Join The Debate!

Good wins

But ONLY when we acknowledge WHO/WHAT the enemies are.

ISLAMOFASCIST TERRORISTS and MEXICAN INVADERS
MOSTLY. WITH ANY WEAPON AVAILABLE.

SECURALISTS and ECOTERRORISTS secondly - with law

LIBERALS/COMMUNISTS and a motley bunch of mostly idiot ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL GLOBALISTS has to be legally.

Have I forgotten anyone?

Embrace the Clash

Doug, you are right on. Truth will hurt people but you gotta speak it. Your views are right. American has to win this war on terror and crush the enemy on thier own turf. Mere talks won't help when we deal with murderers.

Doug,

You just keep on speakin' your mind and say things as you see fit. Your spiritual forebear, John the Baptist, would be proud.

Christians are called to be Christlike and Jesus never altered his speech or his personality to accomodate self-righteous of His day.

There are many today who can't smell the feces because their hearts and minds are full of it, so they must be made aware of the stench in the world. How else than to tell it like it is?

Doug, you're making a positive impact on your community and many of the readers here at Townhall seem to feel posting comments on this site is their full time job. They would do well to go out and try to impact their own communities in as positive a way as you are. You just keep on doin' what you're doin'

Strategy?

Yeah, fine, sure.

But, of course, no suggestion of specific strategy for this fight.

Just a useless batch of trite phrases, as if he keeps a list in his kitchen, right near the oven mitts with which he'd make policy.

Why no strategy? Because during the last five years, this scatalogical crusader and the band of Washington twits he really worships have proved to be a bunch of startlingly inept bunglers when it comes to this fight.

Tough talk sounds good, sure, especially when somebody else goes and does the fighting while beset with incompetent strategy from draft-dodgers back home.

Strategy you want?

For one strategy, how about all the nay-sayers and armchair quarterbacks get off YOUR a**es and add something? All of the constant criticism and claims of bungling do NOTHING but aid and abbett.
You want a strategy, well here's mine.
Make Islam pay for it's radicals. At present, with all the politically correct catterwalling and criticism, Islam, at large, goes merrily about it's daily life without paying the first damned penny of price for IT'S radical element. How nice, to let every other part of civilization pay for THEIR radical element, as if Islam itself has no part in the equation. The standard demo line of terror being a criminal issue. It's not a criminal issue, it is a RELIGIOUS issue and, like it or not, we are at war with Islam.
If I were President, tonight I would make a speech to the world:
"Islam, it's time to pick sides. We cannot change your beliefs, or those who have chosen your religion's true path of pillage, rape and murder. IF you want to live in this world, cleanse your religion. If not, you will die by your choice.
As of today, for every innocent person who dies at the hands of a radical Muslim, 10 Muslims will die by our hand. We may get the perpetrators, we may not, and I don't care. As long as Muslims around the world sit idly by and allow terrorists to live and train among you, allow radical Imams to preach hate, murder and destruction at your mosques and allow murdering madmen to be your leaders, you WILL pay a price.
It is your choice, Muslims, not ours. Our only choice is to assume, as long as you are no part of the solution, that you are all the problem.
Make no mistake, we will solve this problem. We will not sit idly by while adherents of your twisted religion murder innocents, destroy our cities and do their best to destroy our civilization. We will not try to be the police force of YOUR religion, attempting to pick the most guilty from among you. You know who they are, we do not.
Do not make another mistake in assuming that we wish to this or enjoy doing what must be done. We do not. We wish to live in peace with all inhabitants of the world. We wish to live in peace with all religions of the world. It is the most basic concept of our civilization that all people are free to worship how they so choose, and also free to not worship if that is their choice. No one, I repeat, no one will ever force their religion upon us. If you wish to die in an attempt to force Islam, under the sword, upon the rest of the world, then die you will. If you wish to live in peace among the people of the world, we welcome you with open arms and will do all in our power to lift you from the oppression of your leaders.
It is your choice and it is time to make it.
I will leave you tonight with one more addition to our "Formula for Peace." As of January 1 of every successive year of this conflict, we will add one zero to the retaliatory death toll for Islam. It is, today, late in August of the year 2006, the least possible amount of death and destruction to your people will run out shortly. In a few short months the death toll for continuing the jihad will be multiplied by 10. The time for you decision is now.
Please, cleanse the murderers from among you.
Thank you and goodnight."

InfoSwarm

If we speak about this in terms of "sides," our side is pathetically naive (apparently) about how to "call the other side out." They are adept at using western media to mess with our minds but the west has no real access to the minds of their "great unwashed."

The other side is implacable and does not value life but they do have vulnerabilities.
among these may be strikes at their cowardice (Hezbollah, etc.) and the silliness of their rhetoric. We are underusing the tools or rapier rhetoric.

Are we using all of the tools available to us in the west? Leafletting, radiofree middle east?
I do not know the answer to these questions but look forward to your strategies, Doug.

It also occurred to me that a world wide, and highly publicized Christian prayer crusade aimed at saving millions of souls enslaved to Islam might produce some striking results.

Giles Sounds Like a Jihadist, Alright

For those of us who are not interested in perpetual war for perpetual peace, understanding what motivates the US government's enemies is an essential exercise in rational defense of our country, persons, and property.

As Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA and former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden Unit, says in a recent interview:

"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term “Islamofascism”—but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We (sic) don't have a strategy because we (sic) don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies."

Giles' exhortation to a "Christian" jihad against militant Muslims who engage in assymmetrical warfare has already been implemented in Iraq.

How's that seem to be going, Doug?

A world at war...

To some degree, I'm with Doug. We can't fight the enemy and win (assuming, of course, that is what we want to do) if we aren't willing to do so on their terms.

However, I don't think this is a religous war so much as an economic one. If the middle east's oil-rich regimes would share the wealth with their citizens instead of hording it, the world would probably be a more stable place.

Does religion play a role? Yes. Absolutely. God helps those who help themselves. And, if the only way you percieve that you can help yourself is to attack the west, then that's a valid (if shortsided) approach by some ways of thinking. And some religions are more militant than Christianity. Having studied some of the "other's" scriptures, I don't think that they, on the whole, advocate indiscriminate killing.

On the whole, I think most of the people in the world (and their religions) want peace: the ability to raise their families, and the ability to make a good home without fear of warring tribes destroying what they've built and love. Only those who have very little materially...or those that stand to profit from the frustration of having very little...are really at odds with the goal of constructive peace.

If we have to throw a few nukes around to get attention, then so be it. But, let's be honest about it. This is an economic war, not a religous one. Unless we choose to sink to the level of our attackers.

The Crusades are over. Christian's tried that in the Middle Ages. It worked...but those wars were largely economic too. They had the gold and the Europeans didn't. Christianity has matured since then. It's time we faced the facts that the best way to "win" the war against Islam is to enable the 97% of their population who wants peace economically.

In the meantime, let's kill the 3% of their population that doesn't want peace. And, let's kill them indiscriminately in the same way that 3% tries to kill us.

In the short run, more troops, martial law, etc. will work. But, in the long run, you will never have peace if that's your only policy. Look at America's ghettoes. The Middle East and Africa are, arguably, the world's equivalents to America's ghettoes.

Embrace the Clash

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I must echo Doug Giles. I am a Christian, but I know just my belief in God and Christ will not win this war. Anyone who believes that is not dealing with reality. The only way to win this war is to kill so many of the islamic Facists that they can not be a force in this world. I'm sorry you arm chair quarterbacks, and liberal do nothings feel the way you do, but it is our duty to provide a way for these facists to meet their God. I am 67 years young and I have been watching these people since 1948. First it was kill all the Jewish settlers in Israel. Now it is kill all non believers of Islam. They have declared war on us, it is time for us to declare war on them and prosecute it to the fullest.

These facists will not be content with killing our troops in Iraq and Afganhistan. They want us all dead, and they mean to have it that way. If you do not believe this, you are not living on the planet earth. This is a fight we can not walk away from. We can not close our eyes to it. It is here and now is the time to defeat it. Iraq is the tip of the iceberg. The wake up call was 9/11, and some have forgotten it.

I am very glad I live in a country that does not take guns away from it's citizens. I own several and have enough ammunition should it come to it, that I can protect Me and mine. As Charseton Heston say, "you may have my guns when you pry my cold dead fingers from it". I know I am in this fight like it or not, probably for the rest of my life.

The source of the problem

Doctor, I think our patient here, Mr Islam, needs a Radical Imamectomy.

Go to the source of the problem. They can no longer be considered religious leaders. In calling for jihad, they have become military leaders.

Jake makes a good point

To a large degree the war is economic. I remember reading about Pak schools where they have a huge pie chart on the wall with about 98% one color and the rest another. The 98% is taught to be the percentage of wealth the west owns and keeps from them, the remaining 2%. Total hogwash to anyone with an elementary knowledge of economics, but the truth to all who are taught it. The dictators keep their people in line by declaring the west makes them poor and desparate. For some reason they can't seem to see the utter oppulence their leaders live in and figure out who is really hording the cash.
As I have written before, this is the real lack of
communication the Bush Admin is guilty of. They could have reasoned with the Iraqis, very early on in this struggle, that the investment from the west for Iraq will be both quick in coming and mind boggling in amounts if you will immediately help stabilize and secure your nation. The rest of the mid-east understood the staggering proposition of what would happen to their ability to dictate, had this been allowed to happen and the word spread like wildfire of the new life possible with western ideals and assistance for those who shed the chains of radical Islam.
We can still make this happen in Iraq. Our other enemy, on the left, does all they can to assist the dictators of the mid-east to stop it. They, too, can ill afford another example of western, capitalist, ideals.

Help The Politicians

IVES
Ok Christians, we need a plan. Im new, be gentle.
My leanings are conservative. I could criticize George Bush but will not. He is our leader and my daddy taught me there were three ways to do anything, the right way, the wrong way and his way; the point being we are far more effective working together than we are wasting energy and time debating unnecessary issues. There is a plan in place and our immediate priority is to follow that plan and to intellectually and politically improve it as soon and as much as possible.
Liberals, you must either present a better plan for stopping Terrorism or be quiet !!!!!!!!!!! Present your plan, get elected on that basis and, regardless my fears and objections, I will let you lead. It’s the American Way. If you don’t believe Terrorism is a priority issue you can declare that there is no “War on Terrorism” after you have been sworn into office. By the way, “George Bush has it wrong”, is not a plan.
What I would like to see is the incredible depth of knowledge and experience displayed in various postings on this subject focused on helping to strengthen the will of our Politicians. No compelling strategy has yet been verbalized to inspire the American, (or World), Public regarding the War on Terror with the exception that the use of the term Islamo/Islamic Fascists seems to have helped focus the debate. There are some fundamental issues which require clarification, expansion, and thorough debate. Can we collectively prepare a War on Terror Platform for our politicians? Help me here:
1. War Objective – (Pick One) - Kill All Muslims, or Embrace Isolationism / Appeasement, or Fight A Measured War to Secure World Freedom, (are there other options?)
2. Strategy – Kill All Muslims – Nuclear war with more than 60 countries to kill 1.6 billion of 6.8 billion humans is morally wrong and politically unsustainable and physically impossible. – Appeasement – I cannot intellectually prepare this option, anyone interested? - Measured War 1 Find Ways to Stop Radical Muslim Teachings, and 2 Find Ways To Diminish Muslim Extremists Control By Fear, and 3, Go To War with Radical Muslim Extremists Where and When Required, (Note: This War Will Last Two Generations After The Muslim Radical Teachings and Fear Control Tactics Are Stopped or Radically Diminished, i.e. maybe 80 or 100 years). Unless you picked Kill All Muslims, a moderate Muslim leadership alliance is required to accomplish Measured War Objectives.
3. Propaganda War – Western Nations Are Typically Offended By this Strategy But It Has to Be Done. The paradigm shift required to bring MSM on Board will probably require either election of Appeasers followed by new Extremists atrocities thereby providing societal and political courage to fight the war; or, a deep political defeat of liberal peacenicks, (there’s a word that’ll age you) during elections for the next two years. Other Options? Maybe the internet???????
4. Tactics 1 – Surround the Islam Fascist’s and Continually apply political and physical/war pressure. Lets see, the enemy is in Iran, Syria, North Pakistan, South Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, with elements under varying levels of government control in other ME countries, (Lebanon will fall into an allied or terrorists category depending on the effective implementation of UN supervision supported by European military.). The US has troops and bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Djbouti, I saw US troops in Ethiopia two years ago. A Strong Israel remains a high US Priority. Hmmmmmm, did George Bush do some of this????? Sure looks to me like the key Middle East problem areas are surrounded, and without knowing the details I’m sure our intelligence and military capabilities improve daily, (versus how they would improve were the US to adopt an isolationist strategy). Pakistan is aligned with the US and is attempting to control radical Islamists in the Northern tribal areas. Help me here, I know there is more public intelligence out there. Please be accurate. Lets prepare a white paper on this subject.
5. Tactic 2 – Use any resource necessary to prevent Iran from developing Nuclear weaponry and or delivery systems.
6. Tactic 3 – Shock and Awe. Lets prepare a complete list of Islamic Fascists terrorists acts committed since the Viet Nam war; note the action taken; and the action we feel the US should have taken to cause the enemy pause. Such a document, embraced by the public, will help Politicians make the right decision should future attacks occur. The US should execute a few pre-emptive attacks to demonstrate its continued belief this strategy is necessary.
7. Tactic 4 – Prepare a secret plan to control N. Korea. Try to keep this conflict on the shelf as long as possible but do not desert our allies.
8. Diplomacy – Intensive diplomacy efforts to either bring China and Russia on Board for the War on Terror, or if the US has to act, especially against Iran, to neutralize their opposition.

I think we would not be in this situation if the politicians and Baby Boomers hadn’t thrown in the towel in Viet Nam. I’ve been a little disturbed with the “authority opposing” Boomers having lived through that period, (born in 1938), and sense that many liberal agendas and MSM attitudes are driven by this anti authority philosophy.

IVES

Times are a changing??? Let´s make´m

I appreciate the alarmists of the United States when it comes to the most predominant world issue of today: Islamic Extremism. This is truly a religious war. Whether the libs like it or not, in the end, they’re gonna have to side with the Christians. The liberal marriage with Islamic extremism is purely a matter of current ephemeral convenience. Soon the issue will become existential and right and left will hardly matter in the west. Sure you will always have your local American hating nutbags that wish for another 9/11 however the mainstream left and right will eventually find a certain cohesiveness in the will to survive and maintain our way of life.
Hear in Canada the changes are already being seen. Canadian culture has been dominated by immature liberal pretences of what the world is like. However the culture is changing, the Conservative government is back in power after over a century in the woods. Its popularity is increasing and its world outlook is spreading nationally (aside from the liberal and socialist fortresses of Toronto and Montreal). A couple years ago a pro-Hezbollah statement from a Liberal Party minister would have only slightly opposed the party line. However pro-terrorist organization stances even among unimportant party members are having much more dire consequences. Recently a Liberal foreign critic minister was forced to step down for suggesting Steven Harper (our Prime Minister) should negotiate with Hezbollah and that Israel had caused ¨crimes against humanity¨ in Lebanon. Also very recently the head of the Young Liberals in Canada was forced to resign after anti-Israel comments. I feel that the bubble is bursting here in Canada and the culture is definitely changing. It is no longer regarded as blasphemy to have positive opinion of our Americas foreign policy.
However there is still not enough political decisiveness to make powerful initiatives against this threat. In the end (as usual) America is the only western nation that can lead the way in this religious war. The culture must change in America. We need our governments to be resolute before our citizens take it upon themselves to purge our nations of Islamic extremism through domestic violence.

Two Fronts

Doug--The Muslim lunatics are our enemies, but the Mexicans more-so. The Muslims may knock down some buildings, but the millions of Mexican illegals are destroying the very foundations of the city---is this a clash you are willing to embrace? Are you willing to call Le Coka Roche what it is, and join the fight against these ignorant, arrogant little termites??

I don't know, Celt

We have libs leaking secrets, libs demoralizing our troops, libs rabidly attacking the President during a time of war, libs hamstringing the war effort, etc. They all have their reasons (it's America's fault, I am being patriotic by leaking secrets and demoralizing our troops, we don't want anyone to die, etc.), and obviously we don't want to paint all libs with too broad a brush, but I think many of these rise above annoyance level. If we had our own act together, we might be able to focus on the war. As it is, we are obligated to swat at the flies buzzing around our head while trying to take aim at the enemy. And we're doing both half-heartedly.

Cynewulf...

...you don't "get a hold of one of his columns," you step in it.

deal with the threats

It would seem that the best way to meet the Muslim threat is with ALL of our power, against them and the governments that support them. We can't fight a nice and measured war and win, not in this war.

It would seem that the best way to meet the illegal Mexican threat is to go after their American employers, and go after them hard. If several thousand of these employers are prosecuted and imprisoned, people will stop giving work to these termites and they will return to their old house.

If anyone thinks these measures are cold and cruel, then you must not have children or grand-children--it's their future that's at stake. If you do have children or grand-children and you are not willing to acknowledge the great threats that the Muslims and Mexicans pose, and stand up and fight, any and every way you can---then you are a coward, a fool, or both.

I Love Coffee, but not Too Cups' Brand

debishop,

Great post.

We must remember that our civilian leaders only set the mission for our military leaders to carry out. The invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq were brilliantly planned and executed by the military, not the White House. The emphasis on speed and maneuver will be mandatory study for decades to come in our military academies.

The subsequent occupation of both countries, on the surface, seem problematic. But I dare disagree. The nature of the fighting and the strategy of the terrorists dictate that our tactics have to be carried out over a long period of time in order to be successful. Just a quick study of the British campaign against the Communist insurgency in Malaysia from 1948 to 1960 will demonstrate my point. We must contain the enemy, an enemy that constantly probes our defense for weaknesses while, performing a massive civil engineering miracle, and training an entire nation on how to be a functioning demoracy.

If the Democrats win in 2008 I predict that our new President will attempt to run the war effort from the White House, ignoring the counsel of our military, and the left's self-fulfilling prophesy will come true; another Vietnam.

Before Too Cups and his ilk yell at me for not coming up with a strategy, here goes, but we do have a military to do this:

1. We follow the advice of our military leaders concerning Afghanistan and Iraq. In those two countries there should be no negotiation until our goals are achieved, even if it takes 20 years.

2. We continue our hunt for OBL until we get him.

3. We continue to support Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah, and any other terrorists organizations that pop up.

4. We set concrete deadlines for Iran and Syria to stop supporting and harboring terrorists, and cease production or trafficking of WMD. We use the carrot and stick approach. We offer them legitimate rewards for good behavior and we whack them with a big stick when they don't. We keep whacking them and negotiating until we have to put boots on the ground. Once we put boots on the ground the negotiations stop until our military and political goals are met. Period, even if it takes 50 years.

Of course if we stay the course in Iraq, it won't take 50 years.

movwater...

I wrote: "In essence, [the president] should say that any nuclear, chemical, or biological attack launched against America or any of our Allies, including Israel, will be considered as an attack launched by Syria and Iran against the United States, requiring a full nuclear retaliatory strike on those two nations."

You asked: "Do you actually think the apocalyptic mullahs in Iran really care?"

My reply: As a matter of fact, I don't. But a statement like that would let the people of those nations know that the actions and policies of their leaders will have dire and deadly consequences for them and their society.

And it'd be nice just to let everyone know where they stand.

Islam

To HoosierDaddy; Just because you work for the CIA for 22 years that doesn't make you an expert. Like remember WMD's.
"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world." Actually we are hated for both of these reasons.
"We (sic) don't have a strategy because we (sic) don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies." At last a TRUE statement !
THIS is why ALL of Islam hates us,

Sura 9:5
 “Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and observe the Islamic lifestyle, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Right there you have it, convert to Islam or die. The liberal leftists all laughed at Bush when he said, "You are either with us or against us". BUT none of them have the guts to laugh at a moslem for Sura 9:5.

The jihad which is out to annihilate us, and annihilate freedom and democracy, and annihilate all that the West stands for. This is indeed a battle between two civilizations. In such a battle, there is no room for dialogue, there is room only for victory. For, as Churchill so wisely stated during the Second World War, “Without victory, there is no survival”. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I say: You ‘interfaith' if you want to. This gentleman is not for ‘interfaithing’!

As for moderate moslems THERE ARE NONE! As a moslem you believe in the qur'an totally and completely, for it is the EXACT words of allah, if you do not then you are an apostate. If you are an apostate you are then KILLED, so demands allah.

Mr Giles on embrace the clash

Mr Giles would make a good recruit for any terrorist organizations--he seems to have the required twisted thinking.

Embrace the Clash

Your asking allot; the Silent Majority might be in question again. Everything they do is silent as they silently cut you off in traffic and all you see is a blur of a Jesus sticker. As they silently carry a Bible on the appropriate Holidays, as they silently believe their (g)od gives them permission to have selective ethics, while judging the admitted heathens who are so similar to them it is scary. This statement of yours says it all; Whether you’re gay or straight, is what it is all about. “Choices and commitments.” Whether they are good, bad, helpful or hurtful we the United States Citizens will have to decide and take a stand. I personally believe we will make the wrong choice as a society in general beyond our giving good political face; we look for excuses for what people do. Life is simple and mankind makes it difficult. Psycho fact is; if You mean nothing to me then ignoring you or doing something to you means what? Nothing to me! As a society the only neighbors we know are they ones that annoy us in our own neighborhood and then we have to have a yearly “Neighbors Night Out” and it is not well attended.
So good fortune with the cause of caring about the United States, as the Churches were only full for about three weeks after the (9/11) incident. As Mayor Naggen referred; it is just a hole in the ground now and Ney York is so-far to the Left they should be over by Oregon. And they have forgiven and forgotten about the incident except in their local bars! Ever see a "Support the Troups" sticker in New York State?

Stop falling heads

I enjoy reading Doug as he is humorous, informative, right and over the top. As usual the post to his column has attracted the usual bunch of apparent crybabies’, snobs and those that are seemingly offended by his use of the English language. I guess that’s to be expected in a country where people have been programmed to respond as idiots from outer space. It never ceases to amaze me how the uneducated know how to write. Enough criticizing and now, on to the meat of it.
Before anyone comes up with a plan that is better than what’s not working now one must accept the fact that the Islam fascist of this world will only accept one premise. That premise is converting to their way or get your head cut off. Once that fact is accepted all the blabbering about the Christian way or the morale way or this way and that way should become irrelevant. The only way it to root them out by any means and them kill them. After all, that’s what there going to do to us if they get the chance. If some innocents get in the way so be it. I don’t know about you but when I hear bombs dropping and guns going off I am going to get the hell out or grab my weapon and join the fray.

Mark Alexander...

I read your piece. Well said. I’ve bookmarked your home page. Don’t be too hard on Wolf, had he not stolen your words I wouldn’t have had the pleasure of reading your blog. Keep up the excellent work.



In the coming Clash we’ll need to be on one side or the other; setting this one out probably won’t be an option. As a practicing agnostic, I’ll stick with the Christians; they may have cut me off in traffic (with their fishy bumberstickers), but they’ve never shown any desire to lop off my head for my non-beliefs.

Only Islam proselytizes by the sword. (I may have borrowed that from Mr. Alexander’s web page.)

Whatever feelings you have about the present conflict you should understand that this truly is a Clash of Cultures. And the over-riding relevant point isn’t whether or not it’s being driven by Islam’s hatred of our values, our decadence, our freedoms, our beliefs, or the fact that we dared to step foot on Islamic lands. The over-riding point for those of us living in America is whether or not we value our ‘societal values’ enough to fight for them and our nation.

History is replete with societies that have come and gone. Societies and cultures don’t enjoy a right to exist simply because they do exist; they have to continually “earn” that right, and they have to continually struggle to maintain themselves. Islam now believes that its brand of social order is on the ascendancy and that now is the time for Western civilization to “submit” to, and be incorporated into, the one “true” religion.

As I see it; for Islam, the relevant point is simpler still: you either convert or you die. Islam is, or, if you like, has become, a death cult on a scale so grand it is almost unimaginable. This self-promoted notion that Islam is a religion of Peace is merely convenient, self-serving propaganda and subterfuge. A sly bit of Islamic ‘slight of hand,’ if you will. Now you see the Peace, now you don’t! In reality, in Islam only the believers are entitled to live in peace. Non-believers need not apply.

That's the reason Muslims are so drive to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, because they know the Jews will never be converted. Couple their hatred of the Jews with the Islamic notion that non-believers have no right to live on Islamic lands and you have the makings of a never-ending conflict; which is exactly what we have in the Middle East. The Jews have the temerity to exist as non-believers and the Muslims have a religious duty to kill them. Ceasefires be damned.

Good luck to all in the coming Clash.

debishop

"I read your piece. Well said. I’ve bookmarked your home page. Don’t be too hard on Wolf, had he not stolen your words I wouldn’t have had the pleasure of reading your blog. Keep up the excellent work."

I'm so glad that you've bookmarked my homepage. You are very welcome there at any time.

I am not being too hard on Wolf. I would just like Wolf, and others, to give me, and other authors, due credit where it is due.

I am so glad you like my work; and I shall look forward to your comments in the coming weeks and months.

Your comment here today is nothing short of excellent. I feel sure that we couldn't place a cigarette paper between our views on Islam and the coming clash of civilizations.

That you are an agnostic matters not one jot to me. We are all in this together; and we should never lose sight of that.

Thank you again for your kind words. I shall look forward to meeting you on the blogosphere again, especially on my own blog and here on Townhall.

Please note: Wolf is welcome on my website as well!

movwater opines...

“Of course, if "the people of those nations" could do anything about the situation in their country, don't you think they would have done so by now?”

Well, maybe. As to whether or not they want to, that's a different matter. I seem to recall that the "people" of Iran were able to muster the wherewithal to rise up and topple the Shah. (I won’t beat a dead horse by detailing Jimmy Carter’s inept handling of that political fiasco.)

Your sympathetic notions about a helpless population cowered by militant mullahs only goes so far before it runs out of inertia. Maybe reminding these folks that if they let their (unelected) leaders continue down the path they’ve chosen that one day soon their beautiful cities, along with everyone living in them, may be turned into irradiated dust.

Maybe that knowledge will be the push they need to kick-start their counter-revolution. If not, well, you won't be able to say we didn't warn them.

Anti-Islamic Hysteria

I don't know how representative of the general public the authors of the anti-Islamic rants in this thread are, but I haven't seen such hysteria manifest itself before in my lifetime, and I'm in my sixth decade.

The Russians and the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong, when *they* were our mortal enemies, didn't inspire such histrionics that I'm aware of, but perhaps if people with the consciousness of folks like Ollie North and G.Gordon Liddy had had access to today's Internet, they would have expressed themselves similarly in the 60's and 70's. The point remains, however, that enemies of the US government come and go with some regularity. The important thing seems to be that *somebody* be the enemy, so that we citizens can be maintained in an appropriately fearful and servile mind-set vis a vis our "protectors" in the government-military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower so presciently warned us about.

Of course, bin Laden and his followers were viewed very favorably by the US government when they were directing their "terrorist" skills at the Red Army in Afghanistan. Ditto, Saddam Hussein when he was directing his US-supplied WMD at the Iranian Army.

As for the people who purport to know more about the motivations of Muslim extremists than former CIA bin Laden Section Chief Michael Scheuer, whose professional life was devoted to studying for several years bin Laden and his supporters, with all the resources of the CIA,I have to ask what qualifications you can cite that makes you a more knowledgeable authority on the subject than Scheuer?

In the absence of any such superior qualifications, I think it behooves one to attend to his observation that bin Laden is able to command the support that he does primarily because of US foreign policy, rather than that Muslims "hate our freedoms." There are, I believe, American Muslims who have served and are currently serving in the US military, not to mention the tens of thousands of Muslim US citizens who I'm sure are appalled at the murderous behavior of Muslim terrorists...after all, they're as much potential targets in the US as anyone else. Do you advocates of exterminating Muslims also advocate exterminating Catholics because of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism in Oklahoma City? If not, why not?

To make it easy to review what Scheuer said in the recent interview in *The New Yorker*, here is the excerpt I quoted in my previous post:

"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We (sic) use the term “Islamofascism”—but we're (sic) supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We(sic) don't have a strategy because we(sic) don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies." (The repeated "we" Scheuer uses here is, of course, a manifestation of the conscious or unconscious
self-identification of the writer/speaker with the US government).

Anyone who is serious about sparing the people of the United States another attack such as the one on 9/11 needs to think hard about what Scheuer is pointing out here to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Those who aren't serious about preventing another 9/11-like attack (or worse) may, of course, just continue mindlessly demonizing and advocating the annihilation of the world's 1 billion Muslims, or some percentage thereof.

Just don't expect to be taken seriously by those choosing to exercise their capacity to think.

Who's your prattle...

HoosierDaddy writes:

“I don't know how representative of the general public the authors of the anti-Islamic rants in this thread are, but I haven't seen such hysteria manifest itself before in my lifetime, and I'm in my sixth decade.”

*I guess you’re a little too young to remember the “hysteria” that manifested itself after Pearl Harbor. Now that was real, honest-to-God HYSTERIA. And it's interesting how all that war-hysteria was really necessary to get us (well, our parents and grandparents) through a two-front war that lasted four years. And what happened to all that hatred Americans had for the “Japs” and the "Krauts?" Gone now, isn’t it? Clearly, not all hysteria is misplaced or valueless.

“The Russians and the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong, when *they* were our mortal enemies, didn't inspire such histrionics that I'm aware of… in the 60's and 70's.”

*Regarding the “histrionics” of the 60’s and the 70’s (during the Vietnam conflict), most of it came from the left, and was directed at those of us Americans who fought in that war. (What with that "baby killer" thing and all that anti-war hysteria.)

“The point remains, however, that enemies of the US government come and go with some regularity. The important thing seems to be that *somebody* be the enemy, so that we citizens can be maintained in an appropriately fearful and servile….”

*I guess we on the right would rather be up in arms over the people who are actually trying to kill us, as opposed to you on the left who would prefer to have us ignore the Islamic threat, while keeping us in a state of constant “fear” over deadly global warming.

“Of course, bin Laden and his followers were viewed very favorably by the US government when they were directing their "terrorist" skills at the Red Army in Afghanistan. Ditto, Saddam Hussein when he was directing his US-supplied WMD at the Iranian Army.”

*So, what’s your point? We traded with Japan and Germany before we decided their societies needed rearranging. Things change. Get use to it.

“As for the people who purport to know more about the motivations of Muslim extremists than former CIA bin Laden Section Chief Michael Scheuer, whose professional life was devoted to studying for several years bin Laden and his supporters, with all the resources of the CIA,I have to ask what qualifications you can cite that makes you a more knowledgeable authority on the subject than Scheuer?”

*Scheuer’s got his opinion and he’s entitled to it. That doesn’t make it the law-of-the-land or the end of the discussion. Besides the CIA has, for a long time now, been a convenient funnel for anti-Bush, anti-Iraq-war leaks. Lots of old timers there who came in under Clinton and they’re not happy about the changes. Besides, Scheuer’s a bookseller. He’s got a product to sell and it pays to controversial. That doesn’t make him a bad person--nor is he precognitive--he's just someone who’s paid by the word.

“In the absence of any such superior qualifications, I think it behooves one to attend to his observation that bin Laden is able to command the support that he does primarily because of US foreign policy, rather than that Muslims "hate our freedoms."

* No doubt it’s true enough—because I’m sure OBL hates our foreign policy; especially the part where we threw his boney ass out of Afghanistan. And, except, of course, for the time we were helping him kill Russians in Afghanistan and/or, possibly, when we were bombing the crap out of the Serbs for their treatment of the Muslims (strange, but Muslim counties were notably MIA during that one). So, does that mean we should close down our embassies located in any Muslim country, and pack up our kit and go home, simply because OBL doesn’t want us there? Should we let terrorist groups like OBL’s assume control of the world’s oil supply, simply because he doesn’t want us on Muslim soil? I don't think so.

“There are, I believe…tens of thousands of Muslim US citizens who I'm sure are appalled at the murderous behavior of Muslim terrorists...after all, they're as much potential targets in the US as anyone else. Do you advocates of exterminating Muslims also advocate exterminating Catholics because of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism in Oklahoma City? If not, why not?”

*Odd, but I’ve yet to see those tens of thousands of American Muslims marching in the streets demanding an end to Islamic terror. Mostly what I hear about is how this or that group of Muslims are offended at something we’ve done; like when President Bush had the audacity to use the phrase “Islamic fascism.” And Timothy McVeigh hardly rises up the level of Radical Militant Islam. Check some recent history about Who’s Who on the Terrorists Hit Parade--lots of radical Muslims on the list. But with the left it’s always about equivocation. And, the last time I check we killed Mr. McVeigh—dead—and now we’re working on the Islamic ones.

“To make it easy to review what Scheuer said in the recent interview in *The New Yorker*, here is the excerpt I quoted in my previous post: "In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world.”

*Who cares why they hate us? This is just more liberal psycho-babble. Do we need to understand why the mass murderer did what he did before we properly deal with him? Did we need to understand why the Japanese hated us enough to bomb Pearl Harbor, before we killed them by the thousands and pushed them back to home islands? Leave the ‘why’ for the historians and the ‘how’ and ‘where’ to the military, as in, how many bombs to you want dropped and where?

Maybe they do hate us for our foreign policy, but that hatred probably goes back to our defiance and defeat of the Barbary Pirates in 1803. That's why the Marine song goes, "from the shores of Tripoli." Muslims seem to collect hatreds like a Magpie collects shiny trinkets.

What I find lacking in Scheuer’s comment on global jihad is the clear fact that they hate us because we’re not Muslim. We could reorient our foreign policy so that we were uninvolved with any Muslim nation; and one day they’d come for us. Because, for Muslims, Islam is universal; that meanings Muslims believe that all of us are born Muslim—and any who are currently not believers will be given a chance to return to the fold, and if we refuse to obey Mohammad’s command to submit, and become a believer, then we are worthy only of the sword (and today, the video camera). In a nutshell, you submit or die.

“There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies.”

*So, OBL wants to kill us because our foreign policy supports China, which is a nation that is actually oppressing Muslims? Really? Then why isn’t he attacking China directly—I mean, China is an oppressor of Muslims and yet, according to your boy Scheuer and you, OBL doesn’t want to bother with them, instead, he attacks us merely because we buy stuff from the Chinese? So, not only do we have to stop dealing with (and remove ourselves from) all Muslim nations, but now we have to stop dealing with China, Russia, India, and Israel; because OBL doesn’t want us supporting them because they oppress Muslims? Sorry, but your analysis is really quite baffling.

And when did India become an oppressor of Muslims? And why is it that Muslims get a free ride in the world of “one group oppressing another group?” When did they get exempted from the oppression blame game? Show me one Muslim country that isn’t oppressing someone. Please, just one.

“The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We (sic) use the term “Islamofascism”—but we're (sic) supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We(sic) don't have a strategy because we(sic) don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies."

*So, what you and Scheuer seem to be advocating here is that we either go in and, with force-of-arms, re-make the entire Middle East (while being sensitive enough to allow each of these people to form their own “special” brand of democracy) or we need to get out and go home—folding our foreign policy tent once and for all? Because there are only two ways those nasty tyrants are going to relinquish power, 1) their people remove them or, 2) we remove them.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is cesspool of intolerance but when was the last time they invaded another country or publicly threaten to annihilate the Jews? So, are we supposed to refuse to deal with them simply because we don’t like their internal policies? And, I thought regime change is what you people didn’t want us doing. Would you please make up your mind.

Basically, what you and Scheuer and OBL want us to do is remove ourselves from the world stage. Sorry, that ain’t gonna’ happen.

“Anyone who is serious about sparing the people of the United States another attack such as the one on 9/11 needs to think hard about what Scheuer is pointing out here to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Those who aren't serious about preventing another 9/11-like attack (or worse) may, of course, just continue mindlessly demonizing and advocating the annihilation of the world's 1 billion Muslims, or some percentage thereof.
Just don't expect to be taken seriously by those choosing to exercise their capacity to think.”

*Anyone who is serious about staying alive, and wants their grandchildren to grow up with the same freedoms and economic blessing you have, had better hope that we beat these guys to the punch.

And, I don’t expect to be taken seriously by anyone who thinks (and I use that term guardedly) like you until, of course, it’s too late for I-told-you-so’s.

Our policies are causing the hate?

debishop writes:
Who's your prattle...

Good reply.

I will add that regarding "oil" and HoosierDaddy's quote from the "New Yorker"
quote:
"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil.
=======================
What a load of crap.
quote:
"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world.
-------------------------
We aren't hated because of our freedoms, that much is true. We are also not hated by the majority of Muslims. We are hated by Islamofascists who will kill even other Muslims to "kill all infidels" peaceful or not. Lets look at their record of only "hating us."
quote: From a friend who researched this for me

Moslems have attacked the parliament in India, Christians, Hindus in India, Hindus in Kashmir. Europeans in France, Spain, Italy, England, Norway, Germany, etc., Russians, Ukrainians, Uzbekistan - and all the other "stans." Moslems have attacked the United States.

Moslems have blown up Buddhist shrines, attacked in northern China, non-Moslems in Thailand, non-Moslems in the Philippines, non-Moslems in Indonesia. Moslems have attacked in Sri Lanka and are slaughtering Christians in Africa. What's going on in Africa is a religious war.

Fundamentalist Moslems have attacked other Moslems in: Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey as well as throughout Africa.
================================
The Islamofascists are seeking world domination, not some "polictical agenda" based on our policies. They only play a small role in their agenda which has also destroy thousands with no real connection to the U.S.

quote
we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil.
=================
Qadaffi surrendered his WMD after our resumption of the on going war with Iraq we started under Bush I. Are you saying we should invade those who surrender WMD?

Also, you make it sound like we control the oil market when OPEC has more power than we do on production and haven't had for a long time. However, we are a nation addicted to oil and our government had a role in the 40 years of democratic controlled Congress that drove oil production overseas with bad energy policies we still haven't recovered from. And the democratic filibuster is still blocking good energy policy.

Have we used people like Bin Ladin? You bet. They hated us when we were helping them but they kept that hatred under control just like Castro did, because they were also using us to get what they wanted. While we used a lesser enemy (at a calculated risk) to strike at a greater enemy, we did what we felt would limit the spread of Communism's power as well as domination of people that should never be subjected to socialism let alone forced socialism.

Regarding this
quote:
our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies.
======================
That is interesting since they are making deals with the Muslim nations, including Iran. Venezuela is making deals to supply Iran with nuclear material, openly, no secrect deal, all open and for everyone to see. And, who is not only making deals with Iran and Venezuela. Russia and China. India is not oppressing Muslim nation but rather, setting an example of progress and rapidly growing middle class (more than our entire population as is China's middle class using buying power as the measure)

Israel has been "hated" for 4,000 years or so since the time of Abraham and any ally of Israel is to be "hated" according the Islamofascists, but not all Muslims. Dubai (95% Muslim) does business with Israel and the U.S. and is one of our main liberty ports because our military feel safe in Dubai and we can repair our ships in their harbors.

We are in a "world war" where Islamofascists are not only attacking us and Israel but nations all over Asia and Africa. Not Muslims, but just Islamofascist who even kill any Muslims that get in their way of world domination.

Are hoosierkids...

....muslim too?

Puppychen

Your whole comment is beautifully-crafted and to the point! Bravo! I couldn't agree with you more. It is powerful and true!

"Western academics and media commentators wedded to the fashionable doctrine of multiculturalism continue to peddle the lie that Islamic terrorists are a handful of fringe extremists giving a bad name to an otherwise “peaceful” religion.

By thinking in their own cultural terms instead of researching the true nature of Islam, they have allowed themselves to be persuaded by glib Muslim apologists that the word “jihad” means nothing more than a “spiritual struggle against sin.”

Indeed, in many ways Western academics are as much a danger to Western civilization as jihadis are. At least, when Westerners eventually awaken from their reveries, they will be able to deal with jihadis. But the people who inhabit the corridors of power in many academic institutions are nothing less than naïve fools, for all their qualifications and previous study! And court jesters would have more common sense!

"The establishment of Islam in the West is fundamentally inconsistent with Western institutions and values, and must be resisted with every means at our disposal. Our ongoing failure to grasp the nature of this doctrine that turns men into killers means such men could eventually destroy Western civilisation in the service of their totalitarian religion."

This is another wonderfully powerful paragraph. Islam is indeed incompatible with Western values, and we should never have allowed all these Muslims, with their barbaric values, to enter into our civilized countries in the first place. Now we are left with the problem of what can be done about it. But before we can get even to that point, we must first admit that we have the problem! Our foolish and blinkered leaders have yet to get to that point!

Giles does not represent Christianity

Giles is welcome to his views about mass killing, but it's sick that he espouses his views under the banner of Christianity.

It would be interesting to see Mr. Giles attempt to defend his ideas using New Testament principles.

The line that really gives it away is when Giles says he would rather be focusing on himself, building his own prosperity. That says all you need to know about how divergent his philosophy is from that of Jesus.

Mr. T ... r u just a poser?

Giles wrote: I know . . . I know . . . it’s not pleasant, and I, too, WOULD LIKE TO BE FOCUSED ON MY PERSONAL PROSPERITY AND MY HOPES AND DREAMS. However, sometimes the times dictate that we focus upon and fight for other things besides our own personal stuff—and such a time is upon us...Therefore, we’ve got to switch gears and make sure we are waging war in the heavenlies so that we can continue to see a semblance of peace on earth. [Caps are mine for emphasis]

Mr.T then writes:

"Giles is welcome to his views about mass killing, but it's sick that he espouses his views under the banner of Christianity.
It would be interesting to see Mr. Giles attempt to defend his ideas using New Testament principles.
The line that really gives it away is when Giles says he would rather be focusing on himself, building his own prosperity. That says all you need to know about how divergent his philosophy is from that of Jesus."


Mr. T, If you're going to disagree with Mr. Giles, fine, but don't put words in his mouth and don't try and twist his comments into something they're not.

Giles doesn't call for "mass killing," just the awareness that we are involved in a war. He says that he would "like to be focused" on something (prosperity, hopes, dreams) other than the coming conflict, but he thinks that now is the time to put those things aside, and concentrate on our common struggle with Militant Islam.

And I'm guessing you're not even a Christian—just a sad poser who wants to score some points by implying that he’s a Christian. If you were a Christian you’d be aware of the follow New Testament verses:

Matthew Chapter 24 [6]: And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

John Chapter 19 [11]: And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and with justice doth he judge and fight.

I’m an agnostic and I know about these verses. Clearly the writers' of the New Testament were aware that wars must sometimes be fought. But, obviously for you, all wars are unjust -- being merely excuses for mass killing. And, no doubt, especially ones fought by Christians.

Well, pal, in the coming struggle you better hope to high heaven that the Christians show up; otherwise your sorry ass is going to be bowing eastward and kissing carpet 5 times a day.

Who's your fool...

HoosierDaddy writes:

“To further the discussion in this thread regarding the options available to us in dealing with the very dangerous phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, I want to make the thread's participants aware of what I consider to be the most rational and therefore effective way of responding to this threat.”

* Why don’t you just continue pretending there is no Islamic threat, much the same way Chamberlain saw no threat from Herr Hitler, and let the adults deal with it.

“I have already cited an authoritative explanation of the motivation of Islamic terrorists by the former CIA analyst who headed up the bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer.(See his book, *Imperial Hubris*). I realize that some people are psychologically incapable of considering the possibility that the foreign policy of the US government could possibly play any role in the genesis of Islamic terrorism as a geopolitical tactic, preferring to believe that after having been present in the world since the 7th century, Muslims as a whole have decided in the 21st century that they suddenly hate Americans for their freedoms enough to plan and execute the attacks of 9/11/2001.”

* Are you really this stupid, or just innately naïve? You cite one “authoritative explanation” and believe that ends the discussion? How about you read David Horowitz’ “Unholy Alliance, Radical Islam and the American Left.” There that should shut you up.

So, you think Muslims have only been on the move in the 21st Century? Look at world map and pick out the countries that Muslims have seized control of since their genesis. Muslims were at war with America back in the 1800’s—and by the way, the tactics they used back then are very similar to the ones they employ now; kidnapping, torture, forced conversions, beheadings, terror…it was the same 200 years ago as it is today. They didn’t hate our foreign policy back in 1800, no, back then they just didn’t want us sailing in their Mediterranean Sea (without paying tribute to Islam)—much the same as OBL now doesn’t want us walking on Islamic soil.

“Advocates of the "war on terror or terrorism" are either cynically manipulating the more naive among us who buy the proposition that anyone can wage war on a state of mind, terror, or that anyone can wage war on a tactic, terrorism, or they simply haven't given the concept the requisite thought to see its absurdity as a concept, let alone as a strategy.”

* Who says you can’t wage war on a “state of mind?” The Japanese had a particular “state of mind” that was certainly far different from the American “state of mind,” and we waged war on them. And, you sir, certainly fall into the group constituting the “more naïve among us.”

And, isn’t it funny, how only we blood-lusting conservatives are smart enough to “cynically manipulate” the naïve. I guess you guys on the left never thought of manipulating of the public. Well, except for maybe that global warming thing; oh, and then there was the time you guys told the American people that nasty old Republicans wanted to starve poor children to death, or how about the time…

Ah, well, I think you see were this is going.

“Apparently, even the POTUS has been made aware of the vacuity of the the expression the "war on terror," which is why he has been lately referring more often to being at war with the "Islamo-Fascists," although he had trouble pronouncing it the first couple of times he used the phrase.”

* The “war on terror” is, as most have known, a euphemism for our struggle with Militant Islam. Most rational thinkers understood the political problems with labeling it as a war on Islam. But a time will come...

“But although being at war with flesh and blood human beings rather than with states of mind or tactics, is at least more meaningful cognitively, it is still an extremely dangerous strategy, particularly when it results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent bystanders and can easily escalate into world-wide war with horrendus consequences for Americans as well as for others around the world.”

* So, in condensing that down, I read: “Being at war with human beings is extremely dangerous, particularly when it results in deaths and is easily escalated into a bigger war, that can have horrendous consequences for Americans, as well as others.” Does that about sum that nugget up?

So, a war in which 21-million Russians, 11-million Chinese, 7-million Germans, 7-million Poles, 2-million Japanese, 1.7-million Yugoslavians, 1-million Rumanians, 800-thousand French, 750-thousand Hungarians, 525-thousand Austrians, 520-thousand Greeks, 500-thousand Americans, 410-thousand Italians--just to list the big death counts--would surely qualify as “horrendous,” don’t you think?

Well, then, is WWII a war we should not have waged because so many human beings lost their lives? Does the fact that 30-million civilians died in the war on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan negate its outcome? Would the world be a better place today had America decided to go to war—and left Europe in the hands of the Nazis and the Far East to the ravages of the Japanese Bushido warriors (with their particular “state of mind”)? Would any Frenchman who lived through WWII say that France would be better off today had it remained under the Nazi Jackboot, and not had 470,000 French civilians die? I seriously doubt it. I don't even a Frenchman would so dishonor their dead. BTW, French civilians died at a rate of about 320 per day for the duration of that war.

“In a world with the technological means to end life on earth, at least as we've known it, it really does behoove us to seriously consider alternatives to the organized but uncontrollable
mass murder that is war.”

* Nice sentiment. Now see if you can convince OBL and all those Bushido-like followers of his, the ones who have that “mass murdering” state of mind, you know, the ones that want to kill you and your countrymen by the millions, to seriously consider some alternative to all-out jihad. Let us know how it goes. And, we hope you won’t mind if we continue as a participant in a war they’ve been waging against us for decades now.

“As a Libertarian Christian in the autumn of his life, it is much more for the sake of the youth and the children of the earth whose very survival is at stake that I urge advocates of war to reconsider the risk at which they are placing themselves and the other men, women, and children on earth with that advocacy.”

* When you mouth vacuous platitudes like that I envision you back in 1939, beseeching FDR not to retaliate for Pearl Harbor. Excuse me while I wipe a tear from my eye.

The rest of your pathetic screed reads like Pollyanna wrote it for her high school graduation class—meaning it’s too silly to be taken seriously.

But to hit on just a few more points:

“Gandhian principles of nonviolence provide a solid foundation for crafting an effective strategy against terrorism.”

* Wrong! Gandhian principles worked because they were applied against a rational, democratic nation; and not a loose-nit network of “bloodthirsty” Islamic fanatics.

"People-power movements have since spread throughout the world, helping to bring down communism in Eastern Europe and advancing democracy in Serbia, Ukraine, and beyond."

* Wrong! People-power had nothing to do with bring down the Berlin wall and freeing Eastern Europe. Reagan and Thatcher can take credit for that victory.

"Bush administration officials and many political leaders in Washington view terrorism primarily through the prism of war. Kill enough militants, they believe, and the threat will go away. The opposite approach is much more effective and much less costly in lives.”

* So, the opposite of killing them is to…let them multiply? Oh, I see, that’ll teach ‘em, and certainly will stop them. And, by the way, the trick to defeating an enemy is to make it more costly, life-wise, not less costly.

“Some limited use of force to apprehend militants and destroy training camps is legitimate, but unilateral war is not.”

* Ah, the Bill Clinton Terrorist-Mis-Management Approach. Book ‘em, Dano! By the way, the war was “unilateral” up until the moment we obliterated the Taliban—then it became a bi-cameral affair.

“War itself is a form of terrorism.”

* Finally, you said something I can agree with. War is terror. And the object is to apply more terror than your enemy is willing to stand (by killing them in large numbers), so that he’ll want to stop f**king with you.

“A better strategy is to take away the fuel that sustains the fire.”

* The people who participate in Islamic jihad are the fuel that sustains the fire. See the item above.

“This means addressing legitimate political grievances that terrorist groups exploit - such as the Israel-Palestine dispute, repressive policies by Arab governments, and the continuing U.S. military occupation in Iraq.”

* I think I finally get it. We need to pull the plug on Israel—let them sink or swim, as it were—making sure that the land reverts back to the Arab control. We need to turn the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan (did I leave any out?) over to the jihadis. And, of course, we need to withdraw completely from the Middle East. That should solve all the problems and make them not mad as us anymore.

So, basically, you want to create an Pan-Islamic union of Fundamentalist states modeled on Iran? Yeah, we wouldn’t have any problems dealing with that.

“Lawful police action is by its nature more discriminating and is more effective politically, because it minimizes predictable backlash effects.”

* Right. Say, excuse me Mr. President Ahmadinejad, we have a warrant for the arrest of a terrorist who’s living in your country, could you help us apprehend him? Oh, yeah, that’ll work.

“Gandhi’s political genius was in understanding the power of third party opinion.”

Gandhi’s political genius was in understanding that he was dealing with rational human beings who could be swayed by non-violent resistance. Your whole “Gandhi” premise is worthless when applied to a violent “state of mind” that has one goal, to kill as many infidels as possible—and thus insuring themselves a one-way ticket to the virgin hordes.

And didn’t Gandhi’s efforts end up rather poorly? After all, his non-violent methods ended up killing upwards of 1 million people (during the partition) while another 15 million were displaced. And all because those rascally Muslims didn’t want to live in India, but felt they deserved a Muslim country all to themselves; and so they got Pakistan—in a place where no Muslim nation had ever existed before. Say, isn’t that sort of like how Israel came into being? But, alas, the Muslims just couldn’t abide having anyone living on their land--who wasn't a Muslim--and so was born the Middle East conflict. Sounds kind of like a double standard to me.



To quote a TV icon: "I pity the fool." And you sir, are a fool in need of pity.

Debishop....

He is the one who said he would rather be involved with himself, his "prosperity", a word which usually refers to wealth. A far cry from I would rather be worshipping the Lord, or helping others.

He also said:

"In the next few weeks I will be tossing my two cents into the ring in an attempt to define what the church should be doing when godless scuum* floats to the surface."

Contrast this with some NT verses (I think Jesus tried to help "godless scuum", not kill them, or whatever Giles has in mind):

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. (1 John 2:9).

* I had to write "scuum", the correct word is flagged by an offensive word filter

I dont want to argue

I just wanted to get 2 cents in from a Christian. I have drastically different views on this whole conflict, so I probably shouldn't have even dropped by:

* I don't believe the threat level is anywhere near what is being talked about.

* I don't think this is a war of religions or beliefs, I think it's a war between criminals and decent people.

* I don't want to be "defended" by the likes of GWB or Mr. Giles. I don't want a sinlge freedom taken away in the name of my safety. If I die in a terrorist attack, I don't want a single freedom taken away from another person in my name.

* It is fine for Mr. Giles to advocate what he thinks is right. There is nothing wrong with becoming involved with the world. I don't see a solid basis for unleashing a "Christian army" of sorts to wage wars in the world. That idea struck me as wrong, so while I dont't pretend to know if he is right or wrong concerning terrorism, I would hope he will step back and ponder how he is framing this issue in religious terms.

* As for wealth, surely you've heard that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, and that Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

That is all. Thanks for the discussion.

cat trapper

I will try to be careful about context. So first I will simply try to understand what you are saying. Is the gist of your rebuttal that Christ was talking to the rich man, the hypocrite, and the religious leader, and therefore what he is saying is not generally applicable to all of us?

But when God talks to the Centurion it is generally applicable?

I would recommend reading "The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church" to any one who is interested. If Christians rise up as a war-making entity, then the face of Christianity becomes that of war-makers.

Cowboys Rising to the Bait

Erratum: In my last post, I inadvertently conflated the names of the Cowboy-in-Chief's Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Karen Hughes, with that of Karen Armstrong, the scholar of comparative religions. My apologies to TownHall readers and to Ms. Armstrong.

Peace

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."