Posted on 09/09/2006 1:32:58 PM PDT by Iris7
LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of terrorist attacks carried out in Islams name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called conducting jihad for the sake of Allah.
If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.
1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from dialogue to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on public diplomacy to taking out Islamic sites, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the terrorist and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Yes, we will win. I simply prefer small timely wars to huge brutal kill fests. Unless we are darned lucky we are headed for the second sort of war.
I most actively and completely agree with you.
It could be that the President will surprise us yet. There are possibilities.
In any case there is a huge sewer to clean out.
bttt
According to his bio, he is British but lives in Italy, and in past has advised David Willetts, the shadow works and pensions secretary, on future Tory strategy. He claimed publishers would not publish his book because it didn't jibe with their views of Islam.
For some reason, Mr. Selbourne seems to believe that the Unites States is solely responsible for identifying and solving the Islamist problem, yet he clearly understands it is a global issue that affects many.
Been thinking about Robert Edward Lee some these days. A gentleman indeed.
Still prefer Bedford Forrest most of the time!
On that note, did you see author Burke Davis just died? I'm sure you have read a few of his books.
Thanks for posting the 10-reasons thread, many valid points have been made here.
Controversy comes naturally to Selbourne, a veteran of ideological and cultural wars. He used to teach at Ruskin College, Oxford, the trade union college, and was assumed to be a man of the left until he began writing about the breakdown of civil society and morality in essays and books such as The Principle of Duty.
He is wary of libertarianism and the cult of the individual and considers Milton Friedman, apostle of the free market, to be the evil genius of our age. With such views, he was always going to be at odds with the Thatcherite right. Yet his arguments against loosening the bonds of family and community led him to be labelled a reactionary sell-out by the post-Sixties left.
Selbournes holiday home in Italy became his refuge and, eventually, his permanent base: I needed a cordon sanitaire between me and the seething world of competitive English intellectuals. From there he remains engaged in the war of ideas in the English-speaking world, eagerly scanning British and American newspapers and magazines on the internet and fighting every ideological battle as if the barbarians were at his gate.
I consider myself to be highly progressive, he says with a touch of indignation and weariness. I consider it highly progressive to be against fascism and there are elements of Islamic society which are fascist. People are cowed, and it has to be resisted.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1631924,00.html
I missed the news about Mr. Davis. I recollect him from the days I read about Thomas Jonathan Jackson. I believe I still have my copy of "They Called Him Stonewall". An accurate and accessible piece of work.
Just checked, can't find it, but I see my old copy of Robertson's "Stonewall Jackson" and Tanner's semi-technical story of the the first half of '62. First book I bought on Jackson, was astounded to see one truly remarkable piece of manuever after the other. Of course the General would agree that genius is 99% perspiration. But, boy, was he ever talented. Was going to do a real map study on those months one of these days but never did get get around to it. Ah, retirement looms!
Nice to hear from you, and do pray you and yours are doing well.
Thanks again.
Sort of a Byronesque Progressive Tory would be if he were from Doctor Johnson's era and hostile to Whiggish industrialization. (Ain't that a hoot of a metaphor?) Likely a bit dissolute in his younger days and feeling guilty about it. Probably has some Latin. (Wish I did.) Italian probably quite good but with an accent. Middling French. Poor mathematics, maybe?
Now I'm really far out on an imaginary limb!!
That's it, signing off. Goodnight.
Outstanding. Thanks for posting.
I think so too
In the end, the best man will win. Will it be Mohammed...or Jesus? (purely rhetorical question so don't flame.)
The man that is the son of God would be my pick.
Thanx for the info
Western civilization became the leader not because of "gay pride parades" but thanks to the Christian religion. And Muslims do not need to learn marketing, they are quite good at that already.
"Chuckle". Just in case some here haven't heard of Arnold's latest slip of the lip, you need to keep your asbestos suit handy.
The American Left is the problem here. They insist that we must surrender and run away immediately. This will inevitably lead to a major war, a war avoidable if those creatures would just knock it off.
Most of those people are fools and some of them are extremely evil people.
"Our leaders", as you put it, want to avoid not getting re-elected. The same thing happened when Hitler invaded the Rhineland. Chamberlain was immensely popular. Kept us out of war, don't you know. Winston Churchill saw what this policy was to bring. He tried to smarten up the idiots. They never really did smarten up. They just got scared of the Germans.
On that you have 100% agreement from me ... I've witnessed the leftist liberal politicians and their lying, anti-American, societal engineering ways for decades. And I know damn well their planb to talk the terrorist murderers to death is their typical foolishness that we cannot afford if we don't accept tens of thousands of American citizens slaughtered by terrorists during the democrats' 'diplomacy dance'. Not only do the leftist liberals not understand the nature of the enemy, they refuse to learn. THAT is a deadly combination America is about to discover aids and abets an insidious enemy.
PING
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.