Defeating Jihad (Serge Trifkovic interviewed by Jamie Glazov)

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 3/31/2006 | Jamie Glazov & Serge Trifkovic

[Dark Skies]

Glazov: Ok, let’s move on to your book. You make the point that the Islamist threat to the West is greater than ever. Can you explain? And this means we are losing the terror war, no?

Trifkovic: Losing, absolutely, without a doubt. After Stalingrad Germany was doomed, after Moscow Napoleon was finished, and after Gettysburg the Confederacy could no longer hope to turn the tide. No such turning point has been reached in the misnamed Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). We need a comprehensive strategy of defense not merely against a small jihadist elite but against an inherently aggressive, demographically vibrant, and ideologically rigid Islamic movement - and please, no more "Islamist" red herrings! - a movement that has global proportions and world-historical significance. As an ideology and a blueprint for radical political action, it is a phenomenon that cannot be compared in dynamism, energy, and potential consequences with any other creed or idea in today's world. It demands a sustained, bold response that has failed to materialize so far. We are losing the war because our elite class does not allow the enemy to be defined. The squeamishness of European and American bien-pensants alike in naming the enemy is but one sign of a shared malaise that hampers a coherent effort.

[Dark Skies]

Excellent read!

[MarMema]

One percent of Muslims living in the United States were responsible for over 90 percent of terrorist offences and serious threats in the country since 9-11. A young Muslim man is literally millions of times more likely to carry out a terrorist attack in the United States than an Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. Or for that matter a Lebanese Christian. Membership of a group is a valid pointer in assuming and judging unobserved behavioral characteristics of an individual, especially in the absence of specific information about that individual's background. To suggest otherwise is neither moral nor sane.

I liked it. Thanks for posting this!

[Taggart_D]

great article.

[Dark Skies]

Thx. Glad you liked it. I thought it was long but made some good points.

[FBD]

immigration ping:

We will never win the "war on terror", without acknowledging the following.

(Muslim immigrants who believe in Sharia (Islamic law), will never truthfully swear allegiance to our Constitution.)

---

From the article:

"But for a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts the US Constitution as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the "secular" legal code with which it coexists with "the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah's authority on the basis of his revealed will. America is illegitimate....

New immigration legislation is badly needed. Islamic activism should be treated as the grounds for the exclusion or deportation of any alien, regardless of his status or ties in the United States. Useful precedents exist. Keeping out and facilitating the expulsion of politically undesirable foreigners has been at the heart of this country's immigration legislation since 1903 when Congress barred the admission of anarchists in response to President McKinley's assassination. "Ideological" grounds for deportation were on the statute books until 1990, when they were unwisely repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 "alien radicals" were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin. Those who preach Jihad and Sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner."

[layman]

Islamic activism needs to be treated as an excludable, eminently political, rather than "religious" activity.

I agree with this but don't see how it is possible under a constitution which guarantees freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion. I doubt that the framers anticipated the plague of Islam, and it's obvious that our current politicians are either gutless or clueless on the issue.

[junta]

bump for later reading

[Gritty]

A great article which deserves a complete reading!

[attiladhun2]

During the Civil War Northern Copperheads were routinely rounded up, jailed, and held without trial in special prisons. Of course, the SCOTUS later called such acts "reprehensible", but every nation during times of war has outlawed enemy progaganda. To do otherwise is to openly allow the existence of a fifth column, which is a policy based on some insane notion of liberty, not on what is in the best interest of the safety and security of the public.

[federal]

bookmark

[junta]

Thanks again, but we should apologize to the globalist liberals who wish for a unified peaceful world for even agreeing with Serge.

[FBD]

>"To do otherwise is to openly allow the existence of a fifth column, which is a policy based on some insane notion of liberty..."<

- or at the very least; deporting them...

[bayouranger]

deported to their countries of origin. Those who preach Jihad and Sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner."

That's a simple doctrine to follow. Now, let's get to it!

[steadfastconservative]

Trifkovic makes a lot of sense. He is right when he says that the only way that we can defeat the jihadists is to name our enemy--Islam-- and to curtail Muslim immigration into our country and to deport Muslims who are disloyal to the U.S. and its political institutions.

As one writer put it, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The right to free speech does not extend to speech that would undermine our institutions.

[FBD]

This article backs up the need for deportation of foreign Muslims:
"The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607608/posts

[The_Media_never_lie]

Great post!

[bayouranger]

FBD,
Thanks for the link. Even though I read about it already, others need to as well for our country's sake.

Take care.

[FBD]

thanks bump^

[kimosabe31]

I agree with this but don't see how it is possible under a constitution which guarantees freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion.

The answer is simple: a constitutional amendament excluding anyone who does not support the constitution from its protections. It's either that or sit around like a bunch of dumbshits and let these ragheads and the ACLU destroy what the constitution has granted us.