Posted on 09/13/2006 9:00:08 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700725/posts
The enemy within -- and it's not who you think (David Warren nails Islamofascism's 5th column)
Ottawa Citizen - Canada ^ | September 13, 2006 | David Warren
Posted on 09/13/2006 10:43:18 AM CDT by GMMAC
The enemy within -- and it's not who you think
Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2006
COMMENTARY: DAVID WARREN
Listening to President Bush speak, on Monday's anniversary of 9/11, after a day of distastefully sentimental memorials, my question was not what have we achieved in the last five years, but rather, what have we learned? Bush and Blair -- the captain and vice-captain of Team West in the war against "the terrorists" so far -- are both now in the twilight of their political careers. Both have recently broken with habitual discretion, and made attempts to name the enemy. This has, if anything, added to their unpopularity, for when they mention that the enemy presents himself as Islamic, there are shrill cries not only from radical Muslims, but across the spectrum of the Left in the West.
Mr Bush, much the less eloquent of the two, has now retreated from his use of the term "Islamofascist" -- which as I said in a previous column, is a fairer label than "Islamist" for an enemy that spreads a palampore of traditional Islam, over a stuffing from the Western-bred totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. As I wrote Aug. 27, from Ahmadinejad to Zawahiri, we hear rhetoric that uses an Islamic vocabulary and crude grammar, but animated with a syntax that owes more to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, than to the Prophet and his traditional interpreters. The term is thus meant to suggest a skewed Islam, an Islam "adapted to our age" by psychopathic men, whose own Islamic learning is purposefully politicized, and aggressively de-spiritualized. Since the alternative would be to say that Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri, et al. do speak legitimately for Islam, I don't see why anyone should object to the term "Islamofascist".
Mr Blair gave an interview worth reading to the Israeli daily, Haaretz, published Monday. The editors present characterized it as "sombre". The British prime minister was still going through the motions of advocating the "peace process", and the "two-state solution" for Israel and Palestine, without (according to me) any real conviction that it could work. It is just something Western politicians do to please the figurative "Arab street", and it does not please anyone, any more. With much more conviction, he said leaders throughout the West have grasped that we are in a truly "global struggle", for which the people of the West are not prepared. The politicians have failed to explain to us how much is at stake, and how much will be lost if we are not resolute in defence of Western values.
For all its uncharacteristic awkwardness, Mr Blair's answer to a question about British home-grown terrorists donged the bell:
"It's not necessarily what have we done wrong, because part of the problem of what you have in Western opinion is that Western opinion always wants to believe that it's our fault and these people want to have a sort of, you know, grievance culture that they visit upon us and say it's our fault. And so we have a young British-born man of Pakistani origin sitting in front of a television screen saying I will go and kill innocent people because of the oppression of Muslims, when he has been brought up in a country that has given him complete religious freedom and full democratic rights and actually a very good job and standard of living. Now, that warped mind has grown out of a global movement based on a perversion of Islam which we have to confront, and we have to confront it globally."
I frankly admire both Bush and Blair, as courageous politicians, with open minds, doing their best within the limits of what is politically possible in their respective spheres. They are both towering figures, in comparison to the little men who oppose them. We won't know what trouble is, until the little men replace them.
I continue optimistic about what can be done, should we summon the will to do it. I have written repeatedly that a robust and unified Western response to "Islamofascism" could fling it quickly onto the trash-heap of history, to join Nasserism and Baathism and other earlier manifestations of Arab nationalism and socialism. Smack it hard, without apology.
My pessimism is founded in the fear that this robust and unified response cannot be mobilized. We have a huge fifth column in the West, and it is not the Muslim immigrants. They become radicalized only because our "victim culture" encourages them to nurture their grievances. Yet most, despite temptation, remain good, decent people, doing their share of the West's work.
Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends.
I had to sign-on to this thread to point out that Rush is missing the vital point that this Muslim woman is getting away with.
She says the terrorists are not Muslims because the Koran says "do not kill innocent People."
The point Rush is missing is: "Define innocent people."
I really hate his guts. He thinks he's so brilliant, and he's so smug and impressed wit himself, but the truth is, on any real one on one debate against any average conservative, he'd be ripped to shreads. That's why he only talks one on one with other liberals who let him spew whatever he wants unchecked, or stacks the decks of his shows with mostly liberals, and when there is a cosnervative, it's just one, and the others and him talk over them. He's a coward who knows his positions are weak and can't be defended so he never engages in fair dialogue with someone who knows the facts, because he could never win a fair debate on the issues. He's Bill Maher just a pathetic sub-standard commedian who couldn't make it in the real world so he has to pretend to be the smartest person int he room with one liners and quips, never letting himself be REALLY responded to. I'd LOVE a piece of him one on one on live tv. I'd verbally disembowl him in about ten minutes. Scum bag.
Prosecutorial misconduct. Hope he gets charged.
Rove made you do it.
I get yelled at here when I voice my opinion of all things islam.
I am sorry but i MUST ask bc I see the reference to "Poms" nearly everyday and have googled it.
Are you referring to cheerleaders, dogs, etc.???
Please let me in on the Pom joke if I am deemed worthy.
I love the FReeper lingo, thanks in advance.
New Tagline time.
Yes. I'm reading a book about Islam right now (written by the Caner brothers, who converted from Islam to Christianity 25 years ago, and know whereof they speak). Among other things, the Quran directs Muslims to offer their intended targets a chance to convert to Islam. Anyone who refuses becomes a legitimate target for forcible conversion or death.
Darn, work calls. I'll listen on the car radio for the rest of the show.
Other way around IIRC. IRA got tips from Black September.
Here? FR or work?
An article titled "A Guide to the Perplexed about the Permissibility of Killing Prisoners" says Islamic scholars present five approaches drawn from various interpretations of the Quran:
A polytheist prisoner must be killed. No amnesty may be granted to him, nor can he be ransomed.
All infidel polytheists and the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians) are to be killed. They may not be granted amnesty, nor can they be ransomed.
Amnesty and ransom are the only two ways to deal with (surviving) prisoners.
Amnesty and ransom are possible only after the killing of a large number of prisoners.
The Imam, or someone acting on his behalf, can choose between killing, amnesty, ransom or enslaving the prisoner.
The author indicates the last option as his preference, explaining that Islam's prophet, Muhammad, had dealt with prisoners in different ways to maximize the benefits to Muslims. He gives examples of methods with which Muhammad had chosen to kill, grant amnesty and ransom prisoners.
The article was a reaction, the author said, to criticism by Muslims that had "torn his heart," concerning the execution of nine Russian prisoners after the government had refused to surrender "one of Russia's biggest criminals and crooks."
According to the author, the Chechens have executed prisoners not because of their heart's desire, but because they have seen a benefit for the Muslims in such an act.
Some critics have argued, the author notes, that no one should be punished for the sins of others. He insists, however, that Allah permits the killing of a prisoner because he is a prisoner and all the more so if one's killing for the sins of others serves an important Islamic interest, as well as a deterrent to the enemy.
No Sale, lady.
And the Democrats really think they're going to win the election and pick up seats. How do they expect to do that when the most prevalent conduit for liberal political speech is going under like that. I think this is very telling and DIRECTLY correlates to the election in November. Most people listen to and agree with conservative talk radio and hardly anyone listens to liberal talk radio, and that isn't an anomaly. That IS the best poll on what people think and how the election will go. Republicans will maintain their majority or pick up seats in one or both Houses. Bank on it.
Just for research, here is the first eight verses in Sura 9.. Like you always hear about the Bible, you can prove anything with a single verse. It is good to put it into context.. (note, I'm not defending or agreeing with her, just posting for research..)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/9/index.htm
9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
9:2 Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).
9:3 And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,
9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.
9:7 How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.
9:8 How (can there be any treaty for the others) when, if they have the upper hand of you, they regard not pact nor honour in respect of you ? They satisfy you with their mouths the while their hearts refuse. And most of them are wrongdoers.
Liberals are the largest example of dysfunctional I've ever seen.
My volume goes up during commercials but otherwise things are normal..
Sounds like I missed a good show yesterday.
Yep, did you see how many states had their law enforcement go through sensitivity training... through CAIR?
The female caller, claiming to be a Moslem, is a liar.
The religion has not been hijacked. 50% of Al Jazeera watchers are for UBL.
Limbaugh bought her slimy comments. The "innocents" she claims are not targets.....what's HER definition of just what an 'innocent' is???
Won't be part of "...setting a new tone in Washington."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.