Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Who is the Enemy?

Dhaka — crowd at opposition rally

For several years there has been a quiet but intense debate among American conservatives about the nature of the Islamic menace that we all face. The majority of right-wingers, no matter how dedicated they are to fighting “Islamism” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran, are reluctant to consider the possibility that we may be at war with all of Islam, and not just “radical” or “political” Islam.

And I can’t really blame them for their reluctance. Who wants to face the prospect of a decades-long twilight struggle against 1.5 billion people? Especially when that number increases every second as they rapidly whelp out more of the same.

Our British correspondent JP sends a blog post and a couple of its accompanying comments to illustrate the dilemma facing well-intentioned conservatives on his side of the Atlantic. He says:

The Coffeehouse blog post below has been bugging me since it first appeared last Thursday — in particular the quote “If the war on terror becomes a war on Islam, it is a war that we lose”.

I woke up about 3 am last night with the thought that Islam itself is responsible for fostering this illusion among Western opinion-makers — that it is invincible and that any war against it is unthinkable. Perhaps it is because I am re-reading Tolkien at the moment — but Islam is too dangerous and evil to be toyed with in the manner Forsyth recommends.

From the Cofeehouse blog in the Spectator:

The worrying opposition to the ‘Ground Zero mosque’

by James Forsyth

I’m a neo-conservative, a hawk in the war against Islamist extremism, which is why I’m so worried by the opposition to the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. A new poll shows that 61 percent of Americans oppose its construction and Howard Dean, the tribune of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, have joined many leading Republicans in arguing that the mosque should not be built there, several blocks from Ground Zero.

If the war on terror becomes a war on Islam, it is a war that we lose: George W. Bush may have had his faults but this is something that he understood. The way that this debate over the mosque is going is playing into the whole clash of civilizations narrative and strengthening the hand of those who seek to promote it.

The struggle to foster democratic, open societies in countries that have never known such freedom will last generations. It is a conflict that is more about ideas and moral suasion than military force, though force will obviously have a role. Our aim should be to boost the reformist elements in Islam, to offer what help we can to those who believe that Islam and liberal democracy can be compatible. If the West appears to be anti-Islam rather than just anti-Islamism, then we will not be able to do that.

In the comments, Dixon says:

Who are these “mainstream Muslims”? What exactly do they want? Opinion polls consistently show that in this country two thirds of them at least want to see an end to Western ethical values and the introduction of Sharia. OK, so they don’t want to do it violently. So what? They are on exactly the same side in this conflict as those that do. They only differ in their preferred tactics. So far, they are winning all hands down without any acts of violence being necessary.

The only hope that Western ethical values have of surviving is if Islam waned due to its rejection by the young as a result of clear assertion of Western values in education. It’ll never happen. Instead, British schools now downplay evolution theory as a placation towards Muslim “sensibilities”. Britain, as the rest of Western Europe, is inevitably going to have a population that is overwhelmingly of Muslim descent, well inside fifty years. On current trends, they will be more reactionary and zealous than their parents or grand-parents.

Personally, I think its hilarious. To watch people trying to deny the tide lapping at their ankles. It goes beyond King Canute into realms of sublime absurdity and wishful thinking. I won’t be around to suffer the second class status that non-Muslims will in a few decades endure. Many of the willfully blind who stifled secular resistance to this Islamification of a continent will be as will their children. Their daughters half the value of their sons and all taught that they are inferior as “kuffar”, a word as vile and loaded when spat out by a Muslim as the “N” word when uttered by a cracker-barrel red-neck. Of course, most of the descendents of anyone reading this or commenting here will be Muslim.

And a comment from Stuart Seacole Smith:
- - - - - - - - -
[For non-Coffeehouse readers, ‘Seacole’ in the above name refers to Mary Seacole, an icon or saint of British multiculturalism. At one point during 2009, Rod Liddle, a Coffeehouse blogger, declared that he had changed his online name to rod seacole liddle in honour of this worthy person, and a number of his readers followed suit.]

Dixon: thanks for the Wafa Sultan clip. Powerful stuff, that well and truly gives the lie to the nonsense we are subjected to by the likes of Massie, Forsyth, and so many others.

I don’t know what the most effective strategy for countering the threats posed by Islam are, but I do know that the mixture of lies and deception we get from much of the media and many politicians, together with blatant denials that any threat exists, is not the right place to start.

Another thought: when all our liberal amateur Islam sleuths talk of “moderate Islam”, I can’t help thinking that perhaps what they inadvertently have in mind is lapsed Muslims. The ones who’re happy to go for a beer, marry a foreigner, and basically just get on with their lives in whatever country they’ve emigrated to.

And I for one would always be pleased to raise a glass with them.

I’ve spent six years looking for the “moderate Muslim”, and every time I think I’ve found one, it turns out to be a “lapsed Muslim” as described above. An apostate in all but name, in other words.

Muslims who want to live that way, who would to prefer to act like normal Westerners, have to be very careful. To the truly faithful Muslim — which means any Muslim who consciously follows the tenets of sharia law — a fellow Muslim who fails to adhere to any aspect of Islamic law is guilty of kufr, or unbelief. Kufr is equivalent to apostasy, and the penalty is death.

No wonder “lapsed Muslims” keep a low profile.

Whenever a schismatic sect develops within Islam — such as the Baha’is, the Qaranis, the Ahmadis, etc. — its adherents are persecuted ruthlessly, and exterminated if possible. Islam is a near-perfect closed system, and does not allow for any theological variation or doctrinal evolution.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t hundreds of millions of Muslims who would like to escape, if only they could find a way. That’s why I consider making the world safe for apostasy one of our most urgent tasks.

Nor does it mean that every Muslim is the enemy. It is conceivable, however, that every committed, practicing, fully faithful Muslim is the enemy. We have to prepare ourselves for this possibility — anyone involved in the current information war would be negligent if he refused to examine it seriously.

I’ll have more to say about this and related matters at a later date.

36 comments:

Profitsbeard said...

If there had been 1.5 billion Nazis and Imperial Japanese and Italian fascists, would we have NOT fought them?

Numbers is meaningless when you have the power to defeat them.

Only the will and the survival instinct/intelligence is missing.

Thanks to the multiculti delusion pumped into people since the "Better Red Than Dead" 1960's.

Islam must Reform- or Perish.

That is the demand.

And no quarter can be given to homicidal theocratic totalitarians.

Fjordman said...

I'm tired of hearing the nonsense that the ongoing trends will continue for another 50 years. They won't. We will face a massive discontinuity long before that. More like 5 years, or 10 at most. They will need to be expelled from all Western countries and barred from ever coming back. It's the only solution. And we should have a Nuremberg-style trial against many pro-Islamic apologists in the West.

EscapeVelocity said...

Islam has 6 nukes and the weapons (fighter jets, missiles, tanks etc) that others sell them.

The question is not, can we defeat them. The question is whether we have the will to defeat them.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

kritisk_borger said...

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter”

Ann Coulter, a rabid Christian American mini Bin Laden.

goethechosemercy said...

I think it's pretty clear:
they want Western freedoms for themselves while denying Western freedoms to Westerners!
I'd rather be killed by Muslims than convert to Islam.

ib said...

I simply do not agree with any defeatist view, at least not yet, but time is short.

Some people are rousing themselves and when enough do we need to insist that Muslims either comply with OUR demands or face the most serious consequences.

And what Fjordman said, yes, what Fjordman said!

Jewel -The Testy Infidel said...

I think the best way to counter the defeatism, Fjordman, is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in regard to Islam. Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq and a whole host of others have been warning us for nigh on a decade about Islam. Not radical Islam, not Islamism, not Wahabbism, not Shiism, but Islam. Its tenets, its practices, the realities of Shariah as practiced in Muslim majority countries, and we know what is being taught in mosques and madrassas the world over and in our own countries. We need to oppose the mosques on these bases alone.
It is time to stand against Islam. Period. We need the kind of fearless courage that Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Butros Zakaria have shown in standing against Islam. There is no hope in reforming it Luther style, or Calvin style, there is only exposing it to the bright sunlight and hoping and praying that many are truly leaving it.
But more than that. By simplifying and telling the truth about Islam, we may be able to raise enough freedom loving men and women to fight against it.
This is, after all, an asymmetric war of attrition.
The sooner we embrace this reality the more creative and capable we will be in fighting an enemy we can confidently name.

EscapeVelocity said...

Here is the PBS Newshour show on Islam in America (and the GZMosque "controversy").

They have a Muslim, and interfaith wishful thinking promoter, and a Leftwing professor who loves to indict America...discuss the issue. You can guess that they are all in agreement. Islam is good, just a few bad apples that are acting contrary to Islam....and Americans are bigoted, fearful, haters....as they always are.

It's not an hour long BTW. Just a segment in the Newshour.

PBS Newshour - Islam Struggles for Understanding, Place in U.S. Religious Mosaic

ambisinistral said...

I've often thought one of the first things we should do in the states is pass laws that any institution who's officials threaten bodily harm for apostasy looses it's tax free status as a religion.

The point of this isn't to tax mosques, but to bait rabid Moslems into defending their punishment for apostasy. Aggressively go after the least acceptable parts of their dogma and make them either defend it or try to hide it.

In other words, charges of islamaphobia be damned -- force the debate on the grounds of our choosing.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Escape Velocity, I saw that PBS News Hour segment. The guests did not include one informed critic of Islam. It was like Al Gore, Paul Erlich, and Phil Jones being invited onto the show to shed light on AGW.

Cobra said...

The real enemy is the left, who made the islamic invasion possible and continuous.
Defeating islam will not be possible wo. 1st defeating the left.

EscapeVelocity said...

Indeed Cobra.

xlbrl said...

Who is the enemy? After all this time, we do not know it is the Left. Islam does not exist in the West without it.

The Left sought to break the West through communism, and having temporarily failed in that, devoted itself to bringing Muslims under the tent to do the job by proxy.

We seek to treat the symptoms of our disease, because we cannot begin to grasp how to treat the disease.

Papa Whiskey said...

Ann Coulter, a rabid Christian American mini Bin Laden.

Oh, give me a break. Ann Coulter is a clever wench who uses intemperate rhetoric to attract attention and sell books. How many people has she killed? Unless her gibes have given some elderly liberals apoplexy, none.

EscapeVelocity said...

The Atheist Secularists and the Pagans and the Christians are divided, a balkanized society, not just ethnically but ideologically.

It cannot stand...against the cohesion of Islam.

The Left has done its poisonous work well. Even severing women from men, and weakening the family bond that is the basis for a strong civilizaiton.

kritisk_borger said...

“Oh, give me a break. Ann Coulter is a clever wench who uses intemperate rhetoric to attract attention and sell books. How many people has she killed? Unless her gibes have given some elderly liberals apoplexy, none.”

No she’s not a killer or a terrorist, but she’s using the same sick rhetoric as Bin Laden and his perverse followers and which these terrorists are hated for by most sane people in the west.

Maybe we should ship people like her who’re advocating sending young Americans and westerners in harm’s way and give them guns and a rifles and let them do the fighting that they praises so highly, but then again people like her never step up to the line when the call is made. People like her would hide in the bushes and piss in their pants if they were ever ordered to go to places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sean O'Brian said...

We have basically already done what Ann Coulter prescribed with one slight variation: We have invaded their countries, killed their leaders and tried to convert them to democracy. The democratic faith is a more integral part of a Westerner's identity now than the Christian faith.

Look at this article:

Somalia rebels looking increasingly like Taliban

We know that some Somalia-American men have left their homes in Minnesota to join the Al-Shabab rebels in Somalia. So what is happening is that while NATO fights the Taliban in Afghanistan, Taliban-like immigrants are settling the United States.

In the Middle Ages, the Crusades against Muslims in their own countries were a last resort to try and head-off continued invasions that had been going on for at least two centuries. The Pope did not issue a visa to Saladin (some of the 9/11 hijackers were issued posthumous visas) or invite the Seljeck Turks to come and live in Languedoc.

The neoconservative crusades of today are a diverting sideshow when Islamification increases every day through immigration. The goodness, purity and rationality of our democratic faith - as compared with Christianity and Islam - does not ensure its inevitable victory.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

Fjordman said... I'm tired of hearing the nonsense that the ongoing trends will continue for another 50 years. They won't. We will face a massive discontinuity long before that...

Maybe as a result of national or international military intervention, or as consequence of other direct hostile activities, for example an Iranian accomplished EMP over Europe or a new 9/11, ... otherwise not!

The most fiendish treason in Sweden's history occurred in the Swedish Parliament in 1975 when nearly without public insight the decision to initiating a future multicultural society was unanimously voted through.
A tombstone in Sweden's history will be erected in 2011-07-01 when this decison will be inscribed in the Swedish Constitution (göras till svensk grundlag).
http://www.focus-migration.de/Sweden.6245.0.html?&L=1

At lest another 2 million most probabely mainly MENA immigrants are planned to be imported into Sweden till 2014 (by the New Moderates - Conservative - party).

Around 2040 the indigenous Swedish population will be in minority.

Jewel -The Testy Infidel said...I think the best way to counter the defeatism, Fjordman, is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in regard to Islam.

Another and a new channel to attack Islam might be to hold it up to massive and justified ridicule -- and make it known that Islam most probabely is nothing but bogus and that his holiness Prophet Mohammed is a fake.

You will find an unacceptable lengthy comment in four parts here, that might illustrate what I am talking about.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

POST SCRIPTUM
The fourth part of that lengthy comment is by 'unknown reasons' denied being pasted at the mentioned placet, why it comes here!
- - - - -
I am sorry that the two last links does mot work - the material must
have been moved. I offer some other useful links instead.

• Book Review: Christoph Luxenberg (ps.) Die syro-aramaeische Lesart
des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur'ansprache. [Robert
R. PHENIX Jr. and Cornelia B. HORN]. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
6 (2003) 1.
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
[" Not in the history of commentary on the Qur’Çn has a work like this
been produced. Similar works can only be found in the body of
text-critical scholarship on the Bible. From its method to its
conclusions on the language and content of the Qur’Çn, Luxenberg’s
study has freed scholars from the problematic tradition of the Islamic
commentators. Whether or not Luxenberg is correct in every detail, with
one book he has brought exegetical scholarship of the Qur’Çn to the
“critical turn” that biblical commentators took more than a century
ago. This work demonstrates to all exegetes of the Qur'an the power of
the scientific method of philology and its value in producing a clearer
text of the Qur'an. Scholars of the first rank will now be forced to
question the assumption that, from a philological perspective, the
Islamic tradition is mostly reliable, as though it were immune to the
human error that pervades the transmission of every written artifact.
If biblical scholarship is any indication, the future of Qur’anic
studies is more or less decided by this work."] For a Muslim response
by M. S. M. Saifullah, see
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/luxreview1.html

• Scholars Are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran [ALEXANDER
STILLE] New York Times (and International Herald Tribune), March 4,
2002. Some Muslim authors have begun to publish skeptical, revisionist
work on the Koran as well. Several new volumes of revisionist
scholarship, The Origins of the Koran, and The Quest for the Historical
Muhammad, have been edited by a former Muslim who writes under the pen
name Ibn Warraq. Mr. Warraq, who heads a group called the Institute for
the Secularization of Islamic Society, makes no bones about having a
political agenda.
http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/02/03/1bkk/04b.html

• The Qur'an, Hadith, and the Prophet Muhammad
http://www.uga.edu/islam/primsourcisl.html
[Interactive scholarly site with information and links to other sites.
Created and maintained by Alan Godlas.]

• What is the Koran? [Toby Lester] Atlantic Monthly (January, 1999)
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm
[This article is a popular summary of critical research on the Qur'an.
For a Muslim response by M. S. M Saifullah, see
http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_days_years.htm
-- scroll down half way here for rhis selecrion this selection.
- - - - -
Also for a simple counter-jihad amateur with an one-track mind it is a fascinating idea that an old Bible-version written in Syro-Aramaic, by script-perverters/exegetes/activists of that time hating the idea of the Trinity (Nicea 325) and before a premature Arabic language was standardized and established, during a few centuries reedited, constructed and finally in the 9th century brought about the preliminary Glorious Quran, an oriental-arabic-beduin-bellicose version of a Bible.

Luke said...

yet it is islam that we are at war with. sadly not many are aware of that.

islam will reverse all that western civilization struggled to achieve.

islam destroys ..takes never gives. it brings out the base qualities of the human animal that are often negative to everything and everyone around us.

islam is the strongman world. the warlord the thug the dictator. where laws will just reflect the views of the strongest among us.

islam truly is the dark age.

Jedilson Bonfim said...

And we should have a Nuremberg-style trial against many pro-Islamic apologists in the West.

And Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Carl Bildt and David I-want-Libya-Morocco-Egypt-Syria-Iraq-Turkey-Algeria-Lebanon-and-Iran-in-the-EU Dhimmiliband ought to be sentenced to death when they're found guilty.

Just think of the stabbed parents and victims of rape, victims of crimes brought about because of policies that those surrender monkeys support. Just think of the wasted hundreds of billions in European currencies to finance breeding by half-male mobile tents, those possessions of primitive pigs whose sole accomplishment in life, to quote Pat Condell, was to be born with a penis in one hand and a copy of Mein Qurampf in the other, and which (not who) also live on taxpayer-financed dole.

EscapeVelocity said...

"We have basically already done what Ann Coulter prescribed with one slight variation: We have invaded their countries, killed their leaders and tried to convert them to democracy. The democratic faith is a more integral part of a Westerner's identity now than the Christian faith."


Which is of course why you are losing your countries to multiculturalism. You refuse to enforce cultural norms of any one group anymore.

The projects in teh Middle East would be much more effective if we invaded and killed their leaders and then converted them to Christianity. Muslims will vote in the most heinous Shariah States when given the power to do so. We can see the election of Hamas for example...and we can see how the growing power of the Muslim electorate in Europe is being used.

So in conclusion, abandoning Christianity, is a disaster.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

[The GoV/Blogger 'comments-template' has been very stubborn and unco-operative today, which explains the undesired recurrences at another place!]
- - - - - - - -
More Koranic ridicule.

The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear', but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims -- and Orientalists -- will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible -- if it can't even be understood in Arabic -- then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not -- as even speakers of Arabic will tell you -- there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.
...said by Gerd Rüdiger Puin (born 1940), German scholar at the Saarland University, Germamy; specialist in Arabic paleography; authority on Qur'anic historical orthography.
- - - - -

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html

Anonymous said...

Nor does it mean that every Muslim is the enemy. It is conceivable, however, that every committed, practicing, fully faithful Muslim is the enemy.

The distinction is at best meaningless, as we have no practical and reliable way of knowing whether a Muslim is "committed, practicing and fully faithful" or not, which means that we ought to assume that all Muslims are our enemies.

Contemplationist said...

Baron

This is precisely why I never understood GoVs support for the Iraq invasion. It was a repulsive Wilsonian adventure. There was nothing "conservative" about it. Nothing at all. Realistically we could've kept all our freedoms at the airport and privacy-wise and just stopped all Muslim immigration and stopped Western aid to muslim countries.

The neocons are sick in the head.

Baron Bodissey said...

Contemplationist --

That was five years ago, and my views have evolved. I was more hopeful in those days.

I never really believed that a full democracy, American- or European-style, was possible in Iraq. But I assumed that we would fight to win, and then eventually install a less obviously brutral dictator who would not do as much harm to his country, and who would be aligned with the interests of the United States.

In this I was mistaken. I've learned a lot since those days, and see things differently now.

mriggs said...

I agree with Fjordman that this 50 year evolution will never come to fruition. The decision will be reached in the next decade probably.

I think it is time to publish a manifesto, backed by the major anti-islamist names of the era (wilders etc.), which states in essence that the 'cohabitation' between muslims and others in the west is not working; that only the 'natives' have made an effort toward integration; that muslims in the west are now on notice: either roundly and unambiguosly reject in word and deed certain key points of islam which stand in the way of peaceful coexistence, or all muslims must leave western europe during say, 2015-2020.

I think it is the right thing to do to put the idea of future mass expulsion out there, I believe the time is ripe. Eventually it ceases being outlandish if people start talking about it.

When it comes down to it, I think muslims should be put onboard cargo ships and sailed into the southern Atlantic. There they would be given control of the ships, with enough fuel, food and water, and the understanding that if they go back north of Cape Verde they will be sunk.

Zenster said...

Per James Forsyth: If the war on terror becomes a war on Islam, it is a war that we lose

This, among other category errors, remains a root cause issue in how this conflict is perceived.

So far, we are not truly at war with Islam. Hoewever, Islam IS at war with us.

The struggle to foster democratic, open societies in countries that have never known such freedom will last generations.

And, as Old Bill would say, therein lies the rub. Simply put, we don't have "generations". We have a decade at most to begin a full on assault against Islam or face the prospect of nuclear terrorist attacks.

There is a certain number of nuclear weapons that, when held in Muslim hands, simply GUARANTEES the emergence of a NON-ZERO probability that one or more of them will be used for the purposes of Islamic jihad.

There is no way around this basic equation. The apocalyptic and death-oriented nature of Islam precludes most existing forms of functional deterrence.

Our aim should be to boost the reformist elements in Islam, to offer what help we can to those who believe that Islam and liberal democracy can be compatible.

This is another formidable category error. From all indications, it appears that there is little to NO chance of pacifistic reformation within Islam. Those who are keen on this avenue need to consider that Osama bin Laden represents actual Islamic reform.

If the West appears to be anti-Islam rather than just anti-Islamism, then we will not be able to do that.

Again, more of this category error lunacy. All of this centers upon the fact that Islam is ANTI-WEST, not the other way about. Until this fundamental error in perception and definition is overcome, debate centered upon such false premises will remain meaningless.

Per commenter Dixon: So what? They are on exactly the same side in this conflict as those that do [intend to use violence].

This remains one of the most vital distinctions to make regarding ostensibly "moderate" Muslims.

Baron Bodissey: No wonder “lapsed Muslims” keep a low profile.

Which, again, makes them absolutely useless in terms of supposedly "moderate" Muslims or anything of the sort.

Baron Bodissey: It is conceivable, however, that every committed, practicing, fully faithful Muslim is the enemy. We have to prepare ourselves for this possibility — anyone involved in the current information war would be negligent if he refused to examine it seriously.

Something that a huge number of people on both "sides" of this issue fail (or refuse) to understand.

Profitsbeard: Islam must Reform- or Perish.

Given the low odds of reformation, it makes an immediate call to arms just that much more imperative.

Fjordman: And we should have a Nuremberg-style trial against many pro-Islamic apologists in the West.

If we had done this for the Communists after winning the cold war, we might not be having quite the problem that we are right now.

EscapeVelocity: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

To Hell with any attempt to "invade their countries". If there is one lesson that we must take away from Afghanistan and Iraq, it is that the era of (Islamic) nation building is well and truly over.

No more boots on the ground. Yes, kill the leaders, be they political, clerical, financial or scholastic but no occupations. Our motto needs to be; "Break the bad boys' toys and get out!"

If anything, we must send them a bill for having had to go in and quell their jihadist nonsense.

Zenster said...

mriggs: either roundly and unambiguously reject in word and deed certain key points of islam which stand in the way of peaceful coexistence, or all muslims must leave western Europe

Such thinking is overly optimistic. One more time, this is where taqiyya irrevocably damns Islam.

There is no way of knowing when or if a Muslim has authentically and genuinely rejected jihad. Ever. Period. Full Stop.

mriggs said...

Zenster: I am aware of Taqyia, but it doesn't matter, it doesn't work that way. A muslim can't verbally reject the koran and claim Taqyia - that would be Taqyia in reverse which would quickly undermine islam. Whether it is authentic doesn't matter either. The point is not actually having muslims comply, but to make reasonable demands which they manifestly can't/won't comply with.

1389 said...

We won against the Axis.

We won against the Communists.

We can win against the Muslims if we set our minds to it.

It's as simple as that.

1389 said...

Our biggest enemy is from within.

Even more evidence that Obama is Muslim

hgbktonoktono said...

1389 said "We won against the Communists."

No we din't. Got one in the WH right now, and Edumedia been their fief for over two decades.

EscapeVelocity said...

Indeed, hg.

In 3 parts stick with it...

The History of Political Correctness (Part 1 of 3)


Further details in this lecture...

Bill Lind on political Correctness

NorseAlchemist said...

So, let's say we win. We push back Islam. What's to keep it from coming back in fifty years? A Hundred? a Thousand?

There is, I fear, only one way to truly stop Islam. But I don't know that we can do it. (well, mechanically we can do it, but personally?)

I see only dark days ahead. Short term, I see little progress. Long term, I see only the same problems. EV says a return to Christianity will save us, but some of the greatest minds in Western Civilization have noted, very correctly, that Christianity is a self-destructive religion. Look at Western Civilization, dominated by Christianity for 1800 years, and yet, inevitably, it has come to this. The philosophy of Christianity remains: the weak, the meek, the poor, are good, while the strong, the proud, and the wealthy are evil. In two thousand years, Christianity has taken the course of its ultimate evolution. The Christian West has become what Christianity meant it to be, except they have cast aside the God and now worship the Multicultural, the Post National World, where everyone is good and loved and merely oppressed by those evil white people. It can also be argued that the world got along fine for over many, many thousands of years without Christianity.

The simple fact is that while sites like this are good and useful, they have their limits. So we educate the people, then what? We elect leaders that promise to stop Islam from taking over our lands. What methods do they use? Draconian laws, that are then turned on any religion or lack their of that they find unacceptable? I will not fight off Islamic theocracy just so I can live under a Christian one. The net result would be the same for me, however attractive some people would find it. Will said leaders use war? Will they nuke Muslim lands? Will we see a Muslim Holocaust? Will we see a world torn apart by war?

I'm not saying we shouldn't fight. We should, and we should do so without fear, but we must do it knowing full well what we are getting into. Stop the Muslims with laws and they will come with weapons. Stop them with weapons, and we shall see over a Billion people world wide rise up to slay us in the name of Allah.

What we face is literally what we Norse call Ragnarok. It is an ending of the world. The only question is if Islam will win, or will we all fight door to door with whatever is at hand and let the Gods decide the fates of Mankind? There is no middle ground.

mriggs said...

NorseAlchemist: I don't think it's as bleak as all that. Remember that christianity hasn't been the underdog-rooter for most of history - today's situation can be viewed as an aberration, perhaps caused by marxism, which the body politic may well purge itself of given time. Sooner or later (I predict sooner) the peoples of the west will rediscover the will to fight to defend themselves. Islam will never triumph, because it is fundamentally hostile to free thought and thus science and technology, the basis for winning a modern war.