Replies

This author is ostensibly trying to protect American Liberty with this article. He fails on two counts.

1. But it is not immediately apparent that a war against Iraq was the most effective way to fight the Islamist jihad.

Really? Whether the Saudi Arabs are secularists or orthodox wahabbi fanatics, they're all now looking intently at their immediate northern borders. North, they witness a huge, gigantic 'crusader' garrison, which now makes the Israeli garrison look puny.

Given the pure fuel for this jihad originates in the sands of Arabia, what is not recognized by the author is this reality:

A jihad requires two resources: warriors with the heart to kill (a finite number), and a sense of freedom to attack the enemy at locations outside of the homeland. Our garrison in Iraq is a massive vacuum to both.

In the mind of a jihadist, two things take shape: a huge, alien force is just to the north of the spiritual homeland - jihadists will be streaming into Iraq for the foreseeable future.

But bigger is this: they will look at the Saudi regime, and pinpoint the blame for Iraq's democratization squarely on the royal family and power structure. For it's that structure, in the Arabian homelands, that is ultimately supposed to guard the 'purity' of Islam. I sense the jihadists will increase their efforts to destroy the saudi royals by an order of magnitude in the near future.

And let's not overlook the recent end-of-haij sermon by the "leading" saudi cleric; it's certainly noteworthy regarding the current 'purity' of that fuel - one can imagine the utter rage of the jihadists listening to that apostatized sermon. Make no mistake, that sermon directly conflicted w/ Koranic teachings.

It's effect is likely to attract jihadist's attention to the 'kingdom's' corrupt power structure all the more; most folks don't realize that Arab culture has historically always rejected the idea of 'royalty'. Every Arab is a king, as long as his honor is intact. Shame is being heaped upon arabia by the bucketload, and now, especially by their own kings and clerics.

These are all outcomes of the Iraq war, and serve the USA's security interests (and by extension) those of Israel) very well indeed. For our enemy doesn't have limitless resources.

2. But their (Muslims) rights as Europeans or Americans must be respected. The survival of our liberties depends on our willingness to defend them against enemies outside, but also against the temptation of our own leaders to use our fears in order to destroy our freedoms.

But we must also be careful that in doing so we don't end up undermining {our freedoms} ourselves. In the balance between security and civil liberty, the latter should never be sacrificed to the former.

It's here he totally misses the reality of what we're dealing with. The Koran explicitly instructs Muslims to infiltrate non-Islam societies by stealth, if force of arms is insufficient to convert by force.

During the 'stealth' period, it's actually holy to lie and falsely pay respects to barbarian customs, e.g., 'elections'.

We in the USA are making a fatal mistake if we think Muslim offspring will grow up, assimilate to secular democratic ideals, and thus reject their parents faith system. This is a Trojan horse that today we are not recognizing (Laocoons are frustrated everywhere these days).

Democracy has as it's underpinning value Christ's teachings regarding truth ... the pursuit of the love and loyalty to the 'truth'. Islam is the pursuit of obedience and loyalty to Allah. Islam, per the current content of the Koran, and democracy are, ahem, oil and water.

So, our 'security' is ultimately religious in origin - all the hysterical yammering by secularists will never change this truth.

For our 'liberty' is not derived via pure reason ... it is distilled from the love of truth. Libertarians who claim no faith in 'Christ' nonetheless intellectually piggyback on His message regarding truth. Before Christ, truth was indeed relative. Science appeared on the world scene AFTER Christ, an inconvenient chronology to the materialists.

And this is why folks who viscerally hated communist ideology find the same visceral reaction to Islam arising within themselves. Because both are distilled deceptions being foisted on our American way of life. And both are pointing to Christ has someone who is intolerant, and guilty of 'hate speech' and 'hate thoughts'.

To the author, I have this suggestion: write about the consequences that will befall our society if the forces currently arrayed to label the Bible as 'hate speech' win the fight. Write about the consequences if following the teachings of Christ is legalisticly suppressed.

Thought you three should be pinged on this.

We in the USA are making a fatal mistake if we think Muslim offspring will grow up, assimilate to secular democratic ideals, and thus reject their parents faith system. This is a Trojan horse that today we are not recognizing

Then would be wrong in assuming you'd deport all Muslims?
Remember

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We in the USA are making a fatal mistake if we think Muslim offspring will grow up, assimilate to secular democratic ideals, and thus reject their parents faith system. This is a Trojan horse that today we are not recognizing (Laocoons are frustrated everywhere these days).
Democracy has as it's underpinning value Christ's teachings regarding truth ... the pursuit of the love and loyalty to the 'truth'. Islam is the pursuit of obedience and loyalty to Allah. Islam, per the current content of the Koran, and democracy are, ahem, oil and water.

So, our 'security' is ultimately religious in origin - all the hysterical yammering by secularists will never change this truth.

This deserves a Drudge-style siren. Well said.