The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Clean, clear and linked.
I am not going to dispute the fact that we are engaged in a conflict with radical Muslims. I think every American, Democrat or Republican, is in agreement with that. I question the logic of Iraq as being the pathway to victory. Kevin, I know you believe that if we withdraw or significanly reduce or forces there, the radicals will immolate the country and have a new base to operate from. Consider this question: what was Osama bin Laden's chief complaint about the United States? Do you remember why he issued the fatwa in the first place?
It was because our forces were in Saudi Arabia, the holy land of Islam. He demanded that we remove our forces from there and guess what? We did. Of course, we moved them all to Iraq but if you remember when we did that, there was a flurry of messages claiming "victory" against the infidel from bin Laden, Zawahari, and others. So, did George Bush give in to bin Laden? Didn't we back down?
There is absolutely no doubt that radicals are trying to get a nuclear weapon and will try to blow it up in this country, most likely New York or DC. By mismanaging Iraq, continuing to be unable to admit fault, and clearly not having a clue how radical Islam operates, President Bush has put us in MORE danger from this because this struggle will not be won by traditional combat. It's going to be won by police work, elite strike teams in the Middle East, and massive amounts of intelligence, both electronic and especially human.
Thankfully, I am not the only one who thinks this way.
“Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril."
Major General John Batiste, Commander of First Infantry Division, Iraq, 2003-2005. 31 years of military service.
The fact remains: We are there.
Do we pull out and have "ethnic cleansing" on our hands? Or do we stay, and tacitly approve "ethnic cleansing" by others? Or do we stay and try to beat sense into neolithic goatherds on both sides and across the region?
This was very good, very clear, and very complete. The ONLY problems are that insufficient persons will read it in the first place, and understand it if they do. We may well have to revert to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki trick. I don't like the idea any more than most people, but I recognise that this MAY WELL be the only option. No matter what kind of bs they try to feed us about "wanting to see allah through jihad", if that is true how come they have to bribe so many innocents by taking care of their families? How come the leaders don't just jump right in there on the paradise train? Because they know it's just as much bs as we do?
No, Kevin, it's not "his" choice. Fortunately.
It's just an expression. But it is an invitation to support one of three not so good choices, after admitting what they really mean.
The true horror is that it will almost certainly take a nuclear event within continental US before enough people wake up to see the threat for what it is.
I go with the probable alternative.
We're still in Kosovo/Bosnia with one of our congressional assholes (that'd be Lantos, D. Insane) insisting a separate, muslim state there would be a really fine idea.
So the probably alternative is just as unrealistic as a peaceful muslim/Islamic Kosovar state.
We will take another hit, a big one, but I'm still in doubt about how 'havoc'y we'll be able to get. Too many cowards.
No, "everybody" did not think that Saddam had weapons. Jude Wanniski had a series of articles illustrating that there was no weapons, chemical or nuclear. I knew even before the war that they would never find any weapons. If only his articles were more widely read.
So yes, Bush lied, they all lied. And if they didn't know, then they were incompetent instead. Either way, its not a way to start a war.
The war was a waste. It solved nothing but caused a ton of problems. If we want to "win" against Islam, we cannot do it by military force. You cannot kill an idea. All we have done is stir the bee's nest. The way to win is to bring the troops home- all of them, everywhere. We only need to defend this country. Follow the advice of George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson- peace and trade with all nations.
Great post - glad to see you address the threat of radical Islam. Here is my response. It was first posted on-line here http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/02/after-one-attack-too-many-proposed.html
Kevin, bless his heart didn't like and wouldn't post it nor even respond to it on-line. I'd like to know what his readers think.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Background and justification
Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;
Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice the religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion to religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;
Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by the religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;
Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;
Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey actively suppress other religions;
Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenant the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;
Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim high-jackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at American people around the world;
Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbolla, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America will cease to exist;
Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;
Therefore: Islam is not a religion but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution.
Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its current war on democratic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as proscribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
OtherWhiteMatt seems to believe that you cannot "win" against an idea.
See any temples to Juputer lately? How about Tiamat? Apollo? HOw about a sacrificial pyramid for the Aztec Sun god?
The number of religious/political structures currently active today is dwarfed only by the number inhabiting the ashpile of history.
The United States could finish Islam as a religion. Not the Anglosphere. Not the "West". America. It would require a substanial number of nuclear weapons, but nowhere near most of our supply.
But we do not need to "kill" Islam. We simply need to defang it. Render it incapable of forcing conversion, subjugation or death on others and your task is finished. This means ensuring that Muslim nations cannot reach non-Muslim ones with terrorists or their militaries. And making sure the only Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are not going to treat the rest of the population as kuffar. The solution to our problem is simple, and well within the technical capacity of America. The one I just outlined would also likely be bloody and horrifying to most Americans.
Oh, and by the by Matt, since the development of the ballistic missile since the end of the Second World War, defending this country has required being in places other than this country. But your simpering anti-war shitbag friends in the Democrat party don't even wnat to defend this country's border, much less its airspace from Iranian or North Korean missiles.
So do everyone a favor, OtherWhiteMatt, shut the hell up and let the adults deal white the problem. Neo-Isolationist drivel is not the answer, unless we have rendered every other nation on earth incapable of attacking the US by means other boat. And that would take a lot of nukes.
That amendement would make America a very different place. And I'm not sure for the better.
That's what I told him, in a lot more words.
We can recover from being provoked into dropping our veneer of civilization and going medieval on another culture. We would not recover from cold-bloodedly changing that veneer in the way he advocates.
"All we have done is stir the bee's nest."
I love this line of thought. That it is always the "brown people" that are reacting to what the West does. That they really have no free will of their own.
Well, maybe, just maybe it is they who have stirred the bee's nest.
By willfully attacking and killing innocent people in the West for over a generation.
By failing to adhere to treaties(eg.) The one ending Gulf War I.
By killing 3000 of our people in a callous and brutal act of mass murder.
And don't give me any crap about how we are the real terrorists with our Apache helicopters.
If we really were terrorists, the Islamic world would be a bloody pile of ruins by now.
But heed this. If the attacks on the West continue, and if they escalate, sooner or later, even the Left will have enough and then it will get ugly.
Kevin (and everyone else), have you seen the movie Why We Fight? It came out in 2005 and was directed by Eugene Jarecki. If you haven't seen it, I urge you to watch it. It takes President Eisenhower's farewell speech as a theme and goes from there into today.
It really explains much of the reason why are in Iraq and why we won't leave. People from all across the political spectrum are interviewed, including Richard Perle, one of the main architechts of the Iraq War. You can see clips here.
Our reasons for going and our reasons for staying are pretty clear after watching this film.
Would that be the same Jude Wanniski who wrote Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent?
Uh, right. I'll trust him on whether Saddam had WMD.
No, I haven't seen it. But there ARE valid reasons to go to war. Did you read Steven's entire piece?
Scott's amendment seems a little extreme. It may come to that, but I hope not, because it'll be as a sub-text to the "big ones" falling all over the ummah.
What I'd like to see is some member of Congress introducing a bill that inverted the Saudi religious laws, applying them to Islam in this country as they are applied to Christianity, Judism, Buddism, etc in SA. Not that it would ever pass, but it may give "our friends" pause.
So, "We can recover from being provoked into dropping our veneer of civilization and going medieval on another culture", ie like we rounded up the Japs in WWII, took their property and stuffed them into camps. No one has to wonder what they thought our our "dropping" our veneer.
Or, if AQ manages to get a nuke off in the USA then "we can recover" from the likely response of what? whom we gonna nuke? How many Arab capitals are we going to nuke? we gonna go to war against ALL the Islamic countries?
In the meantime this is what is happening on OUR soil -http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm
The "DC Sniper" was Muslim, the Salt Lake City mall shooter was Muslim, there are dozens of other examples of violent attacks on our soil since 9/11 (and of course, before). We've started "accomodating" Mulims "customs", are you all ready to start "accomodating" their anti-women, anti-jewish, anti-freedom, anti-infidel customs? Are you ready for "honor" killings, second-class citizenship for women, and violence against anyone "who insults" Islam?
How many people have to die before "we drop our veneer of civilization" and respond to the threat?
I too support the war in Iraq, for pretty much the same reasons that Kevin does. But it is insanity to let Islam flourish in America. It is not going to be "Americanized", it is not going to "grow peacefull". What it is going to do is guarantee increasing violence in our streets to the point where we do "have to drop our veneer". I would rather avoid that, and it would tell the world, and the 7th Century barbarians that inhabit most of the Muslim countries that we are SERIOUS. Isn't that what you're trying to do in your post Kevin? Get the U.S. to get serious? As long as we pretend that it is the "radical" Muslims, and not Islam itself, that are the threat we're not serious.
I find Kevins attitude strangly at odds with his usually otherwise extremely intelligent expositions on freedom. The idea, has he expressed to me privately in email, that it is better to allow something like the Japanese internment in WWII rather than to modify the "perfect Constituion", just seems a non-sequiter.
He told me "in so many words", but sadly, I don't think they were his best effort. I'd like to see a better treatise.
Actually, Scott, rounding up the Japanese and taking their property was fairly civilized, though very much unconstitutional. What we didn't do was slaughter them outright, which is what "going medieval" would mean.
There's a difference between illegality and atrocity. You can be illegal with out committing an atrocity. The reverse is not true.
What you are recommending is altering the fundamental law under which our nation was constructed to make a religion illegal. You know what that does? It makes the law-abiding into criminals. It does not affect the already criminal.
My amemdment is a very benign way of fighting Islam. Nobody dies, you can still be a Muslim, just don't preach it in Mosques, just don't advocate jihad, just don't support terror. Be a REAL peacefull Mulsim. I don't see any atrocity in that, or illegality.
Rounding up the Mulsima, ala the Japs, is hardly civilized compared to that (particularly since Japanese Americans weren't advocating our death). Even CAIR doesn't dispute taht the majority of Mosques in American are teaching violent Wahhabi Islam. The Saudis' are NOT our friends. Now that would be illegal.
And FAR BETTER, than that as YOU seem to be suggesting that we can "recover" from going medieval (ie, say genocide) on them. Just who here is interested in preventing that? Isn't it better to prevent us from having to go medieval on them? For them, AND for us? Wouldn't THAT be an atrocity, for both?
Again, I'd like to see a real lengthy answer from you as I respect your writing, so far you haven't convinced me. Your attitude is like the pacifist, willing to accept death rather than violate his principle of non-violence.
Except your principle is absolute defense of the Constitution (though isn't that what the amending process is for, to allow the Constitution to be changed when necesaary?), EXCEPT that you'd allow the VIOLATION of it "when necessary". Sorry, I don't see it. I'll defend to the death the rights of minorities to live the way they want to live, but NOT if they want to kill me (and are actually engaged in the effort).
As I told you before, I'm glad you're defending our gun rights. We're going to need them, and that goes double for the women in this country.
Kevin, yes I did. He makes some interesing points but in his section "Why We Were Attacked" he fails to look at our own foreign policy and economic decisions. Think about the Bush family's relationship with the Saudi royal family, the bin Laden family, as well as the current developments with UAE, the ports deal as well as Haliburton relocating to Dubai....all of these factors played into while we were attacked in addition to Islamic fanatacism. Our actions helped add fuel to the fire.
Remember, too, that Reagan and Bush 41 more or less created bin Laden...they trained him to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and supplied the Mujahadeen in the 1980s. What really went on there and how is it affecting what is happening now?
We're still at "America created Bin Laden?". Of course there's no progress, then.
I see another big problem with scott's idea: the omnipresent slippery slope. Once the American society accepts the idea that it is possible to constitutionally ban one religion/ideology, the door is open to all sort of indesiderable outcomes. Just to make an example, many already seem to think that atheism is fundamentally incompatible and even hostile to American values. Do the math...
Oh yeah, I can see a BIG groundswell to ban all the other VIOLENT religions. Ooops, forgot, there aren't any.
The chances of even getting mine thru suggest that getting one thru to ban aethism or even Catholocism wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in Hell.
I know mine is not ever going to get a hearing. No as Kevin suggests, we're going to get nuked someday and then Americans will "go Medieval" on Muslims. But somehow that is preferable to seemingly everyone here though I can't imagine why. I find the coming war on our soil a dispiriting future. I'd much rather take my chances on modifying the Constitution to ban a barbaric, 7th Century ideology that is contrary to EVERYTHING America was created for.
"Oh yeah, I can see a BIG groundswell to ban all the other VIOLENT religions."
Until the definition of "violent" changes....
You seem to think that banning the practice of Islam will somehow prevent a domestic nuke event. Why?
Y'know, I harbor some unpopular opinions from time to time. I realize that, so I keep them to myself. Today, I'm breaking that silence.
Genocide. Ugly word, isn't it?
It's going to be 'us' or 'them'. They've already called 'game on'.
I'm sure we've got the plans for neutron bombs somewhere around Los Alamos still, unless the Chinese took the last copy of the prints. I doubt that we have any functional ones left in the stockpile after Carter got through downsizing it, but I bet if we get pissed off enough as Americans we can build more- a bunch more. And we might have the spleen to use them in a carpet bombing campaign all the way east to the Indian border. We might even go feet wet and catch Jakarta, too, while we're at it. Diego Garcia is only a short hop over for requip.
War was declared against the West, particularly America. If extremists want to die gloriously, then we can arrange the meeting with Allah with high energy electrons and soft X-rays. It'll be beautiful from space.
I say we hit them while they're still relatively bunched up.
And hey! Nuclear Winter will stop Global Warming! It's a two-fer!
You may have misread most of this thread. My amendment is not aimed soley at preventing a nuclear (or ANY terrorist) attack on American soil.
It is instead a recognition that Islam is fundamentally an enemy of our "way of life". Islam has declared war on us and we are foolish to believe that Islam in America is not part of that war.
My amendment might help to prevent terrorist attacks on our soil, including nuclear, but mostly the aim of my amendment is to prevent the spread of Islam, so that we don't have to fight to resist their barbaric "customs" - like stoning women to death for adultry, so that we don't have to fight "political correctness" that demands that we accept their barbaric customs as equal to our own, but mostly so that we don't have to fight in the streets some day for our very freedom.
Myself, I think a nuclear attack is inevitable, but a little less likely were my amendment in place.
Kevin, I did not realize that post about preventing nuclear attack was from you.
You yourself bring up the possibility of such an attack in your post. You use it as a reason why it might be better to stay in Iraq, so as to lessen the possibility that we have to respond to such an attack with like weapons.
My proposed amendment, besides the purposes I've listed above, is also to lessen the need to "go medieval" on Muslims in America, which unfortunately, the longer we let them grow, the more likely it is that happens. I don't want to be on the side that has to perform genocide in order to preserve our way of life. I think that would be much more damaging to our collective psyche than my amendment.
OK, wow. This is really getting into some bad territory. Am I the only who reads some of these posts and sees how similar they are to what Al Qaeda puts out there about us? Considering genocide of American citizens just because they are Muslims? Good grief, people.
Consider this quote from the link Kevin put up:
"American culture and American ideas are very popular with many of the people who live in the Arab/Islamic belt in question, particularly among their young people. This is viewed with alarm by traditionalists of all kinds. Their own people were being seduced away from their traditional culture and extreme religious practices."
The people that have moved here from there, many of whom are the parents of my students and the parents of my children's fellow students left their country to escape this rigid lifestyle. So, now we are going to oppress them here? Make them feel like they are back at home?
Folks, until you a) start opening your eyes a little bit to the wrong we have done in that part of the world (yes, we have done it) and b)take responsibility for those actions, we will never, ever win this struggle.
Something else to ponder...most of you think we have to show strength because that's the only thing they understand. Most of you think that if are weak, they will attack us. Well, from the looks of things in the Middle East, neither one of those things is stopping them from creating chaos.
So, the answer is somewhere else. And it's up to us to find it.
Isn't that reaching a little bit?
Until the definition of "violent" changes....
Maybe we should just stop talking about anything because who knows what the word might mean in 100 years or how attitudes might have changed by then. ye gods.
Well done again.
1) What we "misunderestimated" was that Iraq was a real and actual place that made sense as a nation, rather than the creation of British Foreign Office mapmakers in the 1920's, which in fact, is what it IS.
Since it doesn't make sense as a single nation, then we are wating blood and treasure trying to "push the rope".
Pick the guy/group that's likeliest to win and easiest to stomach, and hand him the "credit card".
2) Destroying the Arab/Muslim world by force of arms "unthinkable"?
Not at all. Not in the least.
That's what their "Jihad" aims to do to US...if we do not submit, we are killed or enslaved.
Every Single One Of Us.
They publicly state this as their goal.
So, as was said about another "War of Faith", (The Cathar Heresy in France):
"Kill them ALL, God will know his own."
That's why War is Hell
If we live to regret our actions, at least we are alive to do so.
Regrettably, nothing is unthinkable.
This reads like the writings of someone who has listened to too much AM talk radio, and has never met a Muslim. Your errors are too numerous to mention, but here are the basics.
1. You lump all of Islam and Muslims into one group, this major oversimplification causes a cascade of errors in your logic.
2. You assume that the US is the only country fighting the war on terror. We are the only country fighting it in our domestic news sources, whom you seem to be using exclusively as your sources.
3. You blame Liberals and "The Media" for the failed war in Iraq. Hmmmm. Do you really believe that? Did the Media push the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the '80s?
I find it appalling that the Bush Administration forgot about the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, and then went and invaded TWO middle eastern countries. Now the sons of those we called "freedom fighters" from the '80s are killing our boys, and now we label them "terrorists".
Instead of withdrawing, as the Soviets did in Afghanistan, you want to wipe them all out. If you can't wipe Islamic Extremists out in Iraq with military operations, what makes you think you can wipe them off of the entire globe with military operations?
Gee, Jesper, your comment reads like the writings of an Air America fan.
Try re-reading the piece. There's a very definite separation between the jihadis and the rest of the Muslim population. In actuality, it takes very few radicals to make civilization difficult to maintain. If I recall correctly, the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland were the result of a core of less than 500 militant Irish nationals. Of course, they had the passive support of a much larger portion of the population.
Perhaps you have only been reading the BBC with regard to Afghanistan. According to the sources I've been reading, the Taliban is quite heavily opposed by the general Afghani population, and most of them are glad we're there. The Iraqis aren't happy that we're there, but they are well aware of what would happen if we pulled up stakes and left.
Is the U.S. the "only country fighting the war on terror"? Australia and the UK have a small but significant contingent on the ground. The rest of the "coalition of the willing" have symbolic, but not strategic force levels in-country. Other nations are helping with intelligence-gathering and -sharing, but they don't have people dying from VBIEDs.
Yes, I blame the "The Media" for portraying the war as a one-sided loss. It is not. There is much good going on - but for some reason, it's not news. Every bit of good news coming out of the Middle East gets spun negatively.
In order to complete our mission, we have to convince the Iraqis that they CAN run their own country, that we WILL be there to support them, but not to rule them, and that the people who are blowing up their neighbors and their children CAN be stood up to and defeated. Instead they're told that America is weak, and not only can we not defend them, they cannot defend themselves. Each news story of this type is a propaganda victory for the jihadis - and it's all we hear.
The Soviet defeat in Afghanistan would not have occurred without American support. And the jihadis cannot win without the support of nations like Iran and Syria.
I do NOT want to "wipe them all out." It's something I want to avoid. I'm pointing out that, if we don't get off the stick and decide that we're willing to do what it takes to win - that is, stick it out, do the hard work and accept the casualties - then we have two and only two choices: Surrender, or genocide.
I don't know about you, but I know which of those two choices I find less objectionable.
Re-read. Same conclusions.
While American support in Afghanistan sped the Soviet withdrawal, I believe it arrogant to assume that the Islamic resistance fighters would have failed without it.
Quite possibly. The Soviets were well and truly hated by the majority of the Afghahi population. Effective resistance, however, required outside aid. Iran and other nations might well have provided it, but at the time, Iran was in the sphere of Soviet influence.
And if you still conclude that I "want to wipe them all out," then your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.