Posted on 05/01/2007 6:07:49 AM PDT by Pokey78
from National Review
On the day the Royal Navys hostages were released, I chanced to be reading a poem from Reflections On Islam, a terrific collection of essays by George Jonas. The verse is by Nizar Qabbani, and it is his ode to the intifada:
O mad people of Gaza,
a thousand greetings to the mad
The age of political reason
has long departed
so teach us madness
Or as the larky motto you used to find on the wall of the typing pool put it: You dont have to be crazy to work here but it helps. For the madness of the intifada and the jihad and Islamist imperialism is calculated, and highly effective. There is, as Jonas sees it, method in their madness.
Do you remember that little difficulty a few months back over the Popes indelicate quotation of Manuel II? Many Muslims were very upset about his speech (or his speech as reported on the BBC et al), so they protested outside Westminster Cathedral in London demanding capital punishment for the Pope, and they issued a fatwa in Pakistan calling on Muslims to kill His Holiness, and they firebombed a Greek Orthodox Church and an Anglican Church in Nablus, and they murdered a nun in Somalia and a couple of Christians in Iraq. As Tasnim Aslam of the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad helpfully clarified, Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence. So dont say were violent or well kill you. As I wrote in National Review at the time, quod erat demonstrandum.
But thats a debating society line. Islam isnt interested in winning the debate, its interested in winning the real fight the clash of civilizations, the war, society, culture, the whole magilla. Thats why it doesnt care about the inherent contradictions of the argument: in the Middle East early in 2002, I lost count of the number of Muslims I met who believed simultaneously (a) that 9/11 was pulled off by the Mossad and (b) that it was a great victory for Islam. Likewise, its no stretch to feel affronted at the implication that youre violently irrational and to threaten to murder anyone who says so. Western societies value logic because we value talk, and talks, and talking, on and on and on: thats pretty much all we do, to the point where, faced with any challenge from Darfur to the Iranian nuclear program, our objective is to reduce the issue to just something else to talk about interminably. But, if you dont prize debate and you merely want to win, getting hung up on logic is only going to get in your way. Take the most devastating rapier wit you know Oscar Wilde, Noel Coward and put him on a late-night subway train up against a psycho with a baseball bat. The withering putdown, the devastating aphorism will avail him nought.
The quality of your argument is only important if you want to win by persuasion. But its irrelevant if you want to win by intimidation. Im personally very happy to defend my columns in robust debate, but after five years Im a bit bored by having to respond to Muslim groups demands (in America) that I be fired and (in Canada) that I be brought before the totalitarian-lite kangaroo courts of the countrys ghastly human rights commissions. Publishers like hate-mail; theyre less keen on running up legal bills defending nuisance suits. So its easier just to avoid the subject as an Australian novelist recently discovered when his book on a, ah, certain topical theme was mysteriously canceled.
Thats the advantage of madness as a strategy. If one party to the dispute forswears sanity, then the obligation is on the other to be sane for both of them. Thus, if a bunch of Iranian pirates kidnap some British seamen in Iraqi waters, it is the British whom the world calls on to show restraint and to defuse the situation. If an obscure Danish newspaper prints some offensive cartoons and in reaction Muslims murder people around the planet, well, that just shows we all need to be more sensitive about Islamophobia. But, if Muslims blow up dozens of commuters on the London Underground and in reaction a minor talk-show host ventures some tentative remarks about whether Islam really is a religion of piece, well, that also shows we all need to be more sensitive about Islamophobia. Do this long enough and eventually youll achieve the exquisite sensitivity of the European Unions Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. In 2003, their report on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe found that many anti-Semitic incidents were carried out by Muslim and pro-Palestinian groups, and so (according to The Daily Telegraph) a political decision was taken not to publish it because of fears that it would increase hostility towards Muslims.
Got that? The EUs principal fear about an actual ongoing epidemic of hate crimes against Jews is that it could hypothetically provoke an epidemic of hate crimes against Muslims.
And so the more the enemies of free society step on our feet the more we tiptoe around. After the release of the Royal Navy hostages, the Right Reverend Tom Burns, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Armed Forces, praised the Iranians for their forgiveness. Over the past two weeks, said the Bishop, there has been a unity of purpose between Britain and Iran, whereby everyone has sought justice and forgiveness.
Really? In what alternative universe is that? Maybe the insanity is contagious. As the columnist Jack Kelly wrote, The infidels Allah wishes to destroy, he first makes mad. And so these twin psychoses Islamist rage and our determination never to see it continue their valse macabre on the brink of catastrophe.
I agree..The bIG one is coming. Unfortunately I don’t think the US has the balss any longer to even defend itself/ Look what we have as leadership ... !
Post 68 seems to be about the case you were thinking of.
...Islam isnt interested in winning the debate, its interested in winning the real fight the clash of civilizations, the war, society, culture, the whole magilla. Thats why it doesnt care about the inherent contradictions of the argument: in the Middle East early in 2002, I lost count of the number of Muslims I met who believed simultaneously (a) that 9/11 was pulled off by the Mossad and (b) that it was a great victory for Islam. Likewise, its no stretch to feel affronted at the implication that youre violently irrational and to threaten to murder anyone who says so. Western societies value logic because we value talk, and talks, and talking, on and on and on: thats pretty much all we do, to the point where, faced with any challenge from Darfur to the Iranian nuclear program, our objective is to reduce the issue to just something else to talk about interminably. But, if you dont prize debate and you merely want to win, getting hung up on logic is only going to get in your way...
...The quality of your argument is only important if you want to win by persuasion. But its irrelevant if you want to win by intimidation.
...Thats the advantage of madness as a strategy. If one party to the dispute forswears sanity, then the obligation is on the other to be sane for both of them. Thus, if a bunch of Iranian pirates kidnap some British seamen in Iraqi waters, it is the British whom the world calls on to show restraint and to defuse the situation. If an obscure Danish newspaper prints some offensive cartoons and in reaction Muslims murder people around the planet, well, that just shows we all need to be more sensitive about Islamophobia. But, if Muslims blow up dozens of commuters on the London Underground and in reaction a minor talk-show host ventures some tentative remarks about whether Islam really is a religion of piece, well, that also shows we all need to be more sensitive about Islamophobia. Do this long enough and eventually youll achieve the exquisite sensitivity of the European Unions Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. In 2003, their report on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe found that many anti-Semitic incidents were carried out by Muslim and pro-Palestinian groups, and so (according to The Daily Telegraph) a political decision was taken not to publish it because of fears that it would increase hostility towards Muslims.
Got that? The EUs principal fear about an actual ongoing epidemic of hate crimes against Jews is that it could hypothetically provoke an epidemic of hate crimes against Muslims.
And so the more the enemies of free society step on our feet the more we tiptoe around. After the release of the Royal Navy hostages, the Right Reverend Tom Burns, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Armed Forces, praised the Iranians for their forgiveness. Over the past two weeks, said the Bishop, there has been a unity of purpose between Britain and Iran, whereby everyone has sought justice and forgiveness.
Really? In what alternative universe is that? Maybe the insanity is contagious. As the columnist Jack Kelly wrote, The infidels Allah wishes to destroy, he first makes mad. And so these twin psychoses Islamist rage and our determination never to see it continue their valse macabre on the brink of catastrophe.
I rarely ping to Mark Steyn because its like saying that the sun is hot and ice is cold - he nails it practically every time. (and you better be on Pokey78 Mark Steyn ping list!) But this article is outstanding even by his high standards.
Moral Clarity BUMP !
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.
Ah, Tuco’s rule.
BTTT
In WW II we did not "debate" the Germans, Japanese or Italians. We had less doubt then, and achieved far better results, despite the fact that that was a "real" war. The gold stars on the wall at the WW II Memorial each represent 1,000 American soldiers killed.
There are almost 5,000 of those stars. For the War on Terror, there would be less than three stars as of now. If most Americans (who are not in the military) are unwilling to bear a burden that slight, we should disband the Army, cease all international efforts, and retreat to fortress America until we are bombed into oblivion. It really is a simple choice.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "To Raise the Edifice (Geo. Washington on the Constitution)"
FOTFL I like it. Reminds me of Ronald Reagan’s “slip” into a live microphone.
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.