"War is deception"

I will check out the links in the above post, but just wanted to make one preliminary comment. It's my impression that Islamism, or radical Islam, whatever you wish to call it is on a clear collision course with liberal society. Why aren't liberals waking up? I think because the rubber hasn't hit the road yet. (Yes, partly based on "Terror and Liberalism," which I am rereading at present. On second read, I have to say I think this Paul Berman book is one of the best I've ever read.)

Until there are real consequences that affect liberals (and everbody else) it will be much easier for liberals to feel good about themselves because of their so-called tolerance.

Why haven't those liberals joined that culture of 911?

Why aren't the Young Republicans flooding military recruitment centers?

Young Republicans are too smart to get themselves shot at.

Alicia, I don't think your analysis is correct. Europe is much more liberal than the U.S., has a greater Islamic presence, and has had some pretty violent acts committed in the name of Islam there. For the most part the result has been to compromise more with Muslims. TV4 in Britain runs an expose` on radical mosques in the UK and now the police are investigating the tv network. In Sweden, where per capita rapes (the vast majority of which are committed by Muslims) are far higher than NYC, Sweden is allowing ever more Muslims into the country and changing police uniforms to make the police look less aggressive. The examples, go on and on. So, I don't know that liberals in general will ever awake to the danger until the game is already over.

I believe the reason for this is that nondiscrimination is one of the shibboleths of liberalism. We can never discriminate against a group especially if the group is part of the Other. Actually the worse the Other acts, the more liberalism must do to dialogue and compromise. Of course, if liberals were to recognize that some groups can not coexist and therefore it is better to live separately. Then they can react to this situation. But if they do that, then they will have undermined liberalism since its central tenets are nondiscrimination and multiculturalism.

Of course, that's not the case in the U.S. Muslims in the U.S. are well educated and generally affluent, which is in sharp contrast to Europe, thus there is not a shred of evidence that Muslims can't live as part of the U.S. cultural, just like other fundamentalist religionists.

Daniel, this implies that the cause of Islamic jihad is economics. Every survey and study to date has shown that jihadists tend to be better educated and wealthier than their other Muslim brethren. The recent attacks in England were perpetrated by Muslim health care professionals. Do you need a listing of all of the arrests, attacks, and plans by Muslims in this country since 9/11? I don't call that "not a shred of evidence." Also, have you even looked at Rod's last two posts?

In fact, I'd argue that the tolerance for religious pluralism and even the most extreme religious expression is the reason why liberals have not gone hysterical over the conspiracies the right seems to unfold...

You're missing one key point. None of the groups you mention has a history of seeking to impose it's religion based on it's religious texts. Islam does. Or do you deny that Islam has a scriptural basis for subjugating others?

"This is a country that tolerates Orthodox Jews who live in cult-like communities, the Amish and their traditional clothes and history of oppression of women, of Pagans and Buddhists and even Santeria. We tolerate megachurches and sometimes violent abortion extremists, Universalists and athiests."

And these groups really don't pose any sort of threat to democracy, nor do they have a history or theology that is totally, completely, and fundamentally not only incompatible but also openly hostile with life in a society that respects religious freedom. The real key here is that a person can choose to live as an orthodox Jew or Amish--or, they can leave.

Likewise, while by some people's definitions some of these communities may be "oppressive" or cultish, for the most part their mission in life is not to cause mayhem to the outside world. Barfing up a laundry list of sectarian groups who are very un-PC does not absolve us of addressing some of the deep problems that are unique to some Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe.

"And by the way, you know, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea-- have a POINT. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!" --Neil Page (Steve Martin, Planes Trains and Automobiles)
Again, Rod, you go on and on about the great threat of Islamists in our midst, something I as a liberal and others like me take seriously (despite your prejudice otherwise.) Tell us, please, what do you think can be done about it? Otherwise, like Brother James said, you're just "talkin' loud, ain't sayin' nothin'."

That is slander, and I will not have it.

Ahem

Five years ago, when Rich and I ever so briefly discussed it on The Corner, I wrote that the US should prepare to annihilate various Arab capitals via nuclear weapons as a means of deterring jihadists (the thought being that Arab governments ought to wipe out such anti-American terrorists living in their countries now, lest those terrorists bring down the annihilating wrath of the US upon them). I wrote at the time that there would be a sense of emotional satisfaction from destroying Mecca in revenge for Islamic terrorists destroying an American city with a nuclear weapon, but that it would be foolishly counterproductive.

Naturally every other Muslim on the planet accused me of wanting to "nuke Mecca," when what I actually said was spare Mecca, but prepare to nuke various Arab capitals. I don't regret having said what I said about Mecca, because I still believe now as I believed then that it would be stupid to destroy that holy city as a retaliatory act. But I do deeply regret being so cavalier and unthinking about nuclear destruction upon cities and civilian populations that would have had perhaps nothing to do with nuclear terrorism against the US, and I regret having registered opposition to nuking Mecca on purely strategic grounds, not moral ones as well.

Rod,

I'm going to second Insane Kitten and ask, what's your point? The US has dealt with similar groups before - the American Communist Party, the American Nazi Party, the Black Panthers, the Aryan Nation folk, the IWW, Anarchists. There are plenty of groups who have worked very hard to force American society to change to their way of thinking and they have all failed.

These folks have all been marginalized because the vast majority of Americans like things the way they are.

Let's take a look at a quote from the article:

>>> Brotherhood members emphasize that they follow the laws of the nations in which they operate. They stress that they do not believe in overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather that they want as many people as possible to convert to Islam so that one day--perhaps generations from now--a majority of Americans will support a society governed by Islamic law. Muslims make up less than 3 percent of the U.S. population, but estimates of their number vary widely from 2 million to 7 million.
>>>

If the goals of these folks depend on the majority of Americans supporting a society governed by Islamic Law, then I am just don't see anything to worry about. The article further states that these groups have been active since 1963. Forty - four years of work and how close are they to their goals?

Chris has said that Islam is a special case because Islam has a history of imposing its faith based on religious texts. Okay, but just give me a scenario that suggests something like that could happen in America.

Don has suggested that some Muslim communities are interested in committing mayhem in the outside world. Well, when there is actionable evidence that mayhem is being planned, send the cops or Feds around to look into it. That's their job. Use RICO statutes against the parent organizations. That's why they were enacted.

Daniel point to plots and plans. Great, arrest the folks who commit crimes.

Chris also suggests that the worse the Other acts, the more liberalism insists on dialog. I would suggest that Chris is incorrect. I would suggest that American Liberalism's response to female circumcision would not be dialog, but would be Child Protective Services removing that girl and her siblings from that family. I would suggest that American Liberalism's response to honor killings would not be dialog, but would be an arrest, a trial, and a lifetime in prison or an execution.

Alicia asks why aren't liberals waking up. I would suggest that liberals are awake, that we've seen this sort of thing before, and that we believe that the current law enforcement systems in place are sufficient to deal with any problems in a manner consistent with America's tradition of individual freedom.

We've also seen the threat of ill-defined conspiracy (I have here in my briefcase a list of Communists...) used as an excuse for those who would seek to bypass the laws that protect individual freedoms and until I see a credible threat from the Muslim community, I am more concerned about those who would restrict my freedoms and invade my privacy than I am concerned about these vague threats or small conspiracies by those on the margins.

Daniel, in all fairness to Rod, it is conceivably possible to nuke an Arab capital without killing any Muslims. I'll leave the mechanics as an exercise for the reader.

Alicia asks why aren't liberals waking up. I would suggest that liberals are awake, that we've seen this sort of thing before, and that we believe that the current law enforcement systems in place are sufficient to deal with any problems in a manner consistent with America's tradition of individual freedom.

In short, liberals aren't wetting their pants because this time the bad guys are really, really, REALLY evil. And maybe we think a Democrat run administration would be less concerned with Janet Jackson's breast and more worried about the security of our infrastructure?

I ask you again: what is it going to take to make people wake up? That MB document was a smoking gun.

Umm, isn't that what we pay Alberto Gonzales for? Assuming Al is not too busy with other things, shouldn't the damn FBI be at work here? And please don't even try to tell me they are shaking in their boots in fear of the ACLU or some other nonsense.

On one hand we are told King George has everything under control, the ter-ists are on the run, and to replace him or his party with weak willed Democrats would be disaster.

On the other hand you are by all appearances telling me the Justice Department is full of clueless dolts.

Which is it?

Sorry I couldn't jump back in yesterday, but I had to leave work early yesterday.

I prefer the positive definition of liberalism that is advanced by Paul Berman in his book, "Terror and Liberalism."

That is, "Liberalism wanted to carve life up into different slices and keep each of those slices in its proper spot. The churches, from their place in private life, would be free to bestow blessings and curses. But they would not be able to enforce their blessings and curses by calling out the police.

The state, by contrast, would be free to call out the police, but would not have the power to bestow blessings and curses. The idea of maintaining a separation between material powers and spiritual powers was wonderfully practical, but also more than practical...

It held out a vision of freedom not just for one group of people and their favorite doctrine, but for everyone..." ("Terror and Liberalism," page 80)

That's the kind of liberal I would be proud to be called. But I feel that many of the liberals I know are not waking up to the Islamist threat to precisely this kind of freedom.