Hello Eurabia, your future is calling

The slow suicide of the West continues.....

If only the Islamofascists of September 11 had flown those planes into abortion clinics rather than the World Trade Center would the self-loathing West had understood.

Good grief, that was quick. The Manning Corollarists are everywhere.

“. . . . the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 63:8}.

"Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.”

Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh:

http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Ms. Ismaili clearly doesn't understand the concept of democracy.

On all kinds of levels ...

It seems outrageous that a politician should be allowed to send such a response to a constituent, it reads like an internet forum flame-war.

What was the wording of the letter that triggered it? I notice this was left out

The apologetics of the Councillor seem to suggest it was a "hate mail" style letter, the type of which it has to be said Muslim politicians do receive.

But without actually seeing it it's hard to say.
The madly irrational response of the councillor doesn't aide her credibility.

Sam, I get true hate mail letters from Muslims with some frequency. Even if I were moved to respond with such a gush of vitriol as this woman was -- and I'm honestly not -- I would be fired if I did such a thing. Nobody would make excuses for me. Nobody *should* make excuses for me, if I did such a thing.

Oh, give me a break! We have an official of the state (apparently, a so-called "moderate" Muslim) spewing this shit on a private citizen, and some of you clowns stand around trying to rationalize it.

If she ordered his assassination, and this blog covered it, I'm firmly convinced that some of you would bring up the Spanish Inquisition.

It is to laugh. Really and truly, you have to laugh at it, Don. Some people's loathing of their own culture is downright pathological. Should a scimitar be put to their throats, their last thought will be, "Somehow, the Christians made these poor souls do this."

So.!!?? you are moslem,?? Peace for the world,HMM!!?? Is the way to kill all that won't convert!!?? No christian allowed where Moslem's are in control!!?? After all christians are gone, then what!!?? Back to the old ways, beat any women that showes even a mouse size eyeball of her ankle!!?? (Who, is looking at what, then determine that she is evil!!?? What sect shall be in control after your great loving MASTER that spewed out his hate to another poor soul because he coulden't read, Oh, I'm sorry that's right you don't have a soul. Dying after Killing a group of innocent people in a shoping area,( straight to heaven and THEN,) many virgins to mess with to their hearts content.!!?? Wait a minute!!??? You know after you have converted, or KILLED all who dosen't convert, who is left to carry on this great love of HATE.!!??? Oh thats right, You keep on judging each other until this great blood bath has the Moslem of utopia, Right??? But wait, there is no one left to judge except one, this louser can't find the perfect in the one left,!!?? now what??? You know come on now, come on.!!! Thats it, thats it,He kills the only one left.Now all's perfect. Everything is perfect. May the lord have mercy on his soul. Oh,wait he dosen't have a soul. Oh well,sand the wind will cover where he lay to nourish another thistle.!! And no one will have to weave rugs.

The thing I'm sickest over is the ongoing motivation I feel to [re]print the Benjamin Franklin quote about liberty and safety.

I refuse to have my leaders tell me to bend over and be expected to respond "how far?" like so many of my so-called fellow citizens are doing. As much as I reject the PCism focused upon by Rod and the "self-hating" rherotic, I also reject the conservative, follow the leader or be branded a traitor mentality that says, in effect, that it is better to live in a controlled, closed society and feel safe* than to live in an open, free society, because open and free comes with a price: blood.

* It is so very easy to demonstrate that no matter how closed and protected we try to be, 9/11 can and will happen again.

Ismaili is not an "Islamist loon". She's a Muslim. Period.

Unvarnished, unmasked, in plain view for all to see.

You know you were wrong before you wrote that sentence.

Actually, I didn't, and I don't.

What baffles me about you, Rod, is that you have a lot of talent as a writer, but you choose to use it to polarize and irritate instead of using it to find common ground and workable solutions. You find the most egregious examples of partisanship, bigotry and intolerance and then decry them with equally bigoted, partisan rhetoric. Just to make a buck.

Boy, are you ever clueless about how the world works, not least the world of media. Do you really think my salary depends on the specific content of the columns I write? Do you really think the local media want to raise these issues with radical Islam? The other night I ran into a guy I know who works for another media outlet in Dallas. He said he enjoyed my column last week about the alleged honor killings of the Said girls here, and my exploration of the role violence to maintain the rigid Islamic social order plays within Arab Islamic culture -- including quoting a local Muslim leader defending violence, in general, in that context. The media guy said, "It seems weird to me that there isn't more coverage of it" -- "it" being the death of the Said girls, and the cultural context. I replied that it shouldn't be a mystery to him at all. Most journalists don't want to look at what's right in front of their noses on stories involving radical Islam. He responded that in fact when he first started reading my column, his first reaction was, "Jeez, why does Rod have to make life harder for Muslims." But then he kept reading and came to agree that my point was valid, and even necessary.

Moreover, if you think that Jonah Goldberg (who publicly execrates my kind of conservatism), Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter and I are in the same boat on how to fight Islamic radicalism, you either haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing, or you are so determined to see the world through ideological lenses that you filter out things that don't fit your thesis. I think the Iraq War was idiotic, and I also believe that democracy-promotion in the Muslim world is lunacy. I could be wrong about one or both, of course, but my views are not shared by very many on the Right.

As Frank Beckwith observes, there will always be among us leftists who will deny the problem of radical evil, and will seek to blame us entirely for its attacks on us. There are, happily, honorable exceptions (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens and Paul Berman, to name three). There is no consensus on the anti-Islamist left or the Right on the best way to deal with the problem. But at least we see that there's a problem, and that dhimmitude is precisely the wrong way to address it.

I believe the tactics modern 'conservatives' are employing against radical Islam are exacerbating the problem, not fixing it.

To be sure, I don't think anyone, or any school of thought, has devised an adequate way to deal with the problem. Personally, I am unsure of precisely what strategy to follow. I am certain, though, that the way not to fight it is to ignore or to downplay the cultural and theological core of this fight, and/or to believe that appeasement, and to choose to ignore the obvious.

If Will has an example of the Dallas town council making comparable racist remarks, I imagine Rod would be more than interested in looking at the evidence. Perhaps if, what Will claims is true, this type of thing is going on, we ought to be aware of it.

Of course, my guess is that if such remarks were being made within the Dallas government to private citizens, it would be in the press.

Well, our "Christian" Russian immigrees are not exactly proving a font of civilized behavior either. It's not just Islam that brings pre-Enlightenment behaviors to the West. Which isn't necessarily much above them, if at all, if all this "radical evil" silliness is to be believed- which is just, after all, code for "people we prefer to kill".

http://seaqwa.com/blogs/qblog/archive/2007/07/22/sacramento-death-highlights-tension-between-slavic-churches-and-gay-folk.aspx

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07c/sacto_murder_update.html

An ethnically Dutch constituent of Bouchra Ismaili, a Muslim city councillor in Rotterdam, complained to her about the rise of the Muslim extremist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir in Holland

The real tragedy of that sentence is that the word 'ethnically Dutch'. What a horror that they have been turned into a minority, just another group, in large sections of their country -- including the major cities. Yes, Holland had traditionally welcomed small numbers of immigrants, largely religious dissenters whose groups were by their very nature small. Now, to somehow expiate the ghost of Anne Frank, they are committing demographic suicide. Very strange, very sad for such a physically beautiful and historically accomplished people.

...what tactics do you think will fix the problem of radical Islam?

How one presents this to the world-at-large I leave to the spinmeisters, but the answer is simple:

"See what happened to the bases in Afghanistan, not to mention the Taliban tyrants? Hurt us, and that will be your fate."

The reasonable progressions should be obvious. Imagine a conversation between an al-Qaeda looking for money to buy a pony nuke, and a sheikh in Saudi Arabia. The sheikh pauses for a long time, and says something like, "You know, if they trace the money to me, I'm dead."

The world looked the other way, those who didn't explicitly show support, when the US invaded Afghanistan. I have little tolerance for those who can't see the difference in moral justification between that and Iraq; all one has to do is look at the differences in the international reaction to each one.

I can think of no better deterrent than swift and specific retribution. MAD worked against the USSR, and it can work in this scenario to, except that having the government that protects overthrown, your sanctuaries and training camps destroyed, you and your cronies on the run and not likely to plan, let alone implement anything else, may seem like a bit of a pricey exchange for a few dozen, hundreds or even thousands of dead and injured US residents.

Those who think we should continue the present efforts to "keep us safe", I refer you to my previous post.

I'm not too worried about this eurabia thing but as a back up plan I have started learning Spanish so I can move to the US.

Thomas Aquinas: "I'm tired of the pissing and moaning Muslims who, if I pissed and moaned in their country, they would have my head in a bag. Enough is a enough."

Cool...let's nuke them. We have more than enough warheads to turn the entire Middle East into a steaming slag of black glass. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait...take them all out. Take out Pakistan as well.

That's the only way you are going to accomplish what you say you want, Thomas. If we learned anything by watching the Soviet army beat itself into oblivion in the mountains of Afghanistan it should have been that nothing short of full nuclear conflict will remove these people from those mountain.

Of course, you can kiss Israel goodbye under this scenario. There's no way that small country could be protected from the fallout from our bombs, let alone any nukes that Iran, Pakistan, the former Soviet nations to the north, or India might decide to unload in Jerusalem's direction. And you can kiss over 70% of the world's known reserves of oil, and about 30% of the reserves of natural gas goodbye as well. What isn't outright destroyed by the nukes will be made unusable due to radiation.

No doubt there are some who will say that we can take care of them using conventional military. Perhaps so, but we will need a draft, and we will need to raise taxes significantly. Both of these things put the cheapskate chicken-hawks into a tizzy since their mantra of "freedom isn't free" only applies when someone else is paying for it. But we can go ahead and try it. Iraq has taken upwards of 300,000 military and civilian armed forces (i.e. Blackwater, etc.) about 5 years to bring to some semblance of stability. If we increase that area by 4 or 5 fold we should be able to handle it with about 2 million people. Nothing that a draft couldn't handle. After all, if our civilization is worth dying for we will have a lot of folks like you, Thomas, pushing to get to the front of the line for this battle.

And so far the cost of the war in Iraq has been somewhere near a half-trillion dollars. Multiply that by four or five and we might have enough to manage starting the Great Defense of Civilization. Of course it means that taxes will have to go up...unless you expect to pass the cost on to your kids like our current administration is doing.

But think on this, Thomas. These Muslims that you love to hate control a huge amount of oil. I don't know how old you are, but back in the early 70s we went through an oil embargo. OPEC made it so that we had to wait in line to buy gas, and then only get it on certain days of the week. For our family it was Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Not too inconvenient back then since there were so many folks who went through rationing in WWII. Today there would be untold kvetching and whining from the boomers and their spoiled children who couldn't get gas for their Hummers.

Europe is in more of a pinch with regards to oil than we are. Not only are they tied closely to the Middle East for oil, but they are tied to the Caspian Sea area for natural gas. If any military action begins in the Middle East that threatens these producers Europe will be cut off in minutes.

Now that you have had your whine and cheese moment, Thomas, how about you take a minute or two and give some particulars on how you would resolve the Muslim problem that you see so very clearly. Do we nuke, go conventional, try a naval blockade, begin deporting anyone with an Arabic last name (except, of course, sports pros), revise the First Amendment so we can restrict mosques and Muslim clerics in this country, or try something else?

Do you have solutions or are you limited to whining about it?

"what tactics do you think will fix the problem of radical Islam?"

"It would make more sense to liquidate the populations with neutron bombs while leaving the infrastructure intact, then move in and take over the oil fields."
That is certainly one option. However, short of that, this is what I suggest:

1. Expel all Muslims from the Dar al Harb. Actually, all that is needed for this is for existing laws (eg. against child rape, forced marriage, and incitement to murder) to be properly enforced. The minority of Muslims who did not apostatise or emigrate could be driven out or exterminated.

2. Do everything possible to achieve energy self-sufficiency.

3. Establish a naval-military minefield and blockade from Gibraltar to the Indus.

4. Bomb any Muslims who show signs of building nukes, etc.

5. Leave them to starve, amking it clear that any country that thoroghly rejects Islam can move to the other side of the border. Many Muslim countries actually have much that is admirable in their cultures, sadly negated by the fact of their being Muslim.

Of the various solutions suggested here, I heartily endorse enforcing our laws and working toward greater energy self-sufficiency. However, I must point out that preventing "domestic" violence and promoting alternative energy sources have not been high on the list for conservatives, who in fact have done much to oppose those objectives.

As for your other "solutions," can you spell "collateral damage"? Can you figure out that more than half the casualties in an attack on a Muslim country would be women and children, who are completely helpless and bear no responsibility for policy decisions? Yet some of you are enthusiastically urging that they should be killed. Strike another blow for that famous "taboo" on violence against women. Rod is going to be sorry he ever said that . . . .

Hey, I was just sayin'.

Sig,

So are we as inhumane as our enemies yet?

Q.E.D., we are worse. They don't have a significant population attempting to hold the mirror in their faces. We have people telling us -- in perfectly objective ways -- about our inhumanity. We look in the mirror and refuse to see the truth.

Dale Price: "ds: My apologies for calling you a troll in the other threads."

Sticks and stones, Dale. But I'm curious...what prompted the apology here, in this thread? If you prefer to respond privately you can reach me at ds0490 AT yahoo DOT com.

Thanks for that link, Lynn. I read the article and found it very illuminating, especially the parts about his psychological path toward becoming a convinced jihadist, and the path back from that brink. It's very good and I second the recommendation.

Now ds, you know that's not Rod's job-- Rod's job is to stoke the flames of fear and mistrust about the straw Left he so despises. That keeps the blog hits coming in. Mundane solutions make for boring blog posts.

Wow, the bannings are flying thick and fast around here lately. Personally, I have rather enjoyed Kim M's ninja posting system. But perhaps Rod has covertly permitted that, as a ruse to get people to click on the blog more often, so they can catch the fleeting comments before they disappear. I'm rather afraid to joke about it, though, lest my name go on the Bad Side of the ledger now. Chilling effect, anyone?

This same Left called for unilateral disarmament and that it was our lack of "understanding" that provoked Soviet expansionism.

Actualy, Francis, it was our invasion in 1919, and Russian's long memory of that that led to their expansionism. They wanted to widen the gap between themselves and another invasion. It WAS our lack of understanding. We still don't understand the Russians, we still don't understand Communism (except to vilify it unjustly), and we still have this insane irrational view that ours is the only way in the world that works for all people everywhere at all times. That notion of ours is utter nonsense. That is why we are unwilling to let anyone else in the world expiriment with a different system or to say that our system is wrong and needs to be changed. I say that for both the Left and the Right.

You are also wrong about us actually having "defeated the Soviets". All they did was change names (the KGB is now the FSB, the USSR is now (minus the baltic republics) the CIS, for example) and use the financial aid package to make sure the current leadership (which has not changed from the old leadership) stays in power. The same faces in charge then now are in charge AND have the resources to stay that way indefinitely. Chernomyrdin? Rich and still powerful, and a high ranking member of the former Soviet leadership. Yeltsin? Chubais? Putin? Ivanov? All very rich, all very powerful (excepting the dead one), and all very much in tune with the mental bullfight that we didn't know we were in (as the bull, obviously). It is clear Putin will be puppet master to Medvedev.

As to the topic of this particular blog, there is a very simple way of stopping Muslim extremism. Withrdaw all support (financial, military, and otherwise) from Israel and all Muslim countries, and set a clear line in the sand: you keep to your turf, without trying to expand your religions or area, and we'll refrain from obliterating you and we'll keep from expanding religiously. In short, "back off and we will". Obviously, none of that will realistically happen. None of our politicians has the political will to do it, because of the huge pro-Israel lobby and their immense campaign cash donations. It would work, though.

"Russian cultural paranoia goes back much further than that, and pervades the Russian political character"

It probably goes back to the centuries of the Mongol Yoke. Russia saved Europe from the Mongols, and it may yet save us from the Muslims.

Needless to say, this woman is no Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her letter should be grounds for commitment to a mental hospital.