More thoughts on Islam and war

I had a conversation with somebody (a person who I tend to think of as intelligent) over the weekend who said, rather bluntly, that the only solution is to blow up the mosques and then just be prepared to use as much force as it takes. "We have to be prepared to inflict as much pain as is necessary to get them to despair and realize they can't beat us," this person asserted. Any solution other than changing the rules of engagement so that we can use as much force as it takes wherever it is required, amounts to appeasement and "will guarantee your children and grandchildren will be wearing burkas and using prayer rugs." The only concern, he said, is that they are blowing up innocent people; that makes them the bad guys, and we have to take them out. Everything else is irrelevant. I pointed out that the way in which the winning side "broke" Germany at the end of World War I pretty much guaranteed World War II; "That just means we didn't use enough force at the end of WWI," this person replied. As disturbing as I find that point of view, I find "N."'s point of view no less unsettling. They are both perspectives that seem to boil down to the idea that we will either kill each other quickly, or we will kill each other slowly, but one way or the other, we will kill each other, it's just who will do it first. Richard

Unlike the United States, where there are no immigration controls. The same thing is happening in our country. Tom Tancredo is right. Miami is a third world country. But for saying the truth, he is demonized by the media. The concerns about Europe and Islam are the same here in the United States with Hispanics/illegal immigrants. That's why immigration is our number one issue.

"But I must admit that it's easy for me to make this judgment from the position of my safe American home." Clash reference?

"The concerns about Europe and Islam are the same here in the United States with Hispanics/illegal immigrants." Are Mexican yard workers on the verge of a revolt? Are their religious values in conflict with the religious values of the rest of the country? Muslims in the U.S. hold religious and social values that are much closer to James Dobson and Rod Dreher's. That's in sharp contrast to the Muslims in tolerant, secular Europe. If Rod or Dobson showed up in Rotteram, their values would be as anathema to Dutch society as the Muslims.

It's pretty obvious what the immediate costs are: closed swimming pools, a culture that is truly misogynist, and daily threats to those whose viewpoints are not shared (so far Salmon Rushdie is the lucky one). No Patrick Henry there; no one is offering to defend to the death anyone's right to speak. The long-term costs are harder to see. It's easy to say this is what happens when you give up God and stop having children. The reality isn't so simple. But the Europeans are yielding their culture, and none too slowly. If a minority (13%) can close swimming pools, what will 25% do? There seems to be no courage to counteract the shift. I was shocked to read a plea for tolerance for Muslims at the end of a book discussing Catholics during the English Reformation ("God's Secret Agents"), but I am certainly getting the picture now.

I've been saying all along that the best way to fight terrorism and radical Islam is through intelligence gathering and police actions. Bubba said, Playing defense without addressing rogue states that harbor terrorists and seek to acquire nuclear weapons, I'll admit that all Mideastern states aren't seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, but name one country in the Mideast that doesn't harbor terrorists. Many of the countries harboring them are presently on our side.
I don't know the answer for Europe if they aren't willing to upset the radicals. I'd open the swimming pools and arrest those who break the law by commiting violence against or harrassing others.

Assimilation or Displacement? Or...war. Can anyone direct me to a good overview of the Serbian-Bosnian hostilities? Was Milosevic dealing with something that would later be a trend all throughout Europe? I hate to suggest the unthinkable, but sometimes brutality is more copassionate in the long run. Have the Israelis really done the right thing by allowing a low-intensity conflict to drag on and on, costing many lives & festering resentment? Maybe the West needs to figure out its identity, draw a line in the sand, & act decisively and brutally. However, this may not be politically possible.

"Mayor Bloomturd."
So juvenile.

A public bilingual school is legal. A public religious school is not. This report is about a public bilingual school. It's uncommon, but not unheard-of. I had friends in Cambridge (MA) who sent their son to a Spanish-English bilingual school a dozen or so years ago. I have a niece in the LA area who goes to a similar school, where the language choices are Spanish and Japanese. The idea is to immerse English- and foreign-language-speaking children in each others' languages, build up linguistic skills and cultural awareness at the same time, etc., etc.

I looked into this a little farther. Scotch meg is correct. It's public.The school is teaching Arabic. It's not an Islamic school, although many of the students will probably be Muslim. It's one of 40 new schools to open in NYC after closing many for poor performance. This could be a really good thing when we're talking about intelligence being a primary means of fighting terrorism. Maybe instead of thinking that Muslims have to become terrorists and hate the west, we could look on the brighter side and think of it as developing future intelligence agents or diplomats.

"What happens at that point is the imposition of de facto Sharia." Sharia gets tossed around a lot by the Muslim alarmists, but without much context. How does a country that is even 20 percent Muslim become "Sharia"?

Why can't the Arab chidlren learn in, I dunno, ENGLISH? Why are taxpayer funds going to a seperatist school? By the way, to compare it to bilingual is a nonstarter-nobody chooses to have their children not learn in English.
Bloomberg, juvenile reference and all, is part of the multiculti nonsense run amok of the elite secularitists. This school will exclude people and won't in any way bring Abrab children into the American mainstream. So instead of briningt hese kids into our culture, we ghettoize them further-GREAT IDEA!So we can in a few yers how they were alienated form the broader culture, as we heard in Utah last week, sometime in the future.
Well damn that!
As someone who pays to have my children go to Catholic schools in NYC without the support of either NYC nor Bill and Melinda Gates, call me an angry and interested party, especially since this city has been bombed by Arab terrorists twice, and targeted numerous other times.

Good grief, Susan! There's a town in Sweden that the authorities say is already under defacto Sharia law. Police state they CANNOT protect non-Muslims in that area.
Stonings of women have occured in areas of heavy Muslim concentration; not just in Europe, but also Canada. To say that a country will have to reach 51% Muslim for any adverse effects is silly. "Muslims in the U.S. hold religious and social values that are much closer to James Dobson and Rod Dreher's." Yeah, that's why the Drehers and the Dobsons of this country are always blowing up Jewish busses, flying planes into buildings, beheading school girls of another religion, and vowing to "finish Hitler's work."
As poetic justice, you could be given a choice of living under a Dobson regime or Hamas, then the choice would be made for you: Hamas it is. After all, what's the difference?
If this is the type of reasoning we can look forward to after 2008, then I might have to put aside my almost-blinding hatred of the Bush/Republican losers and pull the lever for Rudi.

"...constant police action, counterterrorism, espionage, and so forth. I don't see that we have a better idea." Bret Stephens pointed out something interesting about that: good intelligence work can't really be done without violating the civil liberties we hold dear under English Common Law. The Napoleonic Code, say, is much more conducive to secret police work, for some reason. So, there's the compromise: assuming war powers in order to do police work. Not pretty. Plus, we have to monitor all interrogations to make sure that they're in compliance, which, if leaked, violates secrecy. And do we really want to monitor the world through some cockamamie secret intelligence scheme, whose powers will be inevitably and embarrasingly abused? Is that the best use of our time, treasure, and public face? Especially when we will have to acknowledge that a lot of the stuff is happening in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and send agents in? Are you ready to bust those relationships and deal with the aftermath? And on... and on...

The logic of Rod's argument seems to ineluctably lead to Muslims being loaded on boxcars to ... where? and ... to what fate? Besides, I've been dying to use the word "ineluctably".

"The logic of Rod's argument seems to ineluctably lead to Muslims being loaded on boxcars to ... where? and ... to what fate?" The above line of thinking, where even noticing the difficulties imposed by "diversity" leads with inevitable force to the Gas Chamber, is in large part, or entirely, responsible for the trouble that Europe and the US finds itself in today.
It has enabled levels of immigration that are now making the former European majorities in the USA and Europe into fearful minorities in their own cities. Was that what Americans and Europeans wanted?
And even while noticing the ongoing marginalization of Europeans in the US and Europe, Rod can't really bring himself to directly bring up thea source of the problems that he is bringing up - Immigration policy.

And even while noticing the ongoing marginalization of Europeans in the US and Europe, Rod can't really bring himself to directly bring up thea source of the problems that he is bringing up - Immigration policy. What do you mean I can't really bring myself to do that? I think our immigration policy is insane, and Europe's has been insane for quite some time.

Grumpy Old Man: but beware of linear extrapolation by those who view with alarm...Linear extrapolations assumes that today's trends will continue without change. Several problems here. First, this isn't just the future, it is the past. Remember, in 1970 the developed world was twice the size of the Muslim world (30% to 15%). Today, Muslims outnumber us, with each about 20%. Also, we can project demography out for a generation. Think: every single person that will be alive in the next generation is already born . So we know firmly what will happen demographically for the next 30 years, and have a very good guess over 60. You can't just change direction on a ocean liner quickly. If Muslim women in Europe are empowered, birth rates will decline. Not necessarily so - and if they do, they too will fade. All it takes is one tribe to breed. Also, if this happens, Europe will have to import workers from those breeding groups for economic reasons. If countries such as Holland perceive a threat, they'll tighten immigration. Once you get enough people there, a democracy cannot do this. Even smaller minorities have sizable political power - look at Hispanics in the US. Nobody dares cross them. The more religious Christians (and Jews for that matter) are likely to reproduce more, possibly limiting the rise of secularism. In America, yes. Not in Europe; too secular, too few compared to the Muslims. Conversion would have to be so sweeping it's out of the realm of reasonable possiblities. It's the numbers. You can look them up. Accurate prediction in human affairs is impossible as a matter of principle. Demography is one of the few areas where you can project quite well as populations cannot change very rapidly (sure, we could go genocide, but you can't go up that fast). In a sense, Muslims have been building their future for 2050 back in 1950. Keep your powder dry, but scrutinize alarmists' data with care. Now here we agree; however, demographers are not alarmists. They are rational scientists with pretty good track records. Personally, I don't think the fact that European culture is vanishing and will be replaced by Muslims is anything alarmist. It's just demographics. The White Man's days are fading in Europe. Not with a bang, but a wimper.

"What do you mean I can't really bring myself to do that? I think our immigration policy is insane, and Europe's has been insane for quite some time." Sorry, I retract. Haven't been keeping up with your past writings it seems.

Yeah, sorry Derek, I'm going to have to strike that remark as a personal attack.

"When debating, express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. You agree not to make negative personal remarks about other Beliefnet members" I was talking about her type, which means the set of ideas she holds. You can see it in the pattern of debate she follows. First the excuse-making, the inevitable (or should I say "ineluctable") accusation of bigotry, then the equivocating: the oh-you're-just-like-Hamas-too. In the end, people of that sort will ally with most retrograde fanatics, provided that it let's them strike back at their own society's strictures. Since beliefs can be personal, I suppose it is a personal attack. Well, fine. Make the most of it, but I stand by it.

What I've stated, though, pretty much answers why left-liberals are going to be of little to no help when it comes to Islam. Their philosophy largely comes from a history of negating their own society's tradition and underpinnings. So when you're dealing with a hostile "other", their first instinct, time and again, is to go through a ritual of self-flagellation, thus ceding most of the moral ground before the fight even begins.

"I would rather live in seclusion in a Muslim culture, hiding my bible under the bed, with my soul intact than to go along with what many people here seem to be suggesting." I think I speak for many Americans, atheists, Christians and Jews-we won't live like that, not for a second. And if it meant my head, so be it.

If the European Muslims were here in the U.S., pulling the same crap...they'd get smacked down. They'd get a red state smackdown like they've never seen before. The Europeans are sissies, and if they lose it's their own fault. You can't compare the Hispanics to the Muslims, and you damn sure can't compare conservative Christians to Muslims! That's just a stupid comparison. I hate to hear about the Muslim takeover, the car burnings, the riots, the threats... but trust me, if they tried that here, I would personally be in the streets armed to the teeth and I'd go down fighting. And I have a feeling that there are a LOT of guys like me, easygoing people who become ferocious when cornered.

I wouldn't write off Europe yet. Or at least not the UK. The loudest voices amongst the politcal classes might have given in. I can't see the mass of people in the UK giving up pubs & clubs, 'page 3', rock music, bingo, big brother etc and donning turbans or burkhas. I think the mistake is to assume that those with the loudest voices amongst the commenteriat actually represent any significant section of opinion. Although dangerous, people who support the 'Respect' coalition here are probably dwarfed in numbers by people who have sympathies with the neo-fascist British National Party and Anti-European UK independence party. The small parties don't have much change of taking Parlimentary Seats, but local councils are fair game. Once the main parties here in the UK begin to suspect the wind is changing they'll do what they can to keep up with public opinion - votes are important. If I had to make a prediction - one more terrorist atrocity with Pakistani links and they'll shut down the relatively free movement between the UK and Pakistan and tighten up immigration controls - they are already splitting the Home Office into National Security and Justice Departments to try and regain control. A sign that they are taking things seriously. The government finally dropped the muslim brotherhood tinged muslim coucil of great britain as its partner in the mulsim community. Things are changing.

Mexicans are not trying to force Americans to become Mexicans or be beheaded. Muslims sooner or later will kill off or subjugate the non-Muslims. My Mexican-American friends do not want to be Muslims. They want to live as Americans. Sooner or later there is going to be a warzone anywhere Muslims live. History has proven the intolerance of Muslims towards non-Muslims. The bully that is Islam, is going to have to be fought. A bully does not accept appeasement as anything other than that they are in charge of everyone and everything.

This islamic state would be a sunni or shia islamic state? Arab, turkish or persian? If you go for Arab - (assuming the non-arabs go for this) - N African, Levant, Mesopotamian, Egyptian or Arabian peninsular Arab? get real Usama. has such a state ever existed? how long did it take for cracks to appear in mohammeds empire? And sure the turkish sultan was loved in all of the territories they ruled over... or is it someone elses fault? 'crusaders' or the you-know-whos (it rhymes) Look up Utopia and try and understand that it is a fictional place.

Usama, I agree that with you that blowing up mosques and killing Muslims randomly is a terrible idea. I find it hard to believe that educated people and those who claim to be Christian and follow the teachings of Jesus would think of such a thing. Most people in the west don't think like that. I can see how a caliph with the right understanding of Islam could be good for Muslims and for the making of world peace. But I don't see how it would help to get religious extremists to stop using violence to solve problems. It seems to me that people like Bin Laden would only recognize the authority of a caliph if the caliph preached the type of hate speech against the west that we are so used to hearing. When I think of the Muslim world being led by a caliph, I think of the Taliban. How would it look to you?

"Their philosophy largely comes from a history of negating their own society's tradition and underpinnings. So when you're dealing with a hostile "other", their first instinct, time and again, is to go through a ritual of self-flagellation, thus ceding most of the moral ground before the fight even begins." Boy, I missed an insult. I hate when that happens, especially when it apparently sexist as well as just mean. My point about Muslims--and I don't pretend to speak for all "liberals"--is that there is a very reactionary tenor to the discussion of Muslims in Europe (and the U.S.) that seems built around the idea that every Muslim is the "enemy" and therefore "they all" need to have something done to them. The Muslim issue in Europe is complex and shouldn't be viewed through the lens of the U.S. (or the Middle East). I know that in certain neoconservative circles, this feeding-frenzy of Muslim hysteria is the norm, but it doesn't really help us figure out the problem. Yes, Pim Fortuyn was alarmed by Muslims because they were not assimilating into liberal Dutch society. Theo Van Gogh made similar points. My only argument is that they would have the same reaction to James Dobson. Fortuyn and Van Gogh were alarmed at religious conservatives trying to force their religious social values on the liberal Netherlands. It had little to do with Muslims in general, except that they were the new conservative immigrants. So if Fortuyn or Van Gogh were making public statements and movies about the conservative Christian threat to the Netherlands, what would Rod's reaction been then? Would they have been the neocon martyrs and heroes they had become if the attacks had been on conservative Christians instead of conservative Muslims?

Usama, Thanks for sharing your "One Caliphate" solution (peaceful, stable and NON-expansionsit, I presume), and as far as I can see, there's only one problem: the eternal injunction in Islam to convert every last bit of Al al Harb (the infidel nations) into Dar Al Islam - by conversion, submission or war. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, from the perspective of the Ummah, ALL world, ALL the universe and EVERYTHING in it are consecrated to Allah and are essentially ISLAMIC in character. If you convert to Islam - you aren t really converting, but reverting - simply returning to what you were originally and were always meant to be. If, as a non-muslims, we infidels enjoy self-governance and certain rights of autonomy and private ownership in our infidel lands - it's really only a temporary arrangement. Eventually, through the usual mechanisms of conversion, submission or war, the world must once again take on its true Islamic character, and effecting that transformation is a QURANIC INJUNCTION. Once that happens, as non-muslims, we may still be permitted a measure of freedom and autonomy (if you re one of the people of the book ), but that protection/tolerance would be on Islamic terms - and it can be rescinded (and frequently has been rescinded, violently, usually many times, especially over the course of generations/centuries, etc.). In point of fact, isn't this is how non-muslims groups become de-populated, scattered and un-landed? Doesn't it help explain why other religions are suppressed in lands controlled by the Ummah and non muslims places of worship fall into disrepair, are abandoned and destroyed? (As an aside, doesn't it also help explain why it s illegal to convert muslims, criticize Islam or its prophet, apostacize from Islam, or marry a muslim woman in most islamic countries?) So then, in exchange for this "One Caliphate," what will you do for us poor infidels? What sort of "hudna" are you offering? One hundred years of peace? Fifty? Or just the usual ten year hiatus from violent jihad . . .?

"Wasn't there an upsurge, a few years back, of young American men surrounding and molesting women in public swimming pools?" No, it was a phenomenon particular to a certain place: New York City; during a certain period: the Dinkins administration; among a certain cohort: young black males, or if you prefer, "urban youth". Like many such phenomena particular to that time, place and cohort, it faded with the advent of the Giuliani administration.

There is a difference between young hooligans throwing rocks or harassing women, and young hooligans whose religious leaders tell them that this is acceptable behavior.

As for the language thing, people get upset with the suggestion to adopt enlish only in schools, but in good ole Brazil immigrants poured in during the 17th-19th centuries, formed ethnic enclaves, taught in their languages, worshipped in their languages, did business in their languages and had little reason to speak portuguese at all. Everyone was 'tolerant' of their linguistic differences and seperation, but Brazil realized in the 30's that national unity was at stake because folks weren't integrating into society, so they mandated portuguese only in schools, and voila, a unified portuguese speaking nation. anon