Believe your enemy
A while back, commenter Richard Aubrey wrote here:
The neat thing about our current situation is that we don't have to make stuff up about what our enemies want. They tell us. The problem is in believing them.
But you can't say they don't make their intentions crystal clear. As if we needed another example, LGF today provided evidence, in the form of an interview six weeks ago with the very spiritual Bashir, in which he is quoted as stating:
ABB: Osama believes in total war. This concept I don't agree with. If this occurs in an Islamic country, the fitnah [discord] will be felt by Muslims. But to attack them in their country [America] is fine.
SA: So this fight will never end?
ABB: Never. This fight is compulsory. Muslims who don't hate America sin...As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can't be ruled by others. Allah's law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace.
Who knew that Bashir was a disciple of Samuel Huntington? Islam has bloody borders, indeed--you heard it straight from the horse's mouth.
[NOTE: To try to stave off the inevitable commenters who write that not all Moslems feel this way, let me just say: I agree with you. Not all Moslems feel this way. The trouble is that way too many of their leaders, "spiritual" or otherwise (and the powerful, vocal ones at that), do. And there is too much in Moslem scripture and history that backs them up. I'd love the so-called "moderate Moslems"--whom I believe exist--to gain a great deal more power over their religion and be successful in reforming and modernizing it. But I wouldn't suggest sitting on a hot stove till that happens.]
posted by neo-neocon @ 1:48 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Moderate muslims, if they exist (one can never be too sure with all that taqiyyah they babble so well) are 'bad' Muslims. That is, they dispute what is written in the Qur'an. They are apostates to the good Muslims who agree and conform to the Qur'an. Really you can't be a good Muslim and treat infidels as equals. It is forbidden in the Qur'an.
"To try to stave off the inevitable commenters who write that not all Moslems feel this way, let me just say:"
That is the main way that people refuse to believe what they are being told.
*sigh* unfortunatly if what is going on now isn't enough to convince people otherwise no amount of talk is going to do so and it makes it hard to imagine what needs to happen for them to understand.
str. 9-11 convinced barely half.
The rest were more resistant.
I don't think another 9-11 would convince them. They're sort of like bugs who have become resistant to DDT. You have to use a flamethrower or something.
Reminds me of the scene in Pirates of the Caribbean where Captain Jack Sparrow is caught trying to steal a ship by the guards Mullroy and Murtogg:
Murtogg: Hey! You! Get away from there.
Mullroy: You don’t have permission to be aboard there, mate.
Jack : I’m sorry, it’s just - it’s such a pretty boat. Ship.
Murtogg: What’s your name?
Jack : Smith. Or Smithy, if you like.
Mullroy: What’s your purpose in Port Royal , Mr. Smith ?
Murtogg: Yeah. and no lies.
Jack: Well, then, I confess, it is my intention to commandeer one of these ships, pick up a crew in Tortuga, raid, pillage, plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out!
Murtogg: I said no lies!
Mullroy: I think he’s telling the truth.
Murtogg: If he were telling the truth, he wouldn’t have told us.
Jack: Unless, of course, he knew you wouldn’t believe the truth even if he told it to you.
The Muslim reformation had better start soon because the Islamic movement is not viable in a modern civilized society. The Qur'an needs updating. Social, political and economic changes during the last 1300 years will not allow religious subjugation by force any more. Infidels will not allow themselves to be herded like cattle to Allah's good graces. The "spiritual leaders" of the Islamic faith who still believe that force/terror is effective better start counting numbers. It is just not happening for them. It is only bringing pain and sorrow to their own.
The neat thing about our current situation is that we don't have to make stuff up about what our enemies want. They tell us. The problem is in believing them.
Heh, not according to George Lucas. If you've seen his Revenge of the Sith, that's an almost perfect analogy for the Left's set of thoughts concerning Bush and the War on Terror. To the Left, Bush made up the war when he funded Al Qaeda, rather than Al-Qaeda attacked us for their own reasons.
On that basis, the Left then do not truly believe what the terroists are saying, because they look through it in the belief that George Bush and Imperial America is controlling their strings. Like Palpatine controlling the Separatists.
Remember what that last dead guy on the separatist planet was saying to Darth Vader? "We just want peace, aiiiiiieee... *dead*"
The terroists just want peace too...
Psychologically, the Left thinks they are safe from the terroists, and therefore they don't really believe the terroists when they say that they are out to kill all non-believers and what not, Shia or American.
Most humans react differently if they feel personally threatened. The Left acts like George Bush and the Republicans are personally threatening them... and in some ways they are through challenging the neat little boxes of self-deception people have constructed around themselves.
Ymarsaker says, Muslims want peace too,
but of course, another thing their "spiritual" leaders and scholars tell us is that, when they say "peace", they don't mean the same thing by it as we do:
http://cuanas.blogspot.com/2005/10/sometimes-you-just-gotta-love-your.html
I agree with Neo. We are lucky that they come right out and tell us the truth.
I found a link to what appears to be Huntington’s original 1993 essay should anyone be interested in reading it. In the long run, according to Huntington’s concept, a Muslim ‘reformation’ would be only a minor blip that would matter hardly at all in the overall clash of cultures/civilizations that has emerged again after a hiatus of centuries. Recent culture-spreading technologies of telephone, cinema, television & the internet have no doubt caused this somewhat submerged cultural conflict to float again to the surface.
For some time it has seemed to me to be useless & a waste of time to attempt to propagandize the hard-core West-haters(some of whom are Westerners themselves) into agreement & the Islamic terrorist groups(& their Islamic nation sponsors) into laying down their bombs. In my opinion neither group will ever & can ever be appeased, convinced, pacified or otherwise rendered non-murderous.
I think the West represents too much of a cultural enemy, especially to the Muslims. To them the West must seem like a dangerous virus infecting their women, their Sharia-compliant multitudes & weakening long established traditions. The Islamic clergy are the most vitriolic toward the West because they have the most to lose to Western secularism. Power & privilege is never willingly relinquished.
http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
-and speaking of enemies, it seems that suicide in Oklahoma was more than just a deranged person. Sources are reporting he had all kinds of explosives in his apartment and had recently tried to buy ammonia nitrate, McVeigh's choice of bomb material. This character was also associating with a local mosque. Ya' gotta wonder, and why aren't we hearing more about this from the MSM?
“To bring back the hiatus -- Stop paying for oil!”
If only that were possible.
Without oil any industrialized nation’s economy goes into the tank. Like it or not the oil is a necessity. Even if alternative energy source technology R&D was ratcheted to the max right now the oil would still be needed for quite a few years.
Rome had a similar problem with grain. Even though there was plenty of arable land in Italy & Rome had grown enough grain for its population earlier in its history, as the majority of the cultivatable land was bought up by the wealthy it became easier & more profitable for absentee landowners to convert their holdings from cultivation of grain crops to the grazing of flocks & animal husbandry.
A succession of Roman leaders recognized the problem but for political reasons, the main one being that the wealthy are also politically powerful, were unable to do anything about it. That meant the grain had to be gotten from places like Gaul & Sicily. The Romans chose to subjugate those areas & take the grain in order to offset the cost of wresting it from its owners & transporting it to Rome.
A difference between Rome’s quest for grain & the energy predicament of the industrialized nations is that the industrialized nations just want to buy the oil, not steal it.
Without oil any industrialized nation’s economy goes into the tank. Like it or not the oil is a necessity.
John- 'still realizing' didn't say "stop using oil"- they said "stop paying for oil".
The implications should be obvious.
I recognized the implication but chose to ignore it on the chance that 'still realizing' did not intend it & because such a policy of stark exploitation would be unacceptable for many reasons. America’s enemies would be delighted if the US tried such a thing. The need for oil is probably the underlying motivation for much of US foreign policy since just after WW1. I smile every time I see photos of protesters holding signs that smugly announce “It’s about the oil.” Of course it’s about the oil! It’s one of the reasons I voted for Bush.
"Rome had a similar problem with grain."
The problem was different, because Rome needed the captive nations to grow that grain. Oil is different; it just sits there waiting. Oil is a necessity and the people above the ground are not. It is a measure of what people in the Middle East really think of us that they seem not to be operating off this analysis - apprently they think we are too moral to just up and exterminate anyone. Well, that's progress if anyone thinks that of us, because the historical evidence points to another answer.
Observation on what the Qur'an does or doesn't say, and who is or isn't a good Muslim. That seems like a pretty Southern Baptist way of looking at things. The reasonable and perhaps irrelevant assumption is that that is what is going to determine how Muslims act and how Islam is going to develop.
Yu might just as well wonder if Catholics can ever function well in a democracy. Catholic doctirne and custom are solidly authoritarian. There is even scripture to the effect that it is God who appoints princes and kings - not exactly a warrant for government by the consent of the governed. All that Latin authoritatianism is not really very redictive of how Catholics function in our democracy, except maybe for that piece of foreign matter on the Supreme Court, Scalia. Anyway, American Catholics gahave developed away from that aspect of Catholicism.
The answer to that may be that Islam isn't going to develop, it is based on a once-and-for-all revelation. My answer to that answer is that no one lives by a revelation, but only by their understanding of it.
Jim said: “The problem was different, because Rome needed the captive nations to grow that grain. Oil is different; it just sits there waiting. Oil is a necessity and the people above the ground are not. It is a measure of what people in the Middle East really think of us that they seem not to be operating off this analysis – [sic]apprently they think we are too moral to just up and exterminate anyone. Well, that's progress if anyone thinks that of us, because the historical evidence points to another answer.”
I’m a bit late responding to this, but here goes. Of course the problem was different; that’s why I used the word “similar” & went on to cite “a difference” near the end of the comment. Please Jim, try to read more carefully. But what really bothers me, Jim, is that you seem to be implying that the US would exterminate – what, a country? – to get oil. Frankly, it sounds like BS to me. Please elaborate & justify such a statement – if you are able.
Please Jim, try to read more carefully.
Jim just provided another difference. The response should have been an "agree" or "disagree" statement, rather than attacking the style of the writer by what he has chosen to write about.
Post a Comment
<< Home