Posted on 09/23/2014 2:20:42 PM PDT by NYer
It seems so hopeless for the rest of the world to deal with this "religion" in any kind of truly lasting, successful way.
The only solution I see is for God (the real God) to pulverize Allah (the very idea of Allah), and for all the Muslims to be converted to Christianity.
(Pray without ceasing...)
Strong motivation, that, but only motivation while a threat is present and credible.
Solution is to force all the middle east countries into being secular ruled countries.
This was the case for many years and imo started when a military man, Atta Turk, westernized Turkey. Then the Shaw of Iran did the same then Egypt and Lybia. Even Hussien made Iraq a safe place for non muslims.
This all started to fall apart when we (Carter) enabled the Ayatollah to oust the Shaw of Iran. It's been down hill ever since.
A 'NATO' style coalition will be needed to reverse what has been going on. We should partner up with Russia (yes I said Russia) , China, India who themselves are having bigger potential problems with the Islamists, to join in getting this done.
In a way, it's started already, with Assad holding on in Syria, and Asissi? in Egypt destroying the brotherhood.
We need Putin because he's been right on the ME while Obama has been wrong and a major part of the problem.
To maintain the free flow of oil at market prices. And thus, our way of life.
Even if it is only in hindsight, we must acknowledge now that was a stupid move.
Nonsense. We need acknowledge no such thing, particularly when no reasons apart from "Monday morning quarterbacking" can be given.
Indeed, such doctrinaire pontifications fairly demand a comprehensively outlined solution superior to the one employed by George Bush.
So what? Do you expect BFFs? These are nation-states, not girlfriends.
And precisely "what" do you expect them to turn on us? Their economic might? Their breathtaking militaries? Their cultural hegemony?
Get real.
Now you're just being deceitful. I don't know whose rhetoric you're remembering, but it sure wasn't what the rest of us remember.
for later reading
Excellent article.
Actually, it’s a bit of both. Islam was essentially just another vehicle for extending and consolidating Mohammed’s reign of crime. I won’t call them military victories, because they weren’t military: Mohammed was just another member of a primitive, caravan-raiding Arab tribe, albeit a particularly violent and crazy one, who took advantage of the fact that after the fall of Rome, there no longer existed a great power that could support or protect the weak non-Arab kingdoms of the ME. They were trading or commercial societies, often very developed intellectually, generally pagan although sometimes with significant Christian or even Jewish populations, but they simply weren’t up to defending themselves against the ultimate caravan raider.
Mohammed and his goons would sweep in and destroy these places, and then take them over. The “religion” came to him then as a way of consolidating his power by creating a system that declared his rule essentially divine. People who accepted it then received “peace,” that is, SLM, the root word of Islam, because once they submitted to his rule, he stopped attacking them.
The ME at the time suffered not only from political weakness and fragmentation, but from religious fragmentation. What Mohammed did was have a “vision” where he took little fragments from each religion and put them together in a self-serving cult: that is, he took parts of Jewish law and OT prophecy; certain Christian figures, drawn mostly from heretical Arian or Donatist beliefs and apocalyptic concepts; and a lot of pagan fertility and moon-worship traditions, such as the worship of that peculiar female-genital shaped moon rock in the Kaaba. This was supposed to satisfy all of the different groups that he was subjugating and made him the ruler not only of their political lives but of every aspect of their lives.
This was even more the case because of its negative, voluntaristic aspect, which essentially prevents its adherents from developing any realistic theology, since God is not knowable and in any case may decide to be or do something entirely different in an instant. This strikes at the very basis of reason, and is why Islamic societies are so retrograde. The famous “Muslim achievements” are all things that came out of the societies they took over, which continued to limp along until Islam finally, usually after about 100 years or so, managed to snuff out the light of reason.
Because Mohammed had no direct male heir, there was nobody who could automatically follow him, and this is the source of the division between the two branches of Islam. However, their other beliefs are the same.
So we have to understand the origins of Islam to understand what it really is. The subsequent history of it thus is nothing but a quest to take over all of society (simply for purposes of the enrichment of its leaders, using the “religion” to ensure this), although it is marked by disputes between the two main sects of Islam. However, the “Caliph” is theoretically the point of union here and that is one of the reasons this current situation is so dangerous.
“There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist…. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.”
St. John Damascene (d. 749), Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar. Quoted from his book On Heresies under the section On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites (in The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 37.
A very accurate description from someone who was practically there to see it!
I think the thing to remember is that in a sense the political or conquest aspect came first, and the “religion” was then added on as a way to give Mohammed and the Arabs total control of the conquered people and to cement this by making the political state into a religion. That’s why it has killed over 250 million people so far in its ceaseless campaign for world domination.
Islamic society is actually the only truly theocratic society, that is, where the state and the religion are one and the same and the state is ruled by religious law. If Hitler had been smart, he would have founded a religion (actually, like Napoleon, he was trying to do so, but he didn’t get it going soon enough).
BTTT. This is a seminal article. I thought about it a lot over the last day.
Recommended for general knowledge of the enemy, of which there is little that is useful. This one is good.
We have to first name, then understand, then destroy this enemy.
See my post #29, written by an eyewitness to the formation of Islam.
When the Japanese soldiers took St. Stephen's hospital in Hong Kong, they killed and mutilated the bodies of the doctors, bayoneted the patients, and gang-raped the nurses. They did the same at the Alexandra Hospital in Singapore, except they made the nurses clean up the blood and guts of the murdered patients before they gang-raped them.
Japan used the tactic of terror to great effect as they swept through China, Malaya, Burma, and Indonesia. Yet, it was unnecessary to coin a replacement term for "enemy soldiers". Similarly, as the Red Army butchered and raped their way across Eastern Germany, again using the tactic of terror to great effect, no one thought in necessary to say that the retreating German forces were "fighting terror". Our soldiers and marines were spared the need to inflict terror on Japanese civilians at bayonet point, mostly because we had two buckets of sunshine we could drop from 40 000 feet.
My point is that the ability and the willingness to inflict terror upon the enemy soldiers is intrinsic to military success, as so eloquently described in the following passage:
"we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun c***suckers by the bushel-f***ing-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts...."
We are in a war with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They are using soldiers in an unusual, unconventional way. But soldiers they are. Thinking of them instead as "terrorists" is preventing us from making and executing a war plan to bring victory.
And, Mark, PLEASE stop the "Islamonazi" stuff. German National Socialism was an artefact of late modernity. It is no coincidence that the early "postmodernists" like Paul DeMan and Martin Heidegger, who inspired Derrida and Foucault were Nazis.
Islam, Islamic warriors, and Islamic terror have their roots in the seventh century. Other than alliances of convenience in the 1930s and early 1940s, Naziism and Islam have zero to do with each other. Each is sui generis, and Islam has been immeasurably more persistent, and more successful, than German National Socialism.
bttt
That’s what we were being sold!
It’s the truth.
Also I remember after the ‘liberation’ of Kuwait and after 9/11 Kuwaitis celebrating in the streets!
People in these countries are not our friends militarily or otherwise. They were celebrating in the streets after 9/11.
It’s beyond stupid to be in an ‘alliance’ with them. Their leaders just want to save their own hides should ISIS overrun them. That’s all. There is no other reason they want to be in an ‘alliance with us
And if they have little to now military capability, what kind of alliance is it? What are they actually doing?
A threat to THEM not us.
Why do we have to go in and help save their hides?
Upshot was that a few 'princes' stole an oil bonanza from Iraq.
They were protected by the free world, who benefited as de facto partners in the heist.
It has a lot to do with us defending the filthy rich ' Muslims in name only' as it has to do with picking favored dubious muslim groups.
Could be we are now bombing the wrong people. We should be concentrating on the MINO who control the banking systems in countries that are financing the Islamists world wide onslaught.
I am of the opinion that no matter which faction prevails, we will eventually face it in the future. Find out who is running short and airdrop small arms ammo. The situation will sort itself out.
Source? It shouldn't be hard to document.
That was the Palestinians, not the Kuwaitis. The Kuwaitis were lining up to donate blood.
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.