Posted on 01/22/2007 11:03:41 AM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
"If I wanted to sharpen both prongs of his (Steyn's) thesis, I would also propose the following:
1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces."
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
bump
I think his eight ideas at the end are certainly worth considering. I would take them and add them to an unconditional surrender view of warfare against the Islamists and we would at last have a policy.
Population bombs:
" In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can’t buck demography—except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out—as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em."
If steps were taken to reciprocate negatively for anti-freedom acts in other countries we would be engaging in the moral equivalent of putting a tariff on ideas. It's the Smoot Hawley fast track to a depression of cultural exchange. It would end in a hairy world war.
This is the opening wedge. It's a neutral principle, easily defended.
It's going to end in a hairy world war either way so it makes more sense to me not to simply surrender beforehand.
Disagree because it is clear that Islamo Fascism is a bad idea, as communism before it you don't appease it you destroy it.
Yeah but if you outlaw it, in effect you martyr it. It becomes like an illegal drug, attractive for it's mystery. I think it gains traction if you outlaw it.
Hitchens has a tough job trying to get the left into this fight. So busy they are in trying to turn Islamo Fascism into another "right".
I wouldn't outlaw it. Anymore than I would outlaw communism. I would prefer to destroy it as we have other murderous ideologies in the past.
Isn't this how Christianity got traction? :) It says "I am scared of you" when you outlaw something like this. Better to constantly pound away at the bigoted double standard being practiced by muslim dominated societies. Better to expose it for it's impracticality and for being out of touch with modernity.
You don't outlaw cockroaches you kill them.
we agree. Destroy? Contain.
How cool that you got to meet him! I love it when I finally get to meet someone whose work I've admired, and they turn out to be great in real life as well. Glad to hear Hitchens gave the Onion guy the dressing-down he deserved.
BUMP!
Containment is not destroying. You can't contain something forever, it is too costly to contain it. If it is a threat to your life you kill it.
Thanks God someone on the left "gets it."
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.