A TIME FOR TRUTH - 9/11 AND ISLAM

People keep asking me what we learned from September 11, 2001 and the deaths of 3,000 of our fellow citizens. I’m tempted to say: Absolutely nothing. (Who was it who remarked that the lessons of history are the last things we ever learn?)

Among the many unlearned lessons of Day-Which-Will-Live-In-Infamy-II-- the necessity to control our borders, the need for a patriotic renewal and the importance of combatting multiculturalism -- the most significant is the nature of Islam. You will note that I do not say militant Islam, or radical Islam, or Islamic extremism or other such weasel words – but Islam, period.

Every one of the hijackers who flew airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon were professing and practicing Moslems, as is Osama bin Laden. The Al Qaeda network is based in Moslem countries and supported financially by pious Moslems in Saudi Arabia.

The overwhelming majority of Moslem religious authorities who’ve spoken out on the subject, including those at the main mosque in Mecca and Egypt’s prestigious Al Azar University, either endorse or rationalize acts of terrorism. On a day when Americans were incinerated or buried under tons of rubble, from Nigeria to Indonesia, Moslems celebrated in the streets.

Sept. 11 was one chapter in a 1400-year jihad. Every day, the World Trade Center massacre is reenacted on a smaller scale somewhere in the Third World – Jewish women and children are burned alive in a bus on the West Bank, a missionary is beheaded in the Philippines, gunmen shoot up a church in Pakistan (deliberately firing into the prostrate bodies of women trying to shield their children), ancient monasteries and convents are destroyed in Kosovo, a woman is sentenced to death for adultery in Nigeria, Hindus are murdered in the Kashmir, a nun is found beheaded in Baghdad -- and the beat goes on.

Genocide in the Sudan, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, religious persecution in Saudi Arabia, calls for another holocaust in mosques from Mecca to Gaza, the imposition of Islamic law in Nigeria, forced conversions in Indonesia, synagogues burned in France, Jews attacked across Europe – these are everyday events, as Third World and much of the First slowly turns Islamic green.

And still our leaders, from President Bush on down, insist on peddling the absurdity that Islam is a religion of peace – a creed of kindness and benevolence tragically and inexplicably corrupted by fanatics.

At a conference, I recently had an exchange with Tom Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, wherein I questioned the governor on Islam a la Hans Christian Andersen. Ridge replied that Islam was indeed a pacific faith corrupted by a handful of heretics. I replied that the “handful” is in the hundreds of millions and -- as far as I can see – it’s the Moslems who aren’t trying to kill us who’ve misinterpreted their religion.

Why this reluctance to confront manifest reality? The reason lies partly with our absurd foreign policy. We’ve declared certain Moslem nations to be our loyal allies – including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. We wouldn’t want to offend these dear friends by saying something unflattering about their bloody, butcherly, dark ages faith.

Then too, Americans are naturally benevolent. Most of us are taught from childhood that is religion is good (and it doesn’t matter which religion). As long as little Johnny believes in God and goodness, it’s inconsequential whether he lights candles, wears a skull cap to services or prays in the direction of Mecca.

Consider the following: Of the three major monotheistic religions, one was started by a lawgiver, one by a man of peace (try to imagine Mohammed telling his followers to turn the other cheek) and one by a warrior. Mohammed led men into battle. The essence of his message is holy war – slaughtering your enemies for the glory of Allah. He even advised his followers to negotiate a phony truces to lull their enemies.

For almost 1,400 years, that has been the reality of Islam. Within a century after the death of Mohammed, Islam spread throughout the Middle East and across North Africa. It overran the Iberian peninsula and was finally stopped in southern France. It spread eastward as far as the southern Philippines. It was not propagated by fresh-faced young men knocking on doors and announcing: “Hello. I’m from your local mosque. Have you considered the Koran?” It was spread by force – conversion by the sword. To a large extent, it still is.

Some will respond that all religions go through periods of violence, usually in their infancy. Christianity had its crusades and Inquisition, its forced conversions and expulsions. But the evil committed in the name of Christ happened centuries ago. The evil committed in the name of the Prophet is going on now, as you read these words. Of 22 conflicts in the Third World, 20 involve Moslems versus someone else. Coincidence? In his brilliant book, “Clash of Cultures and the Remaking of World Order,” Samuel Huntington speaks of Islam’s “bloody borders.”

There is no Methodist Jihad, no Hasidic holy warriors, no Southern Baptist suicide bombers, no Mormon elders preaching the annihilation of members of other faiths.

Islam is a warrior religion – the perfect vessel for fanatics, the violence-prone, the envious and haters of all stripes. This is one reason why Islam is making so many converts among the peaceable denizens of our prison system.

Still, much of the West is addicted to a fairy-tale version of Islam. Christian and Jewish clergy fall all over themselves to have interfaith services with imams. Representatives of Moslem groups are invited to the White House. The president signs a Ramadan declaration. In California, public schools ask children to role-play at being Moslems. Our universities take carefully selected verses from the Koran and present them as the essence of the faith. All that’s needed is a Moslem character on “Sesame Street.” Look – it’s the Jihad Monster!

This perspective engenders a fatally false sense of security. Imagine, in 1940, Winston Churchill taking to the airwaves to announce that Nazism was an ideology of peace which, regrettably, had been perverted by a few fanatics like Hitler and Goebbels. But most storm troopers and SS men are fine follows – your friends and neighbors.

For the first thousand years of its history – from the death of Mohammad to the 17th. century decline of the Ottoman empire, Islam was an expansionist force. For the next 300 years, as the West rose to preeminence, Islam receded. For the past four decades – fueled by Arab oil wealth, a surplus population in the Middle East, the waning of the West and the rise of more virulent strains of the faith (Shiism, Wahhabism, Sunni fundamentalism) – Islam is expanding once more. Round and round she goes and where she stops nobody knows.

Due to Moslem immigration and aggressive proselytizing among the underclass, Islam is being exported to the West. Moslem populations are burgeoning throughout Western Europe. (In southern France, there are said to be more mosques than churches.) In Judeo-Christian America, Islam is the fastest growing religion. It’s also spreading down the coast of West Africa, through the Balkans (after Serbia, Macedonia is the next target) and up from Mindanao in the Philippines.

Wherever it comes, Islam brings its delightful customs – child marriages, female circumcisions, rabid anti-Semitism, terrorism and support for terrorism and a virulent intolerance of other faiths.

Am I suggesting we declare war on 900 million Moslems? The question is irrelevant – many of them have declared war on us. When one side knows it’s at war and the other thinks peace and brotherhood prevail, guess who wins?

Ultimately, it’s not about Jews in the West Bank, or Orthodox Serbs in Kosovo, or Hindus in Kashmir, or Maronite Catholics in Lebanon, or Christians in Sudan and Nigeria but all of us. As Ben Franklin would have it – Either we will hang together, or surely we shall all hang separately.

I’ll save what-is-to-be-done for another installment. In the meantime, my compliments to Richard the Lionhearted and Charles Martel

Considering I'm not much of a strategist, I would stop all immigration, invade Iraq, and I would conquer all nations that support terrorism.

I’d say that your first two suggestions could be implemented, while the last might be difficult. What criteria would you use to say that a country supported terrorism? Should those criteria be universally applied? What if the nation had the ability to do us great damage? For example, say the Chinese were caught red handed (pardon the pun) supplying arms and money to the Nepal insurgents and suppose those insurgents had committed terrorist acts (as they have done). Would you be willing to start a war with China to enforce your terrorism policies?

Forget about rebuilding them afterwards. Leave them in the stone age we put them in. These "conquests" should be about punishment, not rehabilitation.

This was the policy of Imperial Rome, and it worked pretty well. The problem with this strategy today is the much higher cost of regional instability. Let’s imagine that we follow this policy in Iraq. We invade, destroy their infrastructure and then leave. What happens? Now you have millions of Iraqis with no access to food. Some starve, the rest become refugees and journey to their neighbors: Kuwait, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. There mere presence will cause disruption in nations that supply the world with a large chunk of its oil wealth. Furthermore, they might influence the populations to strike at the West, perhaps in the form of oil embargos. Like it or not, such actions could cause major economic problems.

Announce we shall do the same to any country that threatens us again.

This will have consequences as well. Nations that feel threatened by the US are more likely to seek the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, such states are more likely to form defensive alliances; they may even combine resources and share technology to develop such weapons more quickly. For example, North Korea could trade Rocket technology for Iranian resources or Pakistani nuclear know-how. What if China or Russia felt threatened by American activity? The United States is strong, but we cannot fight the whole world.

We should also tie all foreign aid monies (everywhere) to their attitude towards us. Any negative word about us and they are cut off.

Remember that Nations are not unitary actors. Nations, even governments, are often made up of competing factions. Let’s imagine that I’m a Muslim fundamentalist with a low level position in the Egyptian government. Wouldn’t it be in my interest to help cut off American foreign aid? After all, it could help bring people over to my side. And if I were successful, wouldn’t I be a step closer to replacing that government with a fundamentalist regime?

When considering foreign policy you have to be very careful. Sometimes actions that seem to be in one’s best interest can cause the very conditions one sought to avoid.

Now you have millions of Iraqis with no access to food

You're making the mistake of assuming that we left millions of iraqis alive.

War is won by destroying the enemy. Either killing all of them or so changing their culture that war is unthinkable (as we did to japan). The problem with changing the culture of islam is that the religion COMMANDS its adherents to lie. So even if they claim to have converted we cannot trust them. They must be destroyed. (Of course they must be given a chance to convert but that doesn't have any effect on the imposition of justice here on Earth)

God Save America (Please)

You're making the mistake of assuming that we left millions of iraqis alive.

If the United States was to commit genocide we would become an international pariah. Most – if not all - nations in the world would refuse to trade with us. Any administration that attempted to use our military to carry out such policy would find their orders refused and they would be arrested and impeached.

War is won by destroying the enemy. Either killing all of them or so changing their culture that war is unthinkable (as we did to japan).

…. and Germany I suppose. But how exactly did we change the culture of Japan at the end of WWII? From what I see, all we really did was dismantle their empires and change their governments. We didn’t even depose the Japanese Emperor. I’d say the main reason that both nations remain happily pacifistic is that America bears the burden of their defense while they trade for the resources they originally tried to acquire through conquest.

The problem with changing the culture of islam is that the religion COMMANDS its adherents to lie. So even if they claim to have converted we cannot trust them. They must be destroyed. (Of course they must be given a chance to convert but that doesn't have any effect on the imposition of justice here on Earth)

I don’t think the fanatical Muslims have anything on the fanatical Japanese – the original suicide pilots. And there still are fanatical Japanese who occasionally stir up trouble; it’s just no one listens to them. If the militaristic Japanese and Germans can learn to play nice so can the Muslims. I think it’s worth a try, and a more realistic solution than genocide.

If the United States was to commit genocide we would become an international pariah.

No one mentioned genocide. There are millions of arabs who don't live in Iraq.

We changed Germany and Japan by long term occupation. We could do the same in the Mid East but it would likely be very bloody.

What we have to remember is that the enemy is not squeamish about killing every last one of us or forcing every last one of us to convert to islam. Read the koran, they are commanded to leave no free person alive.

This is a war to the death. fortunately we have God on our side and know that in the end, islam will cease to be and Christ will reign from Jerusalem. (and that fact really ticks the mohammedans off)

GSA(P)

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.