The Shotgun Blog
« Postponing the inevitable | Main | The 2996 Project »
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Jihad is a non-negotiable position
Liberals think that we have been able to negotiate with our enemies before, we can negotiate with jihadists now. No, you can't argue with people who want to kill you and they don't stop until they achieve their bloody goals of mass murdering every one of non-believers.
No, Jihad is a non-negotiable position as Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, puts it in her interview with Fox News.
Posted by Winston on August 20, 2006 in Current Affairs, International Affairs, Religion | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jihad is a non-negotiable position:
You can't argue with those whose stated goal is genocide. But try telling that to Paul Heinbecker, former UN ambassador and -- let me take a deep breath -- distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and director of the Laurier Centre for Global Relations -- phew, sounds important -- who wrote an op-ed in the Globe and Mail and August 18th that was an object-lesson in pure self-important think-tank UN bafflegab.
The self-considered noble tone of his piece is best summed up by his statement that "...it is time for all concerned to stop relying on military strength to solve political problems". Apparently the appropriate response to being attacked by genocidal theists dedicated to your destruction and the imposition of Islamic law is to reason with them, preferably while wearing a suit, in order to change their beliefs and objectives.
At the end of his piece he points to a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict -- at last! -- by going out on a spectacular limb: "As long as it continues, things are as likely to get worse as better...perhaps the most important lesson we all need to learn is that it is in everyone's interest to help resolve this conflict before it is too late."
We just need more funded blowhards...
Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-20 10:42:40 PM
I just want to know when the tipping point is. When is it that the agenda driven muslims decide that they no longer need the liberals to achieve their agenda. the ONLY things liberals and muslims have in common (generally speaking of course) is the mideast conflict and immigration. at what point does the liberal strategy backfire? is it after israel is destroyed? or is it once the first islamic political party is formed in canada?
Posted by: ferrethouse | 2006-08-20 10:43:40 PM
Love the name.
Jihadists and Marxists are cut from the same cloth in life outlook.
I had a Bertarnd Russell quote handy but I lent out my book today.
Basically, it's about structure and obedience to a larger group as opposed to Buddhist and Christian outlooks on individuality and a love of introspection and self-discovery.
My memory may be fading, but I guess in broad definitions it's individuality vs statism.
When the knife is at the throat though, it's the Marxists who get their throats slit even before Jews and Christians, since Muslims nominally believe the latter are Children of the Book.
They would let religious people live since Muslims at least understand most scientific knowlege has, historically, eminated from those groups. They will let those groups live under dhimmi laws, which require all non-Muslims to pay twice the level of taxation as Muslims do.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-20 10:54:16 PM
Good post yet again Winston!!! Be ready for the troll idiots to call you a racist ad nauseum though!!
Paging Ian Scott, Mark Logan et al!!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-21 12:28:59 AM
Diplomacy in the middle east has been a complete failure, decades of talks have led to absolutely nothing - so it would be funny if it were not so sad when idiots in the West say stuff like 'we should try diplomacy first' - did they pull their heads out of somewhere just now? Are they joking? They must be because it takes either a whole lot of wilful stupidity, or sympathy with the Arab/Islamic fascists to believe otherwise...
Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-08-21 12:43:06 AM
Sure you can't negotiate with Extremists, they are usually so enthralled in their believes that no matter what you say it won't get through. As is evident in the comment section on this blog on a regular basis.
What most moderate people are proposing is to work with the moderate people in the middle east instead of trying to blow anybody up.
In a perfect world we would find a nice, open space, dump all extremists in and occasionally drop some food and ammo and let them sort it out.
Unfortunately it isn't a perfect world, so all the moderates get caught int he crossfire while just trying to live their lives.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 12:50:23 AM
"Good post yet again Winston!!! Be ready for the troll idiots to call you a racist ad nauseum though!!
Paging Ian Scott, Mark Logan et al!!"
Your fallacy of sarcasm becomes you. I wonder if you are an idiot?
I have never called Winston a racist. Please provide some association with your first sentence and your next sentence, a sarcastic fallacy, of using my name.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-21 12:52:12 AM
Sorry Ian but I don't engage troll idiots!!
Snowrunner, as for the moderates in the Middle East, the only ones that seem to exist are the Israelies and the Christian Arabs and some Druze...as for the Sunni and Shia Arabs, I rather doubt their are more then a few moderates.....I'm all for working with true moderates but in the world of Islam, they are a hard bunch to find!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-21 12:59:57 AM
Jihad is the Sixth Pillar of Islam and is required of ALL Muslims until the whole earth is Dar al Islam and there is no more Dar al Harb.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-21 1:06:33 AM
You cannot chose who you're negotiate with, you have to negoiate with whoever is in power.
That's why diplomacy is such a hard thing to do and not something that is fast, easy or can be done by about anyone. It's about compromise. Give some, take some.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 1:10:10 AM
I guess in that case Snowrunner we are screwed because the Islamic world's idea of give and take is the choice's between death, conversion or dhimmitude......all awfully unattractive for Israelies and the rest of us...
You cannot negotiate with people that want you dead.......and that is what the masses of Arabia want for the Jews....
We are in a unsolvable pickle really....I'm afriad the only thing we can do is keep our guard up and keep fighting and eliminating the Islamic terrorists as they continue to come for us whether in the Mid East or the Free West....
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-21 1:20:27 AM
The track-record of attempting to negoiate with the enemy is bleak: not one example of success. The same goes for negoiating with a mugger or rapist. History shows how well negoiating with Hitler worked - it didn't.
The Lefties however live in a make-believe world, where history can be revised to represent their agenda. There can be no negoiation with Islamists. When they need to call time in order to regroup and rearm, they may call for a hudna at the most. Anyone who truly believes that a hudna is even the same as a ceasefire is stupid.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-21 1:27:18 AM
She is right, there is nothing to negotiate. Islam wants us all dead or converted, high and low of it. I really don't think the left realize that they will be the first in line to be beheaded. It doesn't make sense to me that the left would support the muslims in their endeavour to wipe out the infidels. I somewhat understand the mindset of the left in their hatred of the Jews. It is that they are jealous of their success. The left fawning the muslims in hopes of them eradicating the Jews for them, is a real dangerous game they are playing.
Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-08-21 6:07:16 AM
It is almost always the case that when someone is gratuitously disparaging Jews, the United States of America, or western civilization in general, that they are doing so based on envy, jealousy, and greed.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-21 6:28:07 AM
"New Democrat Peggy Nash, who represents the Toronto riding of Parkdale-High Park, said"...
"If the political parties in Lebanon who may disagree with Hezbollah ... can figure out a way to work with Hezbollah and try to get along internally, then perhaps we should take a cue from that."
It seems to me they "work with" and "get along" with Hezbollah due to fear and submission, by letting Hezbollah run their military operations inside their country, right under the noses, completely independent from any Lebanese government control. It's sort of like if Canada was to "work with" and "get along" with Hezbollah by allowing them to operate along the US border, running around with AK-47s and thousands of missiles, launching attacks into the US.
I am constantly reminded that many of our members of Parliament are very ignorant and unworthy of any respect.
Posted by: calgarian | 2006-08-21 7:17:57 AM
I suggest we are witnessing degradation of our parliamentary system. How come so many MPs cannot grasp Islamofacism? How many have taken time to study the information available on Internet? How many have read the books by ex-jihadists who explained what Islam is all about? How many have heard of Whalid Shoebat?
That is one more reason why we need to build an efficient organization with the goal of eradicating Islamofacism in Canada now. It will take some work and some fighting but it is better to act now before it's too late.
Anyone heard about 17 terrorists in prison in Canada? How many more are running around devising some murderous catastrophy? Just think if those 17 had their way, where would we be now?
Anyone heard news of a liberal MP traveling in Lebanon suggesting we should remove Hezbollah from the terrorist list?
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-08-21 8:09:21 AM
Snowrunner seems to be decent person but seriously deluded. Suggesting a moral equivalency in the ME and that negotiations are even possible is, unfortunately, magical thinking. Hezbollah, proxy for the bloodthirsy Iran, whose explicit goal is to eradicate Israel, is not interested in negotiations. Period. Israel's agreement to the UN brokered ceasefire is a tragedy. (As proxy for the democratic West, Israel's agreement is a tragedy for all freedom loving peoples.)
I'm guessing that Snowrunner's one of those Canadians who grew up with "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" on November 11 every year. Peace at all costs: peace, whether one knows the cost OR NOT, is more like it. And, if it hadn't been explained a few posts ago, I'd imagine that Snowrunner, like the majority of Canadians--including the editors of The Canadian Oxford Dictionary--would have had no idea what "dhimmitude" means. Not knowing that is delusional and suicidal.
We're in the midst of WW III, like it or not. The choice now is pretty stark: Are we going to win this war or lose it? Churchill put it succintly: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
I think the West is here: "you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival." AND THE WEST IS STILL IN DENIAL.
Denial's going to cost us all very heavily. And, IMO, there's worse than Winston Churchill's worse case scenario: That's what the West may well settle for. "Hell no, we won't go. We'd rather be slaves." At present, the West's "surrender monkey", self-imposed moral dhimmitude is a kind of slavery on its own. I hope and pray we snap out of this snivelling and cowardly servitude before it's too late.
Posted by: lookout | 2006-08-21 8:11:55 AM
After watching Jon Stewart of Friday night, I continue to shake my head.
First, there was 24/7 coverage of Iraq.
Then, there was 24/7 coverage of Israel vs the Hezzies.
Now, the most important story on the world's most important network? A publicity-seeking pedophile who wants to save his skin from execution in Thailand by saying he killed Jon-Benet Ramsey.
Turn on the tube for a second, folks. It's all Jon-Benet, all the time.
Whatever happened to Iraq? Attention spans of gnats, that's what.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 8:25:17 AM
@lookout, I did not grow up in Canada, I grew up in Europe and came to Canada a few years back. I have seen "The Wall" I have been on the other side of the iron curtain too, family was split by it for almost 50 years.
As for pointing at Hitler when it comes to failed negotiations:
This is a logical fallacy, Hitler was a head of state. Going to war with a State (although unpleasant) is somewhat clear cut. You know the enemy, the enemy wears a uniform and once you have beaten enough of them you've won.
A more apt comparision would be Northern Ireland and the IRA, and that HAD a "happy ending" despite all the bombs, Bloody Sunday and other "mishaps" along the way.
The irony is that there still aren't any Islamofacists out there, someone on here really should read up on the definition of Facism. What IS out there is Religious Extremism, and those are the people who want to convert everybody and those who they can't convert kill.
The idea that this "war on terror" can be won by whoever has the bigger guns is a dangerous fallacy, as a recent example look at Vietnam where the most powerful army in the world got severely beaten by people in flip-flops digging tunnels under rice patties.
The next Fallacy is to write off Hezbollah as an extension to the Iranian state, that fits well in the thinking on here when it comes to comparing Hitler, they both may share some similar interests, but they are not the same. If Iran would try to take over Lebanon you would see a civil war (again).
As for: "They want Israel Dead and we have to prevent it". Here's a question: Why?
Israel was created as part of an UN resolution in an area that was controlled by the British. The British wanted out, they didn't care about the political situation so they created the State of Israel.
People on here seem to be very very quick in dismissing Iran's or Iraq's sovereignity when it fits with their goals of destorying "Islamofacism" yet Israel needs to be supported 100%, regardless of the cost? Why?
Nation Stations have come and gone in human history, a state only exists as long as it can make a case for itself and the Wests (especially the USs) blind support for everything that Israel does is not really helping when you try to talk to moderates. Or how would you feel if you sit in [insert your hometown] and find yourself shelled while your elected leader is telling you that "If we want peace we have to accept this as a fact as [insert neighbour nation] has a right to defend itself? Simply put: An outwardly aggressive Israel is doing nothing to help the negotiation.
Read this Interview with the former German ambassador to the UN, towards the end he goes into detail about Iran and the situation in the Middle East, maybe this gives you guys a new perspective:
SZ: Recently the Security Council demanded that Iran should stop it’s nuclear program. Will the Russians and Chinese carry the sanctions as well?
Pleuger: This resolution demands civil sanctions. I am asking myself what these sanctions are supposed to achieve. The Iranians have lived for decades with US-Sanctions. I doubt that travel restrictions for example will deter the Ayatollahs. And we also shouldn’t forget that Iran with its influence on the Shiite in the region and as an oil producer does posses some ways to defend itself.
Russian and Chinese are in principal for the sanctions, but it is very questionable if they will go any further. The Security Council decides in escalating steps, the resolutions must become more drastic at one point or stop being issued. As soon as this escalation starts happening though, it can prevent a successful negotiation.
SZ: What should happen?
Pleuger: The conflict with Iran can only be resolved through a global compromise. Europe, America and Russia have to find a grand bargain with Iran. Iran would guarantee that they wouldn’t build bombs; we guarantee that Iran can fully use nuclear power and the US will provide the necessary security guarantees. If the Council issues sanctions now though just because Iran is continuing it’s atomic program, it would take elementary rights out of the atomic non-proliferation treaty. Iran did undeniably break rules in regards to the inspections. But this does not imply that they automatically lose rights.
SZ: The US acts though as if Iran has lost any right to use civil atomic energy due to their trickery.
Pleuger: This is written nowhere.
SZ: Iran wants to decide by August 22nd about the cooperation offer from the Europeans. Wasn’t it counter productive to issue an Ultimatum before this date?
Pleuger: It causes additional stress on all parties involved without any benefit. But I doubt it will come to sanctions. On August 22nd Iran most likely won’t answer with a clear No, more with a “Yes, but…”. And then we continue to negotiate.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 8:46:06 AM
Calling Neville Chamberlain...aisle 6 Middle east negotiations.
I'm very disappointed with Israel for not going in full force to wipe out hezbollah...maybe Olmert is weak, or maybe they think that by going soft, when Hezbollah strikes again, they will be able to finally deal effectively and completely with them...or maybe by going soft this time, the next time they will strike at the real enemy, Iran and Syria!
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-08-21 9:30:20 AM
It's hardly surprising to hear the Left is in favour of lifting the ban on Hezbollah terrorists, it's their dumb-ass train of thought, can't be changed, it's locked in. Never mind terrorism is the scourge of our world and our Soldiers are fighting and dying because of it in places like Afghanistan, not to worry, give the bastards a hug while they're planning to blow us up. Peggy Nash and the Liberal MP on this excursion to Lebanon are doing what they do best,subverting the facts of the situation to fit their own agendas which is opposing common sense action put forth by our government. Thankfully they will not be heeded and it's been a waste of money to even send them in the first place. The Conservative member wisely declined the trip.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-08-21 9:30:44 AM
I watched CBC's Sunday Report and was pleasantly surprised.
Not only did they reveal how shallow the NDP/Liberal/Bloc contingent was in their understanding of the issues, but I was impressed with Terry Milewski's report from Jerusalem.
He laid out the facts in much the way as we've been discussing here for the past month.
Perhaps there is hope for Mother Corp yet ... I guess they must be feeling the same type of heat photojournalists have been singed by in the past month.
We can only hope!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 9:33:57 AM
There's only one question I would have asked the opposition MP's if I would have been holding the CBC microphone.
Is Hizb'allah a member of the United Nations?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 9:58:08 AM
I wanted to see that. I was wondering how the CBC was going to make the Hezzassholes and their supporters here in Canada look as if they were anything other than scumbag terrorist.
Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-08-21 10:19:12 AM
Snowrunner, I appreciate that you took the time to respond. However, I'm still in basic disagreement with your analysis of the situation. (And even though I was altogether wrong about where you acquired your appeasement mentality, the end result's the same. And "surrender monkeyism" is still something I neither condone nor respect, whether it's mushy, but still dangerous, "Peter, Paul, and Mary" peace boosterism or something more sinister.)
There IS definitely a parallel with 1938, when the West was in denial about Hitler's apocalyptic plans and believed they could negotiate "peace in our time". Today, there seem to be many--you included--who think we can buy time and peace by sacrificing Israel. Did this plan work in 1938-39? Ask Czechoslovakia and Poland. And, by 1945, ask the Allies--and their enemies-- what appeasement had cost them.
We delude ourselves if we downplay Iran's apocalyptic plans for the West, which have been very clearly stated: How very condescending and arrogant of the West to not take Iran at its word. Destroying Israel's just the first step in the Islamic conquest of the rest of us. Besides the moral obligation of the West assisting a legitimate state and fellow DEMOCRACY, THAT'S why supporting Israel is so crucial. E.g., If Israel, as proxy for the democratic West, had crushed Hezbollah, which many of us were hoping it would do (instead of caving to politically correct constraints, which only disadvantaged Israel, not the Muslims), the chances that we in North America would have to fight on our own soil would be considerably diminished.
Thank you for thinking of appending the opinions of the former German Ambassador to the UN. But, as I consider the UN an altogether corrupt and discredited institution and a large part of the problems in the Middle East, his lopsided comments--like those of Kofi Annan about Israel--which soft peddle Iran's culpability, definitely do not give me a new perspective, as you were hoping. Indeed, the German Ambassador's soft-headed, self-serving, cowardly sops to Muslim fanaticism simply bolster my contention that the West's in appeasememnt mode.
I was wide awake--after a deep sleep--on 9/11. If what happened then and since doesn't convince the West to stand and fight for our freedoms, I'm afraid I don't know what will.
Posted by: lookout | 2006-08-21 10:22:14 AM
Snowrunner: This is not about whether Iran can use nuclear power for civil purposes at all. The process they are insisting on developing is dual purpose - power and weapons.
France and others have offered technologies for civil power and the offers have been rejected out of hand. What does this tell you?
Posted by: Randy | 2006-08-21 10:52:20 AM
First of all you may want to look up what "apeasement" actually is, I have never advocated that.
Second, what I DO advocate is to negotiate and work with the established Governments in the region trying to find a solution. The Terrorists just have to be bypassed and ignored, if you give them any attention they will only feel more empowered.
What happened in 1938 was not a negotiation, it was appeasement, by giving Hitler whatever he wanted in the hopes that after this one more thing he would stop. Clearly he didn't, this is simply not comparable to today because today you have terrorist groups who try to get what they want by committing terrorist acts, not nation states invading other countries.
Furthermore, I know it is in fashion these days to claim the Allies went to war because of the Holocaust, they did not. They turned refugees around because they didn't want "that rabble" on their shores either. There is this wonderful tale of a refugee ship full off Jewish families that tries to dock in NYC and is refused by the US authorities, they then steam up the coast and try their luck in Canada, once again they are turned away, so the captain runs his ship on ground in order to force Canada to take the refugees in.
The Allies didn't enter the war out of "noble" reasons, they entered the war because Britain was on the verge of being defeated and negotiated help from the other powers, the Holocaust was just a "bonus" in the end. Nation states have never acted altruistic.
As far as Iran is concerned: There is a lot of chest beating going on, on BOTH sides, there is a difference between the things you say and the things you do. I am sure you yelled things at people in the past that you never had any intention of truly doing, but yet it was out there. That's pretty much what is happening right now in that are.
As far as the UN and Kofi Annan go: Read the whole Interview, he does go into detail on this as well.
As for you now being wide awake after 9/11: If you didn't see it coming you must have been clearly deeply asleep and I would wager a guess you're still not fully awake, rather disoriented as the alarm clock went off.
ANYBODY who understands anything about the middle east and Western policies there over the last 50 years could see 9/11 coming. I didn't expect air planes, but rather something along the lines of a ship loaded with explosives blowing up in NY Harbor, but when it happened I wasn't shocked or surprised.
Read a bit more on the history of the Middle East and then put all the chest pounding on both sides into perspective to that. It isn't as clear cut as people like Bush want you to believe it is.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 11:08:25 AM
read the entire interview, he addresses this.
The dialog went something like this:
Iran: We are going to use Nuclear Power to feed our energy needs.
US: You can't, the technology you use can also produce weapons.
US: We won't let you, you're just trying to get WMDs. We won't let you.
Iran: WMDs, eh? Hey, sounds like a spiffy idea, maybe we should get some, maybe then you won't get any funky ideas like with Iraq....
France: Well, we could give you technology that would not allow you to build Nuclear Weapson.
US: DON'T YOU DARE TURN ON THAT REACTOR!!!!!
Iran: Bah, make us stop. We are alll powerful, we have seen what you did in Iraq, how you failed, you have no way of stopping us!
US: SANCTIONS SANCTIONS SANCTIONS!!!!!!
Iran: DEATH TO US!!!!!!
EU: Umm, guys, maybe we should talk about this.....
[to be continued on August 22nd 2006]
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 11:11:46 AM
Snowrunner you are so full of shit your eyes must be brown.
Your first mistake is that you are European which combined with two World wars (which you lost), spinless Euro politicians and an obviously failed social wellfare state makes you incapable of understanding even in the simplest of terms that there are people out there that cannot be negotiated with.
Diplomacy works well in the civilized world. These people/countries long ago rejected the civilized world for there bribalism and barbarity.
Posted by: Copiusamounts | 2006-08-21 11:13:22 AM
Speaking of France, how 'bout yet another example of how they walk the talk ... this time on the situation Lebanon?
They demand compromise, say they're going to lead the effort and serve up ... 200 boots on the ground.
Wonder where the defenders from little cousin Quebecistan are now? Ever notice how Quebec foreign policy mimics France's.
Our acquaintences, those who defended the honour of Quebec here recently, been noticably silent on the subject.
Here chicken, chicken, chicken. Here chicken, chicken, chicken.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 11:16:59 AM
ah, name is program. But yes my dear, my eyes are brown, how'd you know?
As for your assessment: I think Hitler had the same thoughts about being "more civilized" and "superior" to other human beings. Read a history book to see how that ended for him, I won't spoil the ending for you.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 11:21:48 AM
FORGIVE ME FOR THIS LONG COMMENT, BUT IT'S WORTH IT AND IT IS RIGHT ON TOPIC. Duke
Iraq War/Radical Muslims –
Please take the time to read this essay by Dr. Vernon Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing have read regarding the War in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues ( Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc.). I had no idea who Dr. Chong is ,or the source of these thoughts. so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio (Air Force Hospital). So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California , and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)
If you would like to see who this fellow is, go to this Air Force web sight and look him up. http://www.af.mil/bios/alpha.asp?alpha=C
Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA : A different spin on Iraq war.
This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001 .The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut , Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie , Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing?
Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-21 11:22:43 AM
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 11:32:05 AM
first of all this can't be a serious article, he didn't use "Islamofacist" even ONCE. That clearly shows he has a liberal bias.
Second of all, just because he is in the military and a doctor doesn't mean he's an expert on the whole thing either. So he won't get any brownie points just because of that.
But now to some more substantial criticism of his writing:
> This is war! For the duration, we are going to
> have to give up some of the civil rights we have
> become accustomed to. We had better be prepared
> to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or
> we will most certainly lose all of them
Sorry, but that is Bull. There is no "clear goal" on when the war is over. Any right given up will be gone for good, because there is always a reason why the terror thread isn't done yet. Maybe after this "war" is won it'll be the Buddhists who try to take us over, better be careful now...
> And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We
> gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and
> immediately restored them after the victory and
> in fact added many more since then.
STOP comparing the current situation to WWII, this has absolutly NOTHING in common with it.
WWII had a clear goal, anybody was able to apprehend that once Germany (and Japan) where surrendering the war was over, what is the finish line here? NOBODY has defined it, because those who are promoting the war (at best) don't know themselves.
> Democracies don't have their freedoms taken
> away from them by some external military force.
> Instead, they give their freedoms away,
> politically correct piece by politically correct
True, the freedoms are given away, but not politically correct piece by piece, but everytime someone can scare us enough.
Giving up Freedom is not a PC act, if anything it is the opposite. Freedoms are either universal or not. How are WE become any different than the enemy we claim to fight if we become like the enemy?
There is a difference between THINKING like him in order to outsmart him on the (very much non-defined) battlefield and actually acting like him.
Giving up our freedoms is the later. Or to put a nice quote here:
> If you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares back into you.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 11:39:28 AM
Apparently, you stand for nothing.
So, it's no surprise you will fall for anything.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 11:42:30 AM
what? The fact that I do stand for our Freedoms and refuse to give them up just because some guy half way around the world seems to hold a grudge, blows himself up and then our politicians want to take them away means to you I stand for nothing?
What exactly where you set free from? Rational thought?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 11:46:17 AM
Snowrunner reads it but has no idea what it means.
There is a limit to how much can be understood by a very dull brainwashed mind.
Not worth discussing anything with a dull mind. It is no different than trying to reason with a drunk person.
Like any leftist child he won't give up anything he feels he is entititled to (even temporarily) such as his freedoms ... which are exactly the things that the muzzies are bent on taking from him.
Until we hit the wall in this world war ... Snowrunner is free to be the naive little baby he chooses to be with his now, quite possibly, "temporary freedoms".
Snowrunner and his ilk are as much our enemies as are the mulsim jihadists. Death to snowrunner :0)
This link is for snowrunner
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-21 11:59:53 AM
Well snowruiner it does appear you have no rational thought whatsoever.
Posted by: FREE | 2006-08-21 12:09:18 PM
Unlike most people here I do not consider core parts of our societies achievement being negotiable.
I won't let someone half way around the world dictate how I live, and I much less won't let a local politician appease those people changing our freedoms.
It is funny how you and your ilk consider negotiation with the people in power appeasement, but then roll right over and do exactly what those terrorists want you to do.
What kind of brainwashed logic is that?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 12:14:20 PM
Snowrunner, at least you're polite. But, your ideas are suspect and your refusal or inability to reasonably engage the many cogent rebuttals your thoughts have elicited make me less and less willing to receive your ideas with respect.
In your response to my last post, it is YOU who bring up the idea of the Holocaust: I neither mentioned it nor suggested that it was a reason for the Allies' participation in WW II. (I think this emphasis of yours may be linked to "the more sinister" to which I alluded earlier.)
You question my understanding of appeasement. Here's the definition of appease: "make calm or quiet, esp. conciliate (a potential aggressor) by making concessions", Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Other than the parts that say "make calm or quiet" and "a potential aggressor"--there's NOTHING calm or quiet about our ACTUAL ME aggressors!--I altogether agree with this definition of appeasement. What part of "making concessions", as Israel has recently done, do you not understand?
You also said, "Second, what I DO advocate is to negotiate and work with the established Governments in the region trying to find a solution. The Terrorists just have to be bypassed and ignored, if you give them any attention they will only feel more empowered." Oy vey (I'm Anglo-Irish) is all I can say to such colossal myopia and stupidity. Maybe it is YOU, sir or madame, who needs to do some reading, or at least paying attention to what's REALLY happening. Here. In this world. I'm not making this up.
(Toddlers can be very violent, but they're very small. When they have a tantrum, putting them in a secure place--maybe their crib--where they and their "opponents" will be safe is a good idea. Your advice-- "The Terrorists [aka toddlers] just have to be bypassed and ignored, if you give them any attention they will only feel more empowered"--works just fine if we're talking literal toddlers. When we're talking murderous regimes--Iran comes to mind--which have already slaughtered hundreds of thousands, and are soon to have a nuclear bomb, your words are sheer blasphemy.)
Your idea that the Muslims are only beating their chests is also colossal stupidity, not to mention condescending and arrogant, as I've already mentioned.
Yes, I agree with you that I was rather stupid to only have been aware of the vulnerabilty of the West and the present danger in which it finds itself after 9/11. But why would you suggest that I compound my previous ignorance and myopia by now pretending that a mountain's (maybe Mohammed's, at that) just a molehill?
You end on the moral- equivalency-in-the-ME, anti-Bush myth. Oy double vey.
Posted by: lookout | 2006-08-21 1:02:42 PM
I am sure this is a waste of time considering that individuals like SR give no evidence of being able to entertain rational thought.
He has yet to give one historical example of when negotiating with the enemy, who was not already completely crushed and defeated, was successful. The reason is that there is none. With jihadists the idea of being able to negotiate is for the brain-dead. Contrary to all our previous enemies, jihadists are not deterred by the possibility of being killed. Their ideology glorifies it, especially if at the same time they are able to murder x number of infidels.
Very European is the idea that the existence of Israel is the cause of all this, and that Israel's very right to exist is questionable. Funny how of all the various nation states created since WW I, only Israel's existence is questionable. But again I recall a European poll where the large majority thought that the U.S. and Israel were the greatest threat to world peace, and this was well after 9/11. No matter again all facts make it very clear that even if Israel or Jews no longer existed, the Islamists would NOT simply go away and leave the rest of the world in peace.
I shall say no more on the subject.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-21 1:06:18 PM
Alain, merci beaucoup. Succinctly and intelligently stated. I appreciate your post very much.
Posted by: lookout | 2006-08-21 1:54:40 PM
Negotiation with Terrorists never has helped or worked, what has helped and worked was ignoring them and doing business as usual. Yeah, I know that's so simple it must not work.
But think of these three examples:
- IRA: They bombed, they abducted they killed and now they're pretty much history, the moderates finally won out and peace seems to have settled in for good.
- RAF: Germany's RAF was killing people, bombing US military installations etc. For a short period they had popular support and when that fell short they disappeared too. Now people are looking back at it and shake their heads.
- FLQ: They tried to force the whole thing as well, once the popular support (and some strong internal reactions out of Ottawa) came in the whole thing fizzled.
Now, let's transplant those experiences over to the middle east and the things you guys sugegst:
IRA: Based on the rhetoric here not only should have Britain invaded and subduded large parts of Norther Ireland, but with the help of the US probably invaded the Republic of Ireland as clearly some supporters of the IRA where living there.
White males should have been profiled and locked up as a precaution as obviously they were the ones who blew up army bases, abducted soldiers etc.
Did this happen? No? Why not? Discuss.
RFA: The RFA bombed US bases in Germany, abducted soldiers and high ranking business people.
Based on how you propose to deal with the Radical Islamists, the US should have levelled major German cities after the bombs went off at their barracks, all of Germanies Population should have been put in jail (as the group was evenly split between male and female members) and thus freedom would have been restored. Why didn't this happen? Discuss.
- FLQ: Again, based on your arguments here all of Quebec should have been put under Martial law, not only for as short as Trudeau did (who, btw, later admitted that it was a mistake, and hence he put the Charter of Rights forward), but on an ongoing basis.
In fact, after the 1980s referendum the Quebec Provincial Government should have been disposed and Quebec should have been reverted to a Territory directly under the control of the Government of Canada. Why did this not happen? Discuss.
So now let's have a look at the Middle East again:
We have some luddities there who want to create a new state in their image. We have leaders in power who have been in power through Generations (Saudies), a Coupe we (the west) created (Iran) or simply just got elected (Lebanon).
Based on the above experiences in our own backyard, what in your opinion will bring long term gain?
1. Ignoring the terrorists and working with the established Governments towards a common goal.
2. Declaring they are all the same and starting to bomb the shit out of them.
3. Give in, saying they won, throw away out freedoms and mumble something about an eternal struggle that only started five years ago and we have to fight to preserve the freedoms we just gave up?
Which one is for you? Why? Discuss.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 2:14:28 PM
Oh, one more thing: No Israels existance is not the sole reason on why we are in this mess.
What IS the reason though is that we seem to support Israel no matter what and that costs us quit a bit when it comes down to credibility because the other side is of course wondering how neutral we really are and how committed to find a win-win solution for everybody involved.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 2:16:29 PM
I'm afriad Snowrunner that the various Islamic terrorist groups running around the Middle East do not want to negotiate....they want us dead....they are far far far more unreasonable the the IRA or FLQ......
WE have to kill them or imprison them for life...that will be the only way...
That isn't to say their isn't some decent people in the Middle East that do not abide by every brutal teaching recorded in Islam but they are no doubt a minority....the fanatics as we call them are growing and are supported by a majority of Muslim Arabs.....
I wouldn't negotiate with Nazis or Stalinists and we cannot negotiate with Islamists...
It really is that simple....
This has nothing to do with Israel or America...if those 2 countries never existed, Islam would still be on its continous murderous rampage as it has displayed over its 1400 year career and as modeled by its founder , Muhammed!
I'm always reminded of something the great French Christian Mathametician, Pascal said ...."Never do men do such evil as when inspired by religioin" or something to that effect....Islam fits that bill perfectly....
Until we in the West accurately understand what we are facing, we will be in grave danger of losing this battle against the ideology of Islamism!!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-21 2:23:02 PM
We did negotiate with the Stalinists, hence things like the atomic non-proliferation treaty etc.
If you want to resolve the situation in the Middle East for good you have two choices:
1. Blow the entire area up and build a parking lot on top of it.
2. Prop up the moderate forces (and believe me, teh majority of people does not want war or confrontation) and sit things out.
The latter one will take more time, will kill a few bystanders in the process but if it succeeds in a generation or two it will have created a stable society.
Reality is Democracy is NOT delivered from the barrel of a gun. The countires in the middle east have a way steeper hill to climb than Germany had after the second world war (there already had been the Weimar Republic).
But an extremist is an extremist. If you would have asked an IRA, FLQ or RAF "fighter" if they would be any less committed to their cause than the fanatics in the middle east right now they'd been insulted.
People who are extremists are all dangerous, doesn't matter what their stripe of extremism is.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 2:37:15 PM
Snowrunner: Maybe I missed it, but exactly what freedoms do you think that we are giving up ? I am just as free today as I was before 9/11. If you think you are not, then in what way are you not?
Posted by: Markalta | 2006-08-21 3:31:21 PM
Snowrunner says, "People who are extremists are all dangerous, doesn't matter what their stripe of extremism is." At the end of the day, I guess that's the only thing we agree on.
And SR, "note bene": If the dangerous extremists are barbarians, totally willing to be martryed, have designs on the whole world, AND have tentacles, some of which are soon to be nuclear, which reach around the globe, rather than into a tiny corner of it, your comparisons (IRA, RAF [?] and FLQ) are altogether non analagous. (I'm gobsmacked by your obtuseness here and utter lack of reason.)
"None of the above" is my response to your utterly juvenile, magical thinking choices about what the West should do in the ME.
As far as I'm concerned, your intellectual and common sense capital on this thread is totally spent. (And you started out, seeming to be reasonably intelligent.)
Posted by: lookout | 2006-08-21 3:37:02 PM
Duke; Thank-you for sending the article written by Mr. Chong to the Shotgun. He has put the situation into plain English so all but the stupid or brainwashed or self -hating can understand what we are up against. He explains to the 'all you need is love' gang and to those of us who have always lived in a peaceful, democratic country what LOSING to the Islamic terrorists would mean.
My Mom, who was in the RCAF during WWII, told me that Antony Eden (correctly spelled, I hope) tried to warn silly old Chamberlain and the war weary British HC about the dangers of negotiating with fanatics like Hitler. The msm at the time considered Antony Eden to be too good looking to have a good brain or solid judgements. The old appeasement line is as old as time - it does not work. Remember Troy, the city that was burned to the ground because they 'trusted' the words of their enemy. The enemy wants power over you and all you own; often, as Homer narrates so clearly, the enemy is within. Note: LAX IMMIGRATION LAWS and even laxer citizens.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-08-21 3:53:30 PM
Snowrunner you are missing the point of this post that is:
Jihad is non-negotiable.
You might not want to negotiate with the FLQ but the fact is you could if you wanted to. You could give them Quebec. The IRA - you could give them Ireland. These terrorist groups were local and had local aspirations.
Jihad is global and has been going on for 14 centuries and involves 1.3 billion Muslims – not all of whom want Jihad – but we really don’t know how many do. A recent poll revealed that a quarter of British Muslims believed the 7/7 attacks were justified, with the number rising to one third among younger Muslims.
The Islamic Jihad position is – you can convert to Islam or you can die - that’s a non-negotiable position. Now that we have Canadian Parliamentarians that want to negotiate with the Hez , the Party of God, we know that we have elected officials in our Parliament ready to have us convert. This is a serious breech of confidence with their electorate.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-21 4:00:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.