahmdo has put a screeching halt to this discourse.
Comment by Josephine | August 7, 2006
What is not rational is that Western nations, including the United States, have allowed large-scale Muslim immigration into their countries. Muslims are incompatible for integration into Christian nations, however nominally Christian they may be. Not only should immigration of Muslims be halted into Western nations, those who live in the West should be induced with extreme prejudice to return to their countries of original. Anything else is madness.
As for foisting democracy on the Middle East, that is a fool's errand. The only thing vital about the Middle East is the oil underneath its sands. Nothing else. Iraq should be abandoned as soon as humanly possible.
Comment by Derek Leaberry | August 7, 2006
Re comment 31.
"There is no charity in Islam"
Such a sweeping statement. Do you really believe this? Based on my time spent in Malaysia and Indonesia I can't say that charity is that different to what I seen when living in the UK, Netherlands and Luxembourg (I get around).
"True Muslims want Muhammed followed in the way described above"
A Catholic with inside knowledge on what a "true" Muslim believes? Hint, Muslims don't follow Muhammed. I wonder what "true" Christians believe… seeing that I was raised being told that "Papists" are going straight to there own very special place in hell.
"Authentic Islam recognizes only power and force"
Another insightful statement. How can you authenticate Islam. There are many different sects. The only absolute authority is God. There is no equivalent of a pope. There is no central authority. How would you regard a definition of "authentic Catholism"?
"Christianity advocates you love your brother"
The Catholic kind? Such a wonderful record.
Re comments by ahmdo.
Oh dear…. if you are going to be a fool, at least be an eloquent one…
Comment by Lee | August 8, 2006
Re the original post
"Islam seeks our destruction. No honest observer of this World State ideology could possibly marshal enough facts to deny this singular fact"
Which Islam seeks "our" destruction? Sunni, Shia, Sufi…. or Twelver, Niner, Deobandi, Salafist and the plethora of other competing interpretations.
The idea it is a "World State ideology" is laughable. There is no single authority able to represent Islam. None. You may get self appointed people who feel that they have the right. At the end of the day they are just deluded. Islam is too diverse and too divided.
If you feel the need to identify a target, then be honest and lable them as the Salafist/Deobandis on the Sunni side, and the Shiite offshoot of the Twelvers that came from Khomenie (sp).
Comment by Lee | August 8, 2006
I think when The Paradise Virgins Gang get what they want the first beheading celebrating The Reign Of Allah will be Lee's. I suspect the 'papists' will sound pretty good then. The Catholic Church has been responsible for 50,000 deaths by irresponsible heirarchy in it's 2,000 plus years of existence. The Church has apologized and amended her ways by God giving His Bride Holy Saints to show Her The Way. Why hasn't The Left apologized for supporting Stalin and the 20 million he killed in the name of communism/socialism? Where is the Mea Culpa for Mao's butchering of 50 million Chinese? Pol Pot's carnage in Vietnam? (Editor's Note: Pol Pot was in Cambodia. Ho Chi Minh was in Vietnam.) What of the 50 million abortions in this country the pat 30+ years and the 500,000,000 worldwide? Hospitals, Universities, and Children's Advocacy all had their beginnings in The Church. Astronomy and Navigation were given to us by Jesuits. It does not surprise me that darkness curses The Light. It would surprise me otherwise. For my Muslim brother, your reverence for The Mother of Jesus and Fatima will be used in the future as the instruments of your conversion and salvation. The liberals might beg for Our Lady's intercession as well. God help us all!
Comment by Josephhi Minh | August 8, 2006
Saddam did not fancy himself a modern day "Saladin", he fancied himself a modern-day "Bismarck". His creed was Arab nationalism, not Islamic fundamentalism. If you don't know the difference between the two, you have no business making pronouncements on the Middle East.
Comment by Ted | August 9, 2006
Why yes Ted I am aware that Saddams creed was Arab nationalism. Of course that is completely besides the point. Saddam wished to portray himself to the Muslim/Arab world as the force that drove Western influence out of the ME just as Saladin did in his own time. Muslims love to harken back to historical examples of when they actually retained influence. Saddam understood the kind of influence that was needed to unite the entire ME under his command. The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that the different creeds in Islam make it very difficult to unite all Muslims in the ME under one banner due to their own disagreements regarding Islam. Saddam understood that Saladin was admired not for his particular religious creed but simply for his power in driving the infidels and their influence out of the ME.
I feel so safe now knowing of course that in this day of WMDs you think the Islamic world "still has a long way to go in order to destroy the West". Perhaps if you don't understand the implications of this, YOU have no business making any kind of pronouncement on the ME yourself.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | August 10, 2006
Here's a little more analysis on the Saddam/Saladin connection Ted in case you think I'm still talking out of my hind quarters.
http://hnn.us/articles/1305.html
Comment by Robert Vaughn | August 10, 2006