At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Reverse-Engineered Taqiyyah
Earlier today I wrote and posted a bitter satire which several readers (and at least one spouse) considered somewhat — um — intemperate. Wiser heads prevailed, so I took it down.
Deleting my post left me feeling dissatisfied and stifled. After mulling it over, I decided to revisit the same topic, this time without the irony. This post will be serious. Dead serious.
One of the advantages of a site meter is the ability to monitor visitors’ searches. Presumably most bloggers are familiar with the disgusting and perverted things that people are trying to find on the internet — if a few of the keywords match, sure enough, they show up at your site. We get our share of these visitors, mainly because of Dympha’s concerns regarding the treatment of Muslim women.
However, Gates of Vienna has its own special class of search engine referrals. It started back in July, and for some reason the same search string often recurs verbatim: “how to make a bomb — jihad.” Once we mentioned it in our posts, of course, our search-engine profile on the topic went up, and we got more and more of them. There are variations:
· make a bomb
· how to make bomb
· make bomb islam
· how to make a simple bomb at home
· make bomb kill jews
· etc.
But they all boil down to the same thing.
What gives one pause is this: the certainty that somewhere out in the world, at the other end of those searches, are people who want to do us harm, evil, twisted minds that long to attain paradise by killing as many infidels as possible. Every day more searchers arrive here, a steady drip… drip… drip of rancid malevolence.
And those who appear here are just the searchers in English — what about those in Arabic? Or Pashtun, or Urdu, or Swahili, or Turkish, or Farsi, or Tagalog, or…
Moreover, those who wash up at the Gates of Vienna are but a sample. Instead of this nest of kaffirs in the heart of Dar-al-Harb, the more intelligent and adept jihadis have long since found their way to the real bomb-making instructions. Think of the thousands upon thousands who must be out there searching. Some of them are in the West. Some are in America. And some are right down the road.
After a while, it does weigh a body down.
My fantasy is to draw in these deadly Islamists and prepare an ingenious trap designed solely for the unwary mujahid, and — like a genetically-tailored virus which will infect only one host — cause them to self-destruct.
That’s what I want.
Call it reverse-engineered taqiyyah.
21 comments:
Sorry I missed it, but if it was more extreme than:
like a genetically-tailored virus
I am impressed Baron.
You can't dwell on the cultural war of annihilation for too long without always coming to the only logical conclusion....the ugly one....that we cant both be here at the end of this century.
Technology has advanced too far to allow a billion people on the other side of the planet to harbor dreams of our destruction. If they possessed a "genetically-tailored virus" that targeted infidels they would apply it immediately without remorse.
The tough choices still lie ahead. I would keep a copy of your pulled post handy...someday the truth wont seem as offensive to your readers as it may now.
a4g -- uber-LOL! Dymphna and I like to died laughing at your comment.
I'm glad you saw it. I saved a copy, and thought of sending it to you after I removed it. And might have, if you ever read your $#@!&?! email...
Redneck, you may be right. And what about if the bird flu mutates, and some of the mujahideen catch it? Don't you think they'll cash in their requent-flyer miles and be on the next flight to JFK, just for the pleasure of breathing on us?
Geez, what a time we live in.
Bill -- You were naughty. I had to remove your comment to preserve domestic tranquility, if you catch my drift.
bill--
It was the lawyers I was afraid of. They were pacing and neighing outside. That post had to die, as did your comment.
It was funny, but Muslims aren't and Mohammed wasn't known for his sense of humor.
Come to think of it, he didn't like poetry either.
I'm pretty confident that there are such "honey pots" out there already....most can only be reached from certain locations, for our protection. I still don't go looking for them. I'm betting my gubmint files are already thick enough.
Baron: I had the pleasure of catching your post before you removed it, and I loved every satirical bit of it. The text may be gone but the spirit of it is not, and that's why I keep coming back here. Good show!
Dymphna: Boys will be boys, huh?
I must say the most radical expressions of mass hatred sometimes go unremarked on this blog (and others). "Redneck Texan" says we
"can't allow" a billion people to harbor dreams of our destruction and rather directly implies that we must ultimately find a way to exterminate them (after all, they'd do it to us).
Do you really think all billion muslims hate the west that implacably? Do you think there is any practical program that will lead to the elimination (or forcible conversion) of all the planet's muslims?
I often wonder where the logic of "all Islam is out to get us so we had better do something about it" leads. At least RT has spelled it out for us.
Personally I think it behooves us to find a way to disarm the actively violent and find a way to live peacably with the remainder. Fantasies of "final solutions" are just that.
Islam aside, maybe "technology has advanced too far" for us to allow any persons to harbor thoughts of discord or violence - after all, they may have powerful means of acting on those thoughts. Now, how can we get to that happy state where all people are peaceful and good? Hmm.. better think about that one for awhile.
Thanks for the facts, Bill. After your reasoned response I can certainly see where I went wrong. Must be all this pot smoke.
I guess you're right - we are in a deadly duel with a billion muslims and we must kill every one of them before they get us. Thanks for the enlightenment.
a4g:
Amen to that - People who are really free to choose will choose to live in peace and freedom.
Cato said...
a4g:
Amen to that - People who are really free to choose will choose to live in peace and freedom.
Prior to that, Cato said...
Thanks for the facts, Bill. After your reasoned response I can certainly see where I went wrong. Must be all this pot smoke.
I guess you're right - we are in a deadly duel with a billion muslims and we must kill every one of them before they get us. Thanks for the enlightenment.
It is really very simple, Cato.
Muslims are killing people all around the globe, including the United States.
The facts and figures are everywhere, in MSM, in blogs, in gov't statistics, in other countries media statements and Islamic countries sermons.
A person would have to be willfully ignoring facts to deny this.
I do not know a single person that wishes for war and destruction.
On the other hand, how many Muslims can say that same thing?
The people who willingly ignore islam and muslims are called "dhimmi's" for a reason.
And you exemplify that reason.
Thanks again for the correction, I'd sure be anxious to see where I have denied that Muslims are killing people or asserted that there is no serious threat. I must have been stoned when I wrote that, because I sure don't remember it, or believe it wither.
There most certainly is a very serious threat - I support the war on terror 100% and the war in Iraq, which I beleive is an essential part of the war on terror, as well. I don't feel sorry for bloody-handed terrorists in Gitmo who are "tortured" by not having their air conditioners set low enough.
What I actually meant to convey was that calls for total war against "all" Islam and "all" muslims are morally wrong and practically self-defeating. Seems that to some deep thinkers, "(not all) = none". People jump to the most amazing conclusions.
Maybe I'll go over to the Daily Kos, where commenters are more calm and reasonable (NOTE TO DEEP THINKERS - I'M JUST KIDDING!)
Back to my bong hits (I wish)
While I am sure others will find your idea appauling, I applaud you. My Father had a similar idea back in the 60s/70s. He was a Federal Special Agent working Narcotics. He was attending a big meeting in DC on how to tackle the growing drug problem.
At this meeting he made the following suggestion...Take the drugs we sieze, lace them with either a toxic chemical or a marker chemical and put them back on the street. Do this after announcing the move to the public, this way the casual users will probably stop and we will net in the hard core users/pushers. When they show up at the hospital of treatment they are arrested...
Obviously the administrative types were horrified at his suggestion. I still think it is a good suggestion when you look at the fall out of the drug problem in this and other countries. Like any criminal activity it applies the principle, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If they had done this then no one would have known if the drugs they bought were "safe" or not. Same principle as your faulty bomb instruction idea...Bravo.
That's actually an excellent idea. Maybe conferring with a geneticist or a biologist would well be worth the time.the
You can bury me with links, but it's not really necessary. I read the Gates and LGF fairly frequently.
Let me stipulate a few points.
I am fully aware that there are many explicit strictures in Islam which make it inherently a dangerous and intolerant religion. In fact I am even more appalled at their attitude toward Buddhists, Hindus and other non-"People of the book” than at their attitude toward Christians and Jews.
However, all that being said, I think there are reasons for objecting to an all-out war against "Islam" on moral, what I might call "cultural" and on practical grounds.
In the first place, since it is the easiest, consider the practical grounds. What is the desired outcome for those who would go to war with 1/4 of the globe's population and how we achieve that outcome? When will you have won? When you have exterminated all unbelievers or forcibly converted them? Sounds kinda like the Prophet (on him be peace) himself. What less than that outcome will make you safe? You don't have to be Sun Tzu to know not to enter a war you can't win.
Culturally - the Islamic world has no pope, no center. UBL may think he is the new Caliph, but he is not. Islam is peopled by disparate swarms of people, many in appalling political climates, cut off from any meaningful knowledge pf the world outside. It is NOT monolithic in actions or attitudes. The much-touted poll which shows that x% of Muslims in this Country or that approve of suicide bombings may actually indicate less than it seems. Like all polls it is affected by who is asked and who is asking, and what the respondent thought he was being asked about. Many of these people when asked about suicide bombing will think about their Palestinian "brothers" - of course they approve after all the propaganda they have been fed. Doesn’t mean they are ready to strap on the belt, much less nuke Manhattan. So here's a question - if a person, an individual person in a far-away land, who has no power even in his own society, is imbued with attitudes and propaganda every day which makes him believe that you are his enemy, does that make him your enemy? I'm not talking "potential" enemies here.
In fact the vast, vast majority of Islamic persons go to Mosque once a week and the rest of their week live like ordinary people occupied with ordinary concerns. If that makes them non-pure Muslims, then great - may they prosper and multiply. It's more likely that peace will come from these people falling away from the jihadists voluntarily, than by their being forcibly repressed.
Morally - this one can go on forever, but the most basic level is that treating people as simply examples of a group is usually wrong. Attitudes and policies born out of fear and anger rarely prove prudent or wise.
You can't be at war with a "religion" because the religion has no tangible attributes. It's just a meme. A big one, but a meme nonetheless. You must be at war with the people who hold that meme. That's a bridge I can't cross. I will go to war against people who tangibly threaten me, with nations that harbor terrorists, but not with people whose beliefs make it likely that they might be a threat to me. I believe, in fact I know, that not all Muslims are Islamicists. Even many of those who are sympathetic, or think they are, would stop short of any violent action. If that makes me a naif, so be it. Revel in your superior knowledge and wisdom.
So what is the alternative? I actually believe in the approach President Bush and Condoleezza Rice are following. It may not satisfy the red hots, but I think it is the only strategy that has a chance of actually succeeding. And if it requires us to talk about the "religion of peace" through gritted teeth, then let's do it.
The Pres’s strategy:
1. Defend the homeland
2. Go after the terrorists where they operate (not carpet bomb Aceh)
3. Spread freedom and democracy.
Sure they’re not doing it perfectly – whoever implemented a strategy perfectly? But at least they have a strategy. And it’s not “war on Islam”.
Flame away, folks. It don't bother me none.
I am not sure if it's easier to side with Bill or Cato in this discussion. I believe most Muslims would rather live in peace but I'm not going to start checking numbers or percentages, the truth is that those Muslims who would rather live in peace need to start speaking out. Their leaders need to start denouncing violence against all peoples. They need to stop giving double meaning to such words as "innocent". They need to stop using deceit as a legitimate means of advancing Islamic causes. They need to start "doing" instead of talking. Until then, I'm going to keep my guard up. I'm going to keep trusting what I see instead of what I hear.
Cato, I take back my comment about you and dhimmi's. You obviously are not a dhimmi. I mis-understood your point.
I apologize.
Bill and Cato, nice going.
Even and logical debate. As nice an exchange as I have seen in some time.
joiec: No problem, I realize you were reacting to what you thought I meant, not what I actually meant. As for the rest, we can "agree to disagree". (I have to do that a lot - it's the only thing I can agree on with most people)
Cato,
Can we put it this way?
Virtually all Muslims throughout the world believe their religion to be the absolute truth.
A significant number of those believe, as a corollary, that any means including terrorism and outbreeding the infidels are acceptable to bring about the worldwide triumph of Islam. Don't ask me how many is a significant number; it may be a half million or a million or 10 million.
But everything we have learned since 9/11 (and some people understood it before that, while others of us are slow learners) tells us, beyond serious dispute, that what we face is not a handful of terrorists acting alone. That in itself would be dangerous enough, given the staggering disruption that one or two well-placed chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons could cause to society.
But more than the terrorist groups or networks themselves, there is a much larger pool of active or passive supporters, from governments (probably) to radical Imams to Saudi billionaires. That, too, seems to me unquestionable, regardless of how you or anyone proposes to respond.
The conclusion I draw from all this is that Islam -- not just declared jihadists -- is part of the problem. And that all Muslims have to be considered potential threats.
No, it doesn't mean we must declare war on the religion. It doesn't mean, for God's sake, putting all Muslims to the sword in some latter-day crusade. It does mean, though, that we have to err (if an error it is) on the side of caution when dealing with Muslims. We should end all Muslim immigration starting last week. Question anyone with an Arabic name or appearance down to the ground before allowing them into the country or on an airliner. Et cetera.
"Racism"? "Discrimination"? I don't give a toss what anyone wants to call it. We have all the evidence we need that large numbers of people who fall into a certain category are at war with us. It is a sensible inference that many of the others in that category are helping them behind the scenes.
No, we shouldn't react hysterically or persecute anyone (in the real meaning of the term -- not allowing them into the country doesn't count) purely on the basis of their religion. But equally, we will fail ourselves, our ancestors, and our descendants, and Western civilization to boot, if we pretend that feel-good brotherhood slogans and symbolic security screenings can counteract the danger from Islam.
Actually, the Wahibbi sect, which controls Saudi Arabi, is busy dismantling all those shrines because they're idolatrous. There will not be any Medina or or Mecca to destroy...at least that's what the Religious Policeman wrote last month.
Now that he's safely in London I guess he can say things like that.
Umm...I'm going to run this old "news" in the comments one more time, in hopes that whatever version of "nuke Mecca" is currently extant will have the opportunity to catch up with reality.
The Wahhabis are not nuking Mecca, they are dismantling the place. No need for nukes when the Saudis will do it for you. And the rest of the Muslim world? Yawn...
Here is the Religious Policeman's snip and link. He has the original news story:
often come across the suggestion, in the more neoconservative crevices of the Internet, that someone should "nuke Mecca". Well, according to London's "Independent", they don't need to bother. It is already being destroyed by the neoconservative wing of the Islam faith, the Wahabbis.
The Destruction of Mecca
Those Wahhabis are some fun dudes. They are the ones who fund the destruction here...
If you absolutely must hit someone over there with a 2x4 at least ascertain that his name is Saud.
Post a Comment