Actually, I think this is more than appropriate comparison. If anything, Islamics are worse: they want to _kill_ all non-Islamics, not just run 'em off.
"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York
Nope, no mistake. It's _exactly right_. Before the WTC attack, I had come to realize that the defining struggle of the twenty-first century would be that of Islam versus the Judeo-Christian "West". The September 11 attacks were the "Clarion Call" of this conflict: literally, the trumpets hail, the call to the coming battle. Again, the General is correct in his observations, or perhaps he is simply more forthright than the _rest_ of the politicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, many of whom perceive the truth but are afraid to embrace it.
Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world has never been worse."
Um, this is a joke, right? If anything, it could be argued that America's "position" in the "Islamic world" has never been _better_. We have overthrown the dangerous governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran may not be far behind (they must _not_ be permitted to develop nuclear weapons). Even Saudi Arabia may now hold some "free" elections (how "free" can a Saudi election _be_?).
The message to Islam is clear: either change on your own, or you _will_ face change imposed upon you by the West. If Islam doesn't like it, well, tough.
The only problem so far is that we are not being forceful _enough_ with Islam. That increased "forcefulness" won't occur until there's another major attack on the United States.
At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism.
But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic nations.
Gee, I wish Dubya had held to his guns on that. It suggests that he, too, "gets it", but has had to be restrained by his "handlers" for the sake of politically-correct public consumption.
The "brutal invasions of Islamic nations" are _exactly_ what's required if we want to bring the scouge of Islam to an end.
Islam and the Christian West cannot co-exist. This is Islam's decree, not ours. Islam makes no bones about stating its ultimate goal. Ultimately, if Islam is unwilling to "fundamentally" change into a peaceful religion (well nigh impossible given the reality that - to Islamics - the Quran is unchangeable) by its own doing, then it must be _changed by_ the West into one. If Islam refuses to change, insisting on a struggle to the death, well, as a Westerner, I'd prefer their death to ours. It's that simple.
General Boykin realizes this. More power to him!
Cheers!
- John
If Islam refuses to change, insisting on a struggle to the death, well, as a Westerner, I'd prefer their death to ours. It's that simple.
And a double bump to that!