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 Islam’s 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 ...
If this article has been previously posted please pardon me.
2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.
Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.
3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill together”. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.
4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name. On this battleground, with its personalised blogsites to assist self-promotion, many seem to think that their opinions are more important than the issues upon which they are passing judgment; and amid the babel of advisory voices, policy has become increasingly inconsistent.
5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.
Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.
6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.
7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not. Yet in the “battle for hearts and minds” the US First Cavalry Division saw fit to set up “Operation Adam Smith” in Iraq to teach marketing skills, among other things, to local entrepreneurs. There can be no victory here. Or, as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi told thousands of worshippers in Baghdad in May 2003: “The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah.”
8) The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen. It is also a political enterprise in which Muslims and non-Muslims can now be found acting together in furthering the reach of Islam’s world view; the help being given by Western producers and broadcasters to al-Jazeera is the most notable instance of it.
9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.
10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam. More than a century later, it is fondly believed that sophisticated hardware and Star Wars defences will ensure Western mastery in this war, if it is a war.
But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.” As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.
As things stand now, I can't argue with the reasoning. I hope others awaken to the threat, then fight it.
As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.
Over my dead body, and possibly millions of others.
For anyone who lives in SoCal, just taking a casual perusal of fare offered on the many Spanish language channels should assuage any concern over what the ultimate outcome with the Muzzies will be if other components of the West fall. There isn't a commercial and/or TV program that doesn't have writhing, scantily dressed (typically, string bikinis) hot chicks popping up in the most gratuitous fashion.
All the Latinos need is a cause & the means. If they get hold of nukes, they'd have no problem using them to defend their way of life.
Latinos vs Muslims in a fight to the death would be interesting to watch indeed.
We are all ready winning. What is it about these psuedo intellectuals Doom and Gloomers that they cannot do simple data analysis? We can only defeat ourselves. The enemy does not have it with their power.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
Mix that hot blood with hot black blood, and . . . .never mind.
That right nothing. With the US Economy growing more then the entrie Chinese echonomy produces they have NO alternative market but us. A fact the Arab elites, if not their wack job extremists coousins, understand
As good an analysis as any, better than most. We have met the enemy and he is "us" (or, should I say, our sensibilities, which disable our darker angels).
And, when the author said: "...many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand...", I think he was saying the Left have nothing "left" but a rhetorical cigarette butt in this particular phase of the debate. Very British. Nice metaphor. I'd sure hate to be stuck with only the fag-end.
People such as Robert Spencer, Ibn Warriq and sites such as Faith and Freedom are hardly hysterics -- and they give cogent commentary, too.
May I reiterate that although I find this analysis unpleasant I also find it convincing? There is no point in attempting to fight a war of defense on the basis of wishful thinking. We may as well simply surrender since we will get a better deal from the enemy now than we will later.
Remember Sir Winston Churchill?
"I have nothing to offer except blood, toil, tears, and sweat."
We must keep in mind our responsibilities and choices. Remember this one?
"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Or this?
"...never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
And perhaps most important,
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
And this paraphrase (Remember that Churchill was half British and half American):
Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if Western Civilization lasts for a thousand more years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
When we recognize there is a war we will pull the trigger,
the nuclear trigger. It will probably happen after a nuclear terrorist strike against this country or a European Country. The ability to drop several thousand thermonuclear weapons can have a very calming effect on the enemy.
1.5 billion people. Even Mother Nature has never beaten 1.5 billion people. It would take a big meteorite.
And you know nothing will change all those minds short of decomposition. Religion is persistent, even false religion.
Bump for later reading.
You said it, so I don't have to. If we get to a WW2 mindset, the war would be over in 1 week. There would, however, be 100 million dead on the other side. It's too early to be willing to cause death on that scale, so we fight a low-level nuisance war.
If Islam were just a movement all we would have to do is hold on until it is worn down and weakens, as all movements do, but Islam is a massive, global religion which removes time from the equation.
I really believe the only force powerful enough to defeat the corrosive power of Islam is Christianity.
If the West doesn't have a powerful, unifying identity that out lives politicians and cyclical national moods then we will eventually become Muslim.
Disagree that this is defeatist. To defeat an enemy one must know him well enough to attack him where he is weak. We have enemies. We have enemies both foreign and domestic. We must know them.
As far as winning goes, the "Middle East" situation is going very nicely indeed. Here at home the domestic enemy desperately attempts to ensure our defeat. I saw it happen in Viet Nam where the enemy that defeated us was not the enemy in South East Asia. Treason it was then, and treason most vile; treason it is now.
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.