Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Victor Davis Hanson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why radical Islam - and why now?
by Victor Davis Hanson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Read any newspaper or turn on any news broadcast and you're bound to encounter stories of Islamic radicals fighting, killing and threatening each other — and just about everyone else.

In Somalia, jihadists, with the support of al-Qaida, have clashed with troops loyal to the country’s internationally recognized interim government and now threaten neighboring Ethiopia with all-out war.

Nearby in Darfur, Muslim militiamen called janjaweed are waging genocide against black Christian and animist villagers — apparently with the consent of the Sudanese government.

Shiite and Sunni militias, each claiming to represent true Islam, keep slaughtering each other in Iraq.

Hezbollah (“Party of God”) seeks to destroy democracy in Lebanon by provoking Israel, which it is sworn to eliminate.

On the West Bank, Hamas and Fatah have taken a timeout from their attacks on Israel to murder each other and innocent bystanders.

The Iranian Shiite theocracy — when not hosting Holocaust deniers or sending terrorists into Iraq — issues serial pledges to finish off Israel.

The shaky Pakistani leadership pleads that it can neither target Osama bin Laden nor stop Taliban jihadists hiding out in the remote regions of Pakistan from streaming back into Afghanistan.

In Europe, opera producers, novelists, cartoonists and filmmakers are increasingly circumspect out of fear of death threats from Islamists.

While each conflict is unique and rooted in its own history, the common thread — radical Islam — is obvious. It's thus worth asking why this violent, intolerant strain of Islam has taken hold in so many unstable places — and at this particular time.

The ascent of radical Islam is, perhaps, the natural culmination of a century's worth of failed political systems in Muslim countries that were driven by morally bankrupt ideologies, led by cruel dictators, or both.

In the 1930s, German-style fascism appealed to Arabs in Palestine and Egypt. Soviet-style communism had sympathetic governments in Afghanistan, Algeria and Yemen. Baathism took hold in Syria and Iraq. The secular Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser promised a new pan-Arabism that would do away with colonial borders that divided the “the Arab nation.” Then there is the more pragmatic authoritarianism that survives in Muammar el-Qaddafi's Libya or in the petrol-monarchies in the Gulf.

Radical Islam may be as totalitarian and as morally bankrupt as any of these past or mostly defunct “isms,” but its current appeal isn't hard to figure out. Unlike fascism or communism, radical Islam is locally grown, and not plagued by charges of foreign contamination. Indeed, Islamists claim to wage jihad against the modernism and globlization of the outside, mostly Westernized world. Such a message resonates in stagnant, impoverished Muslim countries.

Of course, while the people of the region may be poor, the Islamist movement isn't. Huge oil profits filter throughout the Muslim world, allowing Islamists to act on their rhetoric. In today's world, militias can easily acquire everything from shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles to rocket-propelled grenades. With such weapons, and on their own turf, Islamists can nullify billion-dollar Western jets and tanks.

There is still another reason for the rise of Islamists: They sense a new hesitation in the West. We appear to them paralyzed over oil prices and supplies and fears of terrorism. And so they have also waged a brilliant propaganda war, adopting the role of victims of Western colonialism, imperialism and racism. In turn, much of the world seems to tolerate their ruthlessness in stifling freedom, oppressing women and killing nonbelievers. So how, aside from killing jihadist terrorists, can we defend ourselves against the insidious spread of radical Islam? Here are a few starting suggestions:

Bluntly identify radical Islam as fascistic — without worrying whether some Muslims take offense when we will talk honestly about the extremists in their midst.

At the same time, keep encouraging consensual governments in the Middle East and beyond that could offer people security and prosperity, while distancing ourselves from illegitimate dictators, especially in Syria and Iran, that promote terrorists.

Establish that no more autocracies in the Middle East and Asia will be allowed to get the bomb.

Seek energy independence that would collapse the world price of oil, curbing petrodollar subsidies for terrorists and our own appeasement of their benefactors.

Appreciate the history and traditions of a unique Western civilization to remind the world that we have nothing to apologize for but rather much good to offer to others.

Finally, keep confident in a war in which our will and morale are every bit as important as our overwhelming military strength. The jihadists claim that we are weak spiritually, but our past global ideological enemies — Nazism, fascism, militarism and communism — all failed. And so will they.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

Be the first to read Victor Davis Hanson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

It's just Islam
History is clear and irrefutable, and the most damning documents were written by Muslims, though collected by a growing array of current authors like Ye’or, Spencer, Timmerman, Fregosi, and Huntington. Read them. Perhaps most Muslims are members of the social auxilliary, but they are also heretics, and condemned with the rest of us infidels.

So - The War Against Radical Islam

Was protest and request for apology adequate for 9/11, for World Trade I, for Embassy Bombings, for Cole, for . . . . .

I disagree with an isolationist approach but would like to see a position paper on the isolation strategy which accurately and credibly covers all issues - energy, trade, Somalia, Ertria, Sudan, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, protection of Moderate Islam, etc.

The War Against Radical Islam needs to be declared and executed. If you dont believe this is true live in the middle east and travel in NE Africa.

Inconsistencies
Ooo. Something not right here. Either John Loftus or Hanson have got it not quite right. Read both & make up your own mind.

Look up Obsession.com (the film), click on Activism & Links, scroll to Miscellaneous, click on link "The Link Between The Nazis, Muslim Brotherhood And Al-Qaeda - John Loftus" & you'll get to Frontpagemag.com, hardly a left-leaning outfit.

Here's some quotes from VDH above:

"The ascent of radical Islam is, perhaps, the NATURAL CULMINATION (my emphasis) of a century's worth of failed political systems in Muslim countries that were driven by morally bankrupt ideologies, led by cruel dictators, or both."

"Unlike fascism or communism, radical Islam is locally grown, and not plagued by charges of foreign contamination."


Compare with Loftus:

"We have to recognize that al Qaeda simply didn't spring up on its own."

"We allowed this branch of the Nazi trunk to survive, to flourish, and it has come back to haunt us."

"Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not....They think that Islam -- the Saudi version of Islam -- is typical, but it's not....Wahhabiism... really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It has always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence."

"In 1979 the CIA decided to take the Arab Nazis out of cold storage."

Among VDHs "suggestions" for "defending ourselves against the insidious spread of radical Islam" is this one:

"remind the world that we have nothing to apologize for".

Not so sure after reading Loftus. UK, France & US all implicated. Make up your own mind, fellow Conservatives & Liberals.

Big VDH fan. Could it really be that he is unaware of Loftus' article & general thoughts on the matter?


On a seperate note, in the Loftus article is a very odd assertion & wondering whether anyone else has come across this one:

"At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.

Instead of prosecuting the Nazis -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948....

Britain was not alone. The French intelligence service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi they could, but they failed to quash the State of Israel."

And if true, what was their motive??

What's also extraordinary is that Wikipedia have a section on JLs "Work On Terrorism" & also are keen to point out controversies surrounding him, but give no space (a link to his artlicle only) to the bombshell claims in the article on Obsession.com. Why not? Embarrassing reading?

I'm no conspiracist (just ask tanabear), but something ain't right here.

What was all that
hijacking in the '70s about? It was about one thing only: keeping Islam relevant. Without terrorism, Islam would be utterly unimportant to the whole non-Moslem world. Islam has two things only. Oil, and terror. Nothing else. Well, it has history, such as it is. But who doesn't. Well, the West doesn't, in that it's turning its back on history. Oh, this is becoming confusing.

All those Moslem decades of flirting with alien isms turned out to be years of famine and drought. They where trying to be what they were not -- Western. Now they have turned to their roots. Such barren and infertile ground, though. What could possibly grow in it.

Well. There was a time when those lands were not dry as old bones. And the thing that sprang from that earth rode horses and wielded swords. What can grow in the heartland of Islam? Only Islam, as it originated.

They call it jihad. It's actually hariba -- war with humanity. Do you think it will get better? Hey, knucklehead! -- they're getting the bomb. After they use it, what will grow. Here.


J
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/

tanabear
Can you tell us how the West had anything to do with the mufti of Jerusalem's decision to join with Hitler in the 1930s and was given carte-blanche to deal with the Jews, before Israel even existed? Thank you.

Can you explain to us why islam is still selling slaves out of Africa today? Thank you.

Can you explain to us why islam was attacking US shipping when the US was barely out of diapers? Thank you.

Can you explain to us why EVERY major leader in Western history has nothing good to say about islam? Aside from your immediate need to blame the West for everything. Thank you.

Radical Islam?
An unfortunant misnomar. There is no seperate branch of "Radical Islam", a branch that is hijacking the rest of the religion. These are Western fantasies. There are some branches of Islam that are more belligerent and fundamentalist, the Wahabi's being an example, but they are all drawn from the Koran, the Hadith's, and other religious writings based on Mohamed. There is no "radical islam" just as there are no "moderate muslims". There are secular people from a muslim background who may give lip-service to the religion of their culture, but they know that they are about as religious as your average cafateria catholic. No help there. There are others who wish to redefine islam to something more open to the modern world, but they all know that they are appostates according to the decrees of the Hadith's, and risk their lives in doing so. Admirable efforts, but no real help in affecting the masses of those who feel they are truly muslim.
Unfortunantly, Mr. Hanson is repackaging the various propaganda pieces from over the last 50 or 60 years and unwittingly shilling it to his readers. "Terrorist arise because of oppresion and poverty, radicilism arises from foriegn oppresion, suicide bombers are caused by a cultural inferiority complex, etc, etc, etc". This is the Western fantasy. Islam is and was designed for conquest and oppresion, whether at it's inception or today. Like Communism, it can not survive without an outside enemy to defeat, without new land to conquer and new people to enslave. Whenever islam was not out conquering it was failing. When the Hammer turned the hordes back from France, the repurcussions were felt throughout the islamic world. When they failed at the gates of Venice, they slid into a five century nadir. No, islam needs the blood of the infidels to survive, and a constant flow to keep itself going. Islam is an ideology of conquest and opression, and when it can not conquer, kill, rape and pillage it begins to weaken, till it can find another means of access to the blood of the infidel, then resurges to threaten all civilization again.
Will islam defeat the West? Maybe. But will they succeed? They will only succeed in inflicting another Dark Ages on humanity as they run out of the blood fuel for their engine of war.

Why now?
In a time of tumultuous change, when people have given up the idea that there is such a thing as Right and Wrong, people long viscerally for someone to tell them what to do and how to do it. Many people over 50 especially want the world to be orderly and change to simply stop -- many don't want to learn anything new or keep up with the need to completely get rid of all their movies and get a whole new set with entirely new equipment to be hooked up and learned although next year it will all be trashed and something else will come along...don't want digital cameras or even 35 mm cameras that have buttons to make you do things...don't want 500 channels of television...don't want so much CHOICE. Islam is a system that takes virtually all choice away and sends everything back to a time when people could understand how stuff worked and could be sure that nothing was going to change.

In a time when absolutely nothing is certain, Islam promises certainty. In a West where there is no right or wrong and the average age is 40, it's inevitable that something like Islam would step in to "stop the world."

Why now?
A slight correction. In Darfur the Arab Muslim Janaweed are killing black Muslims, not animist and Christians. The animist and Christian black Africans live in the south of Sudan and have been figthing a civil war (currently under a truce) with the Arab Muslim north to keep from being enslaved. The Muslim Arabs, like their Nazi counterparts are racist with delusions of racial superiority; hence their proclivity for genocide against Jews and blacks.

tanabear's idiocy
Victor Davis Hanson shows his usual keen insight and analysis in his column "Why Radical Islam - Why Now?" Tanabear shows his/her usual left wing kool-aid drinking idiocy with the comment posted this morning.

To refer to a Frenchman in the 1950s, the Soviets in the 1980s and the British in the 1920s in connection with asking why radical Islam now is but an effort to say that we the Americans are responsible for the rise of radical Islam because we are imperialists. That is utter nonsense.

It is also utter nonsense to refer to the Israelis in southern Lebanon turning pastoral pesaants into mighty warriors. No, Hezbollah does not consist of mighty warriors, they are anything but warriors; they did not come from the pastoral Lebanese; Hezbollah are radical Islamists sworn to destroy Israel; and among other things, Hezbollah fires rockets into civilian population areas and live among civilian population areas in order that civilian caualties occur when Hezbollah is attacked to stop its terrorist activity. And lest we forget, Israel has been attacked four times during its short modern history in what were efforts in the Arab world to destroy it.


Amazing
that VDH can write such a long article on militant Islam and never mention the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Is it radical Islam, or just Islam?


Perhaps I misunderstand, but is Hanson suggesting that "radical" Islam was conceived as a result of an infusion of "Western" totalitarian ideologies(fascism and communism)? If so, doesn't this ignore almost 1100 years of history?

Muslim armies began invading territories almost from the time of the Prophet Mohammad. Jerusalem, Syria, and other parts of the mideast(including Persia), parts of the Indian subcontinent, much of mediterranean Europe, all fell under Islamic control for at least a portion of their history. This before Marx or Hitler.

The implication that somehow Western totalitarian ideologies are responsible for "radical" Islam ignores the very real possibility that "radical" Islam is simply traditional Islam reasserting itself after lying dormant for a few decades following the demise of the Ottoman Empire.

Islamists are indeed waging jihad against the forces of globalization, westernism, and modernism, but in so doing they have the complete allegiance of the Muslim man on the street who views such forces as an attack on Islam itself.






Loftus is so wrong...
Tom writes: Loftus says "Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not....Wahhabiism... really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It has always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence."

I agree with VDH more than Loftus - with this paragraph, Loftus has totally blown any confidence one might have in his writings.

Yeah right, a "good relationship with the Jews" consisted of beheading 600-900 men from a nearby village and then raping their women that night. And that was done under Mo's direction...and it didn't get any better over the next thousand years.

Peaceful religion - right. It's peaceful when Mo directs his followers to attack caravans during the "holy" month of Ramadan (and when his guys comment that they aren't supposed to do that, somehow allah comes to him to say it's OK), or it's peaceful when Mo asks "who is going to take care of that annoying poet/poetess who's dissing me" - and that night she's killed while nursing her baby.

Tolerant religion - right. When those who won't convert are made to pay extortionate taxes just to live in the town they were born in, can't ride on a horse, must cross the street when they see a Mo-man coming, can't build a church, repair their church, exhibit religious artifacts or ring their chapel bells - yep, that's tolerant. Today, it's even so tolerant in Saudi Arabia that a flight attendant cannot bring her personal Bible with her on a trip, and Jews are not allowed into the country. One cannot wear a cross or Star of David on their neck.

They were fighting the infidel Christians and Jews LONG before 1948..so give it a rest with the "if we solve the Palastine/Israel problem"...

And these islimey jerks whine and complain that their "civil rights" are being violated because they got kicked off a plane.

Sorry guys, I'm just a little fed up with the "religion of perpetual outrage"...and like Bigbelly, I'm arming myself...

Read their escatology (which is what Achmaskinnyjad is all about) - it takes Christian escatology and turns it 180 degrees out of phase. Very scary stuff. (See answering-islam.org)

Also read "Defeating Jihad" by Serge Trifkovic.

And anything Robert Spencer - he doesn't fall into this "it's a peaceful and tolerant religion" wimp-out.

Laura

Christianity's Decline = Islam's Rise
The rise of Islam is directly proportional to the decline of Christianity. What is called “radical Islam” is actually just a revival of Islam. I am a Christian by the way who does not want to see its decline.

Why Islam? and why now?
Proverbs 16:4 perhaps?


Read Spencer's
"The Truth about Mohammed" and you will learn from the actual writings of Islam that it has always been a barbarous, war mongering, woman bashing religion. Channeling the anger of its followers at the severe restrictions on their lives into war on infidels has been a long time tactic. Now with oil money not enriching their lives, and modern media giving them a hard look at how well the western world lives, rage flows, rage that in the name of religion can be easily manipulated into a desire for world domination. Consider how when the middleclass educated terroists who carried out 9/11 spent their days before the event in strip bars, drinking and consorting with "wild" women.

They don't have to..
>The Iranian Shiite theocracy — when not hosting Holocaust deniers or sending terrorists into Iraq <

I have yet to see one shred of proof that Iran's leadership is sending terrorists into Iraq, although I have seen evidence of funding for Sunni terrorist actions in Iraq coming from Saudi oil money, though not government sanctioned.

Why would Iran need to send terrorists into Iraq anyway? The democratically elected government, headed by the Iranian-sympathetic DAWA and SCIRI parties already has a strong foothold in Iraq's structure by way of a system put in place by the United States.
Ironically, about the only major Shiite entity not closely allied with Iran is the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, who is an Iraqi nationalist.

Double standard
What do you call it when Serbs and Croats, two Christian sects, kill each other? What about the combatants in Northern Ireland?

As for the Koran being violent, you should read the Bible (start with Joshua, find out what happened after the walls tumbled down).

gregd, we're amazed
that you cannot grasp that the muslims were trying to wipe out the Jews Loooooong before Israel was formed. But hey, history only begins on the reference points people like you are stuck on stupid. (Yes, I wrote it that way deliberately)

Pancho
I do not buy it. No support for shiites in iraq from iran? What about the conically shaped copper (thought to be made in iran) used in the improved IED's in iraq? Also the capture of some insurgents (ABC interview with new troop training general) that recieved training and arms believed to be from iran.

There is a lot we do not know but I find it easy to presume iran guilty (just as I did O.J.), being that we are not in a court of law. Besides I do not expect the military to share everything they know regarding this support to me, or the media; they have their reasons.

I am not sure that Sadr is a nationalist, he just may not be towing the Iranian mullah's line, but still a shiite non the less. I think his army should be wiped out with exstreme force, this would be a great! start.

11h

Tana
I suppose the Janjaweed are in a different category. They are more akin to the Mongols or something. But they don't have oil or threaten Isreal so we don't care about all the people they are killing.

I believe sudan DOES have oil, it is the only thing keeping this going. I believe that is why china is nuetering all of the language of UN resolutions against sudan.

11h

Alex
Exactly! And many of us are coming to the same realization.

VDH's solutions
VDH: "Bluntly identify radical Islam as fascistic — without worrying whether some Muslims take offense when we will talk honestly about the extremists in their midst."

Phylo: I actually think this is a good idea. We should be making the point over and over again that it is the lack of freedom of expression that is keeping the Muslims down while the Western world thrives. The reason their hateful ideology is able to survive is that they've been very succesful at brain-washing their citizens. The only cure for brainwashing is a free press and a guarantee of freedom of speech. This is where most of our efforts should be concentrated. We won't win this conflict with bombs. We will only win it by changing hearts and minds.

VDH: At the same time, keep encouraging consensual governments in the Middle East and beyond that could offer people security and prosperity, while distancing ourselves from illegitimate dictators, especially in Syria and Iran, that promote terrorists.

Phylo: What is most revealing here is the failure to mention Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest financiers of global terrorism and the spiritual home of Wahabism, but somehow, they never get thrown in with the likes of Iran and Syria. this is one of the biggest reasons why the West is having such trouble. We want the Muslims to have freedom, but we cozy up to perhaps the most repressive regime in the Middle East. The true test of whether or not the US has the cajones to fight this war against radical Islam will be whether or not we have the guts to confront the Saudis and risk the possiblity that oil prices might spike.

VDH: "Establish that no more autocracies in the Middle East and Asia will be allowed to get the bomb."

Phylo: Good luck. The cat is out of the bag and any attempt to militarily disarm a state like Iran would likely lead to WWIII.

VDH: Seek energy independence that would collapse the world price of oil, curbing petrodollar subsidies for terrorists and our own appeasement of their benefactors.

Phylo: George Bush and Dick Cheney will NEVER do ANYTHING that would hurt the profits of the big energy companies. And as long as Rush Limbaugh has any sway over the Republican party, there will never be the political will to increase CAFE standards. This shows you what the real motives of these people are. Clearly, they care more about profits then they do about the welfare of the United States.

VDH: Appreciate the history and traditions of a unique Western civilization to remind the world that we have nothing to apologize for but rather much good to offer to others.

Phylo: Yes we should appreciate the good things that Western civilization have contributed. But if we aren't honest with ourselves about how we have contributed to the problems in the Middle East we will remain ignorant about how to solve many of the problems over there. The fact that we sponsored a coup in Iran in 1953 just because British Petroleum wanted the oil is a HUGE problem for us over there. How would Americans feel if say the Chinese goverment, purely for reasons of profit, was deciding who our leader should be rather than we, the citizens of the United States? Do you think we might harbor some resentment towards the Chinese?

VDH: Finally, keep confident in a war in which our will and morale are every bit as important as our overwhelming military strength. The jihadists claim that we are weak spiritually, but our past global ideological enemies — Nazism, fascism, militarism and communism — all failed. And so will they.

Phylo: I see, we're supposed to fool ourselves into believing that we can actually achieve our goal in Iraq: a friendly government that is an ally in the war on terror? This is wishful thinking. No matter what we do now, we have to realize that whatever government emerges out of that mess is going to be more friendly to Iran than to the United States. And if George Bush would've done his homework, he would've known that. But nooooooo, he wanted to be a "war president". What an unbelievable moron.

Phylo out.

What??
Liberalgoodman - go offer your empty head to a koran believer and to a bible believer; see which one takes you up on your offer.

Joshua Fit
llroot writes:
"Yeah right, a "good relationship with the Jews" consisted of beheading 600-900 men from a nearby village and then raping their women that night. And that was done under Mo's direction...and it didn't get any better over the next thousand years."

Stupid. Ahistorical. Christians coming to the Holy Land in the Crusades were *amazed* at the toleration shown to Christians and Jews there.

Otter writes:
"gregd, we're amazed that you cannot grasp that the muslims were trying to wipe out the Jews Loooooong before Israel was formed."
Stupid. Ahistorical. Many, many Jews have lived in Moslem countries continuously since Islam's founding. If Moslems were trying to "wipe them out," how could that be? They just kept missing?

But you people do have a point. After all, isn't Islam the religion whose Holy Text defends conquering a foreign city and destroying everything in it just because it was in the way of your expansion plans?
http://www.varchive.org/ce/jericho.htm

Radical Islam
The Islamists are right; we don't have the will to fight. VDH has many sound ideas, but we won't implement them. Energy independence involves opening up ANWR and the continental shelf; impossible with Democrats in power. Stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power is also impossible; we don't have the will to stop them. Revering Western Civilization is a battle lost to multiculturalism and political correctness decades ago.

America today is too comfortable, too ignorant of historical realities, too deceived by multiculturalism and PC, too addicted to entertainment, too lazy and afraid to fight, and too oblivious to the threat we face.

Perhaps we'll wake up when we lose a few cities to nuclear weapons. In the mean time, the ignoramuses on the left are leading us straight to hell.

If you are strong enough to handle the truth, read Mark Steyn's "America Alone," and weep.

The time is NOW!
VDH: "Establish that no more autocracies in the Middle East and Asia will be allowed to get the bomb."

Phylo: Good luck. The cat is out of the bag and any attempt to militarily disarm a state like Iran would likely lead to WWIII.

I welcome world war III not as a monger, but as a grandfather that wants this crapola to end. It can end with bombs or a huge propaganda campaign done right.

To think iran can not be stopped is self defeating and self delusional. When we do bomb the known, and suspected facilities in iran, it should be for 30 days of continuous overkill. Drop enough to destroy all targets 10 times over. Total obliteration is a great message even Hitler would have gotten if done early enough.

The great thing is all of islam will get the same message. They are more than willing to die for their cause until you give them a picture of their future (and their not in it!).

The europeans (although you wouldnt know it)are really quite good at eliminating unwanted races from their midsts, not just germany, but at this rate some really scary stuff will have to happen first. That has a way of popping the testicals out of the body cavity of the western world.

Phylo's usual sophistry
Phylo thinks we should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

The problem is this: If the US had, in fact, attacked Saudi Arabia in 2002, Phylo would be screaming that the US should have attacked Iraq instead because Iraq had WMD's.

Whatever the US or anyone who supports the US says is wrong (according to Phylo).

Phylo is a contrarian and a provocateur. He thinks he's quite the intellectual, but his arguments consist of small and petty quibbling. Typical of socialists, he sees the right as evil tyrants out to take away his freedom, coveniently forgetting that his right to post acerbic comments about me and other conservative posters is quite secure. Yes, poor little Phylo's the "victim" here.

Come on, Phylo, flame me. That's your raison d'etre. Show off how superior you are to the rest of the posters. Let the world know that PHYLO is the smartest guy in the world, not those morons and idiots like DavidMac.

hooray for politicians!
A quote from Phylo:

"VDH: Seek energy independence that would collapse the world price of oil, curbing petrodollar subsidies for terrorists and our own appeasement of their benefactors.

Phylo: George Bush and Dick Cheney will NEVER do ANYTHING that would hurt the profits of the big energy companies. And as long as Rush Limbaugh has any sway over the Republican party, there will never be the political will to increase CAFE standards. This shows you what the real motives of these people are. Clearly, they care more about profits then they do about the welfare of the United States."

A quote from Old_Blue:

"Energy independence involves opening up ANWR and the continental shelf; impossible with Democrats in power."

so, we either develop newer technologies or take advantage of our own oil resources. too bad both of these options are off the table. though, i wouldn't say some democrats aren't in the pockets of some oil companies. we have to be realists about the politicians we love and abhor: at their very roots they are deal makers and opportunists. we just sit on their side when those deals and opportunities coincide with our needs and desires.

does anyone else feel as if we're on the precipice of a revolution that finally destroys a terrible political dichotomy that allows politicians to drag their feet?

my 2 cents
I have said this before and I'll say it again:

Let Them Speak for Themselves

If you want to know what is going on there go to http://WWW.MEMRI.ORG and just for starters go to anyone of the Islamist websites that they have there to connect to. These people make no secret about what they are after. They make no secret about what they want - Let Them Speak for Themselves

Difference bet. Muslims and Christians
Both Christians and Muslims are human beings, so they, like all human beings, have done good and bad things. That's just a bromide that happens to be 100% accurate.

However, one difference I have noticed - the more closely and truly a Christian tries to live according this his/her faith, the more closely they try to follow the teachings of Jesus, the kinder and more loving they usually get. Of course there are exceptions, but this seems to be the trend.

However, in my experience, the more devout a Muslim is, the more violent they seem to be. I have many Muslim friends who are secular Muslims - they drink alcohol, go around without veils, etc., and they are very nice people who get along wtih everyone. However, when Muslims start to get more devout, surprisingly, they seem to become less loving to non-Muslims, less tolerant, etc.

These are just my observations, but they seem to be borne out; the most Christian country in the West is probably the U.S., and within its borders, Muslims are allowed to build mosques, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists their temples, etc., and per capita giving by the citizens to charity is very high. The most Islamic country in terms of shari'ia law is probably Saudi Arabia, and within that country, Christians are not even allowed to wear a cross, much less build a church, and except for funding of terror, I haven't heard much about their charity.

liberalgoodman
I read through all of Joshua the other day. What does a _History_ of something that occured ***4000 years ago*** have to to with today?

Liberalgoodman if you don't have a point
spare the rest of us. I would ask but it's obvious that no point is proffered or intended.

It's best if one pays attention to the article and comments on that.

Paltry Western Humanities
As a professor in the Humanities for nearly 25 years, my measured view is that the greatest boon to the Islamic fascists is that Western theologians and professors in the Humanities in general have substituted psycho-social pseudo science for authenitic moral character. Until professors in the Humanities recognize their part in the cultural conflict between Islamic fascism and Western liberalism we will lose. We must have the courage to reject bad moralities. Yes, colleagues, the Islamists who want to kill you ARE wrong. They are NOT justified. Even more frightening, YOU are right to embrace the Western Liberal ideals that allow you to pay your mortgage. So long as Chavez and Ahmadinajad can hold up the rancid books of the American cultural icons of life-negating pessimism we have no chance to rise above the death loving ideology of radical Islam.

If you who are not professors have any doubt, just recall the post-colonial victimology you were required to swallow in your required English Lit or Western Culture or Religious Studies or God forbid Womens Studies undergrad classes. Humanities professors, phonies pretending to be social scientists, have betrayed the fundamental Beauty of Western Moral Character.

response to David Mac
Your post is nothing but a personal attack sprinkled with a few wild false assumptions about me. Skip the psuedo psychology and address my arguments on their merits directly. If you actually did this, you might realize that I don't fit neatly into your cliche'd understanding of "leftists".

Phylo out.

Gene Callahan - stupid and ahistorical
Stupid? Ahistorical? Where are you getting your brain washed? Have you heard of the Hebron massacres of the 1920s? Muslims have been kiling Jews for hundreds of years now. Yes, Jews and Muslims lived in peace during various spots in history, like in Spain, but most of Islam's history is ruthless conquering, pillaging, and then forced conversions. Apparently you forgot that all of North Africa was a Latin, then Christian civilization. Apparently you forgot that Turkey was once Byzantine. Apparently you forgot that Muslims started their crusade of pillage and forced conversions hundreds of years before the Christians in Europe started their crusades in response.

But really, the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard is that Muslims are tolerant of Jews:
"And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"

Learn your history. Jews and Christians were massacred by the thousands by Muslims in North Africa and the MIddle East. Just like Christians and Jews are being massacred today.

tolerance
if by tolerant you mean that as an infidel you are forced to pay a tax to protect you and your family from being killed, then yes, Islam is inherently tolerant

Just a Little History
The Koran commands Muslims to convert non-Muslims to Islam by force: Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms - blackmail), then leave their way free. Allah is oft forgiving, most merciful. (Surat At-Taubah 9:5) The Koran commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims until they exterminate all other religions and make Islam the only religion in the world:

Remember, the god of the Koran and the God of the Bible are two distinct and separate personages. The Koran is mostly one long, harsh, belligerent diatribe against infidels. According to the Koran any person who does not accept the Muslim god's supposed revelations to Mohammed (i.e. the "unbeliever") will be damned by the Muslim god to endless suffering in a fiery hell. It is a constantly recurring theme appearing on nearly every page. And the Muslim god does not only punish the "unbeliever" but he takes great delight in watching him writhe in anguish. Allah, the god of the Koran, is a god of vengeance and spite. The Koran is a book filled with venom --- venom against all non-Muslims but especially against Jews and Christians.

If you believe the Koran and the Hadith, it is a contradiction in terms to say that you are a "moderate" Muslim...there is no such thing. You are either a terrorist, or you approve of terrorism, or you abet and applaud terrorism. You cannot negotiate with a terrorist...it displays weakness to him/her, and you are considered defeated even before any discussion begins...take note of those arrogant. egotistical and traitorous members of Congress who are making unauthorized trips to the middle east. Wake Up America!

For boxermk
In the absence of non-muslims (and some cases, even without such absence--see below), Muslims have no hesitancy in massacring their own! This was proven in 1971's Operation Searchlight where Pakistan Army soldiers (mostly Punjabi and Mohajir Sunnis, but some Shias including then dictator Yahya Khan) massacred Bengali Muslims (who accounted for 2.3 million of the 3.5 million victims; Bangladesh at independence was 12% Hindu, now declined to 9.5%--still significant minority).

Right-Wing Anti-History
That's all fine-n-dandy, but where did the "failed political systems", "morally bankrupt ideologies", and "cruel dictators" come from? As a historian, Hanson should know that he can't just take French & British colonialism, or American meddling since WW II, out of the equation, as he tries to do. Neither Nasser nor Hamas rose to power in a vaccuum, and one can't understand present-day Iran if one ignores the Shah's pro-American puppet regime.

Phylo
I pointed out that your post suggested that the US attack Saudi Arabia and that the US wasn't brave enough (no "guts").

I mentioned your contrarianism because that's your mind set. Whatever course the US embarks on, you take the opposite point of view.

Of course, you don't think the US has the "guts" because of oil. Yet according to you and your ilk, the US attacked Iraq because of oil. We could have gotten more oil if we'd attacked Saudi Arabia. How can you justify you statement that the US didn't have the "guts" to attack the Saudis if we had the "guts" to attack Iraq?

While I try to stay away from personal attacks, I'll make an exception in your case. You have continually called me names ("moron" and "idiot"). I'm not a tea-sipping liberal who runs from a fight. My personal attacks are justified by your previous behavior. You are a liberal puke who gets off by your pseudo-intellectual posts and specious criticism regarding others' posts. The rule of law in this country protects fools like you, Phylo, so you shouldn't be so critical of the USA.

Thank you, Boxermk
After all, all it takes is Research, which you and I and I am sure others here, Have done.

liberalelite (glad you admit your sense of superority there) - 'neither nasser nor hamas rose to power in a vaccuum'... you got that right!

They have their roots in movements that began before the US even got CLOSE to becoming a power in the world.

Study the origins of the Muslim Brotherhood for starters. And at 80 years running that's just one of the more recent ones.

Otter and Liberalgoodman
Otter,

I do not believe that's a very good point. Why does the life of Mohammed matter if it occurred 1400 (or so?) years ago?

The life of Mohammed does not matter because of its proximity in time to our lives, but because of some other substantive detail that many posters have commented on before.

Liberalgoodman,

You miss the entire point of Joshua and the Walls of Jericho. Here's a link:

http://www.childrensermons.com/sermons/jericho.htm

It is true that God wanted the heathens to be routed and their city destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites, however, this is not the salient part of the story.

Joshua's story is salient to the Judeo-Christian faith because it shows the merit of putting your faith in God. God gave Joshua a directive that was contrary to reason. Joshua was a military leader that struggled with his faith on whether to trust God or not. God multiplied this struggle by having him commit the same non-military act six times before anything happened. Each time the horns blasted -- and nothing happened -- faith was put to the test. They were in effect giving their enemies more times to create defenses against them. They let their enemies know they were there.

Thus, the story of Joshua is much more a parable than a directive. The directive was the device used to test faith and not to destroy Jericho. If we assume god to be almighty, there is no reason he would not have put down Jericho like he put down Sodom and Gommorah. Thus, it was not God telling Joshua to do his bidding, but to bring into existence circumstances (the fall of Jericho and the idol worshipers) what would happen even if Joshua refused.

The story also has salience because it was particular rather than broad. This was a battle against heathens that god directed. It was not the case that god gave Joshua license to kill all heathens, but only those that would serve to realize Joshua's faith. (Sure, you could say that, in particular, god told Mohammed to kill all heathens in a global war... but if you assume that you prove my point.)

I would also like to note the thematic importance of repetition to tests of faith in the bible. Job lost everything over time, Jesus had to spend 40, not 1 day and night in the desert.

Islam, on the other hand, as proselytized by Mohammed, gives the directive to human beings to do god's bidding on earth as if he were not capable of doing so himself. Thus we see broad statements like "kill all unbelievers." Once you refrain from giving yourself boundaries, make your interpretation of orders from god those that count, instead of being a strict divine servant, you allow yourself to do those things that are not necessarily the will of your god. There are no provisos in Islam.

Based on the foregoing, it's easy to say that Muslims do not take a directive from god as a trial of faith, but to do god's work on earth, which I believe Jews and Christians in today's world think should belong to god. And, yes, I say this in anticipation of someone saying, "well, then why do conservative christians... blah blah blah?" I'm not a conservative christian, so I can't answer for them. But I do know a justification for sin when I see one.

liberalgoodman
In case you did not know it, the Serbs and Croats are ethnic groups, not religious sects. Just a little nfo so you understand why your post was so insipid.

BTW, I really enjoy reading VDH here. His articles are well researched, well reasoned, and a joy to read. I look forward to reading more in the future.

We are at War with Islam
As I understand it, We are at War Against Terror. Congress approved the War on Terror and therefore we are officially at war with “IT.”

Terror to this point has been called Radical Islam. Our President said, “We are not at war with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion.”

He was wrong on both items. We are at war with Islam and Islam IS NOT a peaceful religion. It never was and never will be.

Since we are at war with Terror, we should act as if we are in a “War For Our Lives.” Because that is exactly what we are in. Now how do we conduct this war against an undefined enemy?

First, we need to pass a Law that makes it a Felony to promote, support or aid in any way, any organization, code or document that advocates the violent overthrow of the American Government or our Constitution.

That would eliminate the Koran or the believers and activist propagating its teachings. Those individuals who practice or aid such ideology should be put into an Internment Camp or Prison until the War Against Terror is ended.

Next, we MUST stop additional Muslims form coming into our Country until the War Against Terror is ended. Moreover, we must find out who is here and what they are doing. Make it a Felony to be in the USA illegally and DEMAND that every Law Enforcement Officer arrest any Illegal Alien found within our Borders. (If this requires a National Identity Card, then so be it.)

Next, Cut off all Federal Funds to all Sanctuary Cities. They are openly saying they will not support or enforce this Nation’s Laws so they should be cut off from all benefits.

Anyone who thinks this is Radical, needs to once again look at pictures of the Twin Towers coming down. Does anyone doubt if these people could have set off Nuclear Bomb in Manhattan, that would have not hesitated to do so? Of course they would. Anything they can do to kill as many Americans and Jews as they can, that is what they will do.

WE ARE AT WAR. AND WE ARE AT WAR WITH ISLAM.

Next, we must become ENERGY INDEPENDENT. We must produce our own fuel and stop purchasing Arab Islamic Oil and enriching our Enemy. That is another article for another time, but it must be done.

butch: war on terror
i dont believe the war on terror will ever end. it's as liberally utopian to say that we could ever get everyone to produce for collective consumption as it is to say that we can get everyone everywhere to like us, or at least not hate us enough to bomb, kill or maim us.

it's also like saying that we can get rid of crime entirely.

terror, like crime, is not an event or series of events. it is a phenomenon of human relationships, and therefore as long as humans exist so too does terror.

i think thinking of the war on terror as a war with some end in sight will mask what our true virtues should be: resolve and vigilance. the only way to prevent bad things is to assume that they are bound to happen. if ever you hear of the end of the war on terror, be suspicious.

For otter
Yes, BoxerMK has done excellent research on the Koran. My "research" of Operation Searchlight includes actually knowing Banglas who survived it (some of whom actually fled to refugee camps in West Bengal, Assam and Meghalaya).

Which is a lot more than LiberalElite will ever be able to claim!

Butch, it's not the "War on Terror"
It's the "War Against Western Civilization." We're the defenders here, but have gone on the offensive. (Temporarily, it seems.)

As for, "Why now?" Various groups and individuals have noticed and loss of resolve in America, and they can count on the worldwide media as well as a major US political party to take their side, at least part of the way.

As for specific timing, Saddam had plans to bring Arabia under his rule, as a governmental ruler. Osama bin Laden also had some plans of his own, and sought to rule as a religious leader. If Osama were to wait until Saddam had conquered his neighbours, and had nuclear weapons, then Saddam would not have answered to Osama bin Laden, nor would he have recognized him as some sort of pan-Arabic authority.

So, Osama struck the US, seeking to solidify his own authority. He did not count on the US coming in full Roman style, leaving him to run like a cockroach to hide in a hole.

Drewrush, that's a good analogy
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we didn't declare a "War on Aviation."

We declared war on Japan, and we held nothing back, knowing that America continuing as America was hanging in the balance.

We face the same risk today, but it's harder to see because it's a lot more distant. When the threat gets close enough to recognize, it might not be too late to win, but it will be a lot more expensive in terms of lives.

For reference, WWII cost the lives of 50 million people. We can see in Iraq the difficulty in rooting out a domestic population of terrorists, and have seen the disruption that a single sniper can do here in the US.

(Of course, when it gets to that point Liberals won't thank Bush for his forsight and vision in joining the fight so "early" but will likely blame him for starting it all.)

The first thousand years?
From very early on, Mohammed recognized that the Jews were a group he had to deal with. He couldn't simply irradicate them as he had his Arab rivals. So, he worked out a deal with them, getting tribute in exchange for peace. For the thousand years that some people think the Muslims were at peace with the Jews, what was actually going on was that the Jews paid huge, disabling tribute to the Muslims in exchange for remaining alive. The same is true for Christians who lived in Muslim-controlled areas.

This is all available through history. The Muslims have never been "at peace" with anyone they couldn't get tribute from.

Islamofascism.
What do you expect from the extremists of a seventh century death cult?

liberalgoodman
Do you not read the posts in which people counter your nonsense?

The Catholic/Protestant designations in Northern Ireland are POLITICAL designations with some religious background from about 400 years ago. The Protestants are actually English/Scotch overlords who were brought to Ireland to enslave, control and displace the indigenous population. Catholics are the indigenous population, who until the 1960s did not even have a voice in Parliment and still cannot get decent jobs, good housing or adequate public schooling for their children. While there may be people involved in the conflict who hold religious beliefs, the fight long ago quit being about religion and became about ethnic background and politics.

The Croats and Serbs were former communists, at best nominal Christians (meaning they enter a Serbian Orthodox church for a funeral or wedding. They had controlled the land under communism and wanted it back, so they started killing off Muslims who had taken over the land after Yugoslavia fell apart. At least on the part of the former communists, there was no religious faith involved. You ignore the fact that many actual Christians were killed by the Croats and Serbs during that time for much the same reason the Muslims were killed. Of course, that never made the MSM because it wouldn't meet their little world fantasy about horrible, violent Christians

Hitler was a Teutonic pagan who removed the Bibles from the Christian churches and required they be replaced with Mein Kampf, but I'm sure you would still insist that it was the "Christians" killing the Jews.

The Crusades were started because the Patriarch of Constantinople had a Muslim army at the gates of his city and he needed help from the West to repel it. Southern Italy and Spain had already fallen to the Muslims and large portions of the European population were being sold off into slavery in Africa. Again, there may have been individuals involved in the 1st and 2nd Crusades who held personal religious faith, but for the most part it was two cultures battling it out for control of land.

Just because some journalist or less-than-careful historian labels one group "Christian" and another group something else does not necessarily mean religious faith has anything to do with the conflict. Unless the basic tenets of a religion demand conquest of their neighbors (or the world, as is the case with the Koran) you cannot accuse religion as being a motivation. People may say it is, but we all know from the claims of Hitler that what he said and what he actually believed are two extremely different things.

And, by the way, Joshua and Jericho? Check out what happened to those people who were on the Hebrews' side -- Rahab and her family. This was a specific war for a specific reason -- reclaiming land that had previously belonged to the Hebrews. Mercy was afforded to those who understood that.

Maybe you should actually read something other than Wikipedia before you make claims you can't support.

aurorawatcher
i dont know if you read my earlier comment about the book of joshua, but your mentioning Rahab adds credence to my contention that unlike the stories of Mohammed, which serve to convince people that they are the one's who do god's work and not god himself, the story of joshua is primarily a parable of faith.

here's some quotes from this website:

http://www.asis.com/~stag/heroes/rahab.html

"Now we can get back to [Joshua's] spies. When the king's men arrived at Rahab's inn, they were told that the men they were after had left just before dark. Rahab was taking a big chance telling that lie, because in those days, when you did something bad against the king, they killed not only you, but all your family. But Rahab was pretty smart. She hid the spies on top of her house. She had some bundles of dried flax up there and it was impossible to see the men hiding under them. After the spies came down, Rahab told them to return her favor when the army came into the city. The spies told her that if she would hang a scarlet cord out her window, her house and all that were in it would be spared."

"Try to put yourself in Rahab's place if she knew in advance that the walls were going to fall down. It sure seems funny now to hear the spies promise to Rahab. "Well Rahab, we're going to march around the city and shout at the walls. Then those walls are going to fall down. But don't you worry. If you hang this scarlet cord out the window, your house won't fall down with the walls." Pretty silly, huh?"

"You know, God likes to make sure that when we act in trust on His word, that there's no mistaking His work from ours. That's why Faithing, as I like to call it, sometimes looks very silly by our everyday standards. Rahab's trusting action couldn't possibly have saved her from dying if God hadn't helped, but she did the two things necessary in Faithing: she believed and she acted. Rahab took the word of the spies as backed up by God, and second, she hung the red cord out the window."

"It's almost as though God wanted to teach us that Faithing can be done by anyone and He will keep His Word. Rahab wasn't one of the Israelites. She didn't worship God, and try to keep His laws. In fact, she was a pretty bad sinner in the eyes of most of the people I know."

i include the last quote because it shows that the judeo-christian tradition has tolerance for those of us that act contrary to the tenets of that ethic. however, islam requires death or conversion by force.

for tanabear
let's say one day you spilled a glass of milk. would you sit there and chastise yourself endlessly for spilling the milk while it goes bad, rotten and begins to create a stink because you left it on the floor?

or do you grab a mop, realize you screwed up and go forward with something productive.

my point is, that you created a quagmire does not mean you're morally obligated to leave it be and fester. in fact you are obligated to do your best to make it better.

im sure you'll contend that in trying to accomplish the latter you make things worse. my response is that even if we did nothing the situation would not get better. we would still be the "great satan" in the eyes of muslims. there is no pr scheme liberals can come up with to ameliorate the relationship between the arab world and the west. it is a fantasy to think we can all just put an end to the problems by sitting at talking. because where you might bring a pen and pad to the table, the muslim will be wearing a bomb strapped to his chest. he cares not that you are either left or right, but that you are an american and an infidel.

Tanabear - learn your history.
The British never conquered Palestine and Syria. The Ottoman Empire sided with the Germans in World War I. The Brits and the French defeated them. And the British were never Zionist, they were actually quite anti-Jewish and pro-Arab during their Occupation of Palestine. That's right, Palestine. And did you know that during that time, before Israel, many of the main Palestinian newspapers were Jewish, and the Palestinian Symphony was almost completely Jewish, because Jews and Christians lived in Palestine just as long, if not much longer, than Muslims. THe grand Mufti of Jerusalem was simply raised in a racist ideology that had a lot in common with Hitler's ideology - that's why he sided with the Nazis.

a lil mo
Actuallly, the Brits were a little Zionist at the beginniing of their Occupation of Palestine, but through Arab intimidation and with the lure of Oil, they quickly learned their lesson and swiftly became pro-Arab.

radical Islam
I think the time is fast approaching when we (the West) might need to consider showing the Islamic world what a true and effective genocide looks like. A mushroom cloud over 10-12 major Arab and Persian cities might be sufficient to gain their attention. I have no doubts they will do it to/for us as soon as they have the means.

ISLAMISM
Victor Davis

What if you are figuratively dead wrong about calling it radical Islam?

What if Islam per se is our enemy? That means all Muslims are our Enemy.

What if you believe Moderate Muslims when they say their objective is to enact Sharia Law in the entire world.?

What would you do now?

I am convinced you are in denial not unlike the majority of Americans that a religion can be an ISM like Nazism, Communism or Marxism.

If you read the Koran and listened to how the IMAMS/Mullahs[the people in the know supposedly] interpret it you will see they are interpreting it quite literally and preaching its violence to the Moderate Muslims as such and the Moderates better accept it or this cult will threaten to kill them which is also explicit in the Koran.

There can be no Moderate Muslim that criticizes his brother Muslim or
authority.

Radical Islam is a misnomer. Its just plain o'l Islam and they are my neighbor.

Just business as usual
There is nothing different about now except that Islamic violence is getting more headlines since 9/11 and the war in Iraq, but it has been the same thing for many years now. There might be a little spike in Islamic violence but it has been going on steadily for at least the past forty years and in reality since Mohamed with high and low points of violence but not getting the headlines because of other things in the news like the Cold War and the Viet Nam war.

Butch Hits The Nail On The Head!
When the President quits trying to convince us that
Islam is a 'Peaceful' religion maybe we can get down
to brass tacks. All of Islam is out to convert the world. Just as much as was Hitler's armies. Islam is a religious army. Maybe it should be called, "The Army of Islam". All muslims are in this Army of Islam There are NO "moderate" muslims. All Muslims
are working to convert the world to Islam. The 'Moderates', or the
ones called moderate, are the backbone of the army.
The 'moderates' are the supply clerks, the disbursing
clerks and financiers, the intelligence network, the spies and
logistics experts. It is the 'moderates' who emigrate to another country and set up shop and funnel both financial backing and intelligence back to the 'radicals'. The 'Islamofacists' or the fanatics or whatever you choose to call them, are the shock troops. They are the spearhead of the Army of Islam. They are the Storm Troopers of the Army of Islam. Understand. We are at war with a religion. We are at war with a religion that is an army. We are at war with the Army of Islam.
And that army is one billion strong.

Besides which,
How can you "Negotiate" with a person whose religion tells him that it is morally and legally right for him to lie to you, to cheat on you and to steal from you and ultimately to kill you if you do not have the same religion?

a solution to energy independence
find some of that hannukah olive oil and we can burn it, i believe, though i havent done the calculations in my lab yet, for at least 8x the normal period of time it usually would

Tanabear
everything you said only serves to prove my point: islam has been at this a Long time, and the US and the West are just its latest excuse. You and yours take the US out of the picture and they'll just move on to blame the next bunch- which will be you and yours.

Then what will you do?

There truly are TWO Islams
There are plenty of places in the Koran that seem to justify the murder and rape of non-Muslims, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all Muslims are murderers and rapists.

For proof, just look at Iran. The government and a certain segment of the population are virulently anti-U.S., and the Iranian government is one of the world's chief sponsors of terrorism. But the bulk of the population is actually pro-Western and pro-U.S. In fact, the average Iranian may be more kindly disposed to America than the average citizen of any other Muslim country. Clearly there is a divide between radical Muslims and peaceful Muslims.

The problem is that the radicals have been growing in number, and their willingness to achieve their ends through violence gives them power all out of proportion to their numbers.

Loftus?
I fail to see why it matters if an article by John Loftus does not 100% agree with this independent article by VDH......

VDH forgot the media
One element that VDH seems to ignore is the globalization of the media--especially entertainment.

The Muslim world has long suffered from a degree of poverty almost unimaginable to those of us in the post-industrial west. For most of Islam's history, these people saw little of the relative opulence of even ordinary life in the West.

But now VCRs and DVD players, satellite TV, the Internet and all the rest make movies, TV shows and other images from the U.S. and Europe easily available to Muslims in the Middle East and southern Asia. They've been able to compare their own meager standards of living to what we enjoy in the West. This comparison has helped them to see how poor, how oppressed, how unimportant they truly are. The massive wealth accumulated by the oil sheiks since the 1970s hasn't helped.

In this environment, it has been easy for a relative handful of people to make themselves powerful by telling these disaffected Muslims that their miserable condition is the fault of outside forces--particularly the United States and the Jews. It's the same method that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis used: they preyed on the misery caused by Germany's bankruptcy, gave them a common enemy to hate (again, the Jews) and seized control not just of the levers of political power, but of the hearts and minds of many ordinary Germans.

Nazism managed to tap into the latent feelings of superiority that dwell deep in the German character, just as radical imams tap into the 7th-century tenets of violent conquest in the Koran.

We have to fight radical Islam on the battlefield, but we won't be able to defeat it there, any more than one can beat up a cloud of smoke. Final victory means getting the "Muslim street" to see that their wretched condition isn't caused by the U.S. or Israel, but by political conditions in their own countries.

Building a free and prosperous civil society in Iraq would be an important step in that direction. Our enemies realize this, which is why fundamentalist terrorist groups (e.g. Al Qaida) and terrorist states (esp. Syria and Iran) are working so hard to keep us from succeeding.

Otter:
You can't have a serious discussion of Radical Islam or anything else in the ME without talking about Israel.
Notice I didn't say I blame Israel for any of this; it's so interwound with things in the ME you need to bring it into the discussion.

MStone
You should be writing George Bush's speeches. Then if you could teach him how to deliver it, that would increase his popularity and increase the people's opinion of the War Effort.

Good Job.

Multi-culturalism a cause of radicalism
Multi-culturalism a cause of radicalism:
We have a paradox: to criticize Western culture may indeed be a good thing, but rampant criticism of the West has encouraged anti-Western zealots, which is a bad thing.

Phylo correctly points out that honesty and good faith require us to recognize, regret and (when appropriate) apologize for those actions in Western and Judeo-Christian cultural history which we find abhorrent. To be able to do that makes us stronger -- or so our refined Western thinking would tell us. Just ask King David, or Augustine, or Voltaire, or the founding fathers of the U.S. of A.

Perhaps other cultures teach the virtues of self-criticism: do Marx and Lenin and Mao? does Mohammed? perhaps the Sufis? Do you know, Phylo?

I don't recall many cultures that promote self-criticism and a cultural agenda at the same time: perhaps the Roman empire's acceptance of Eastern religions was a political compromise, though it allowed no cultural, political criticism, just a variety of cultural practices, and acceptance came at a price that the Jews were unwilling to pay; Jesus traced a solution ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's) then that is the ancestor of the Jeffersonian rule of thumb authorizing the "separation of church and state" that we still wrestle with.

Clearly, however, the so-called 'tolerance' of Jews, Christians and non-believers under Dhimmitude in the great Caliphate doesn't come close to a multi-cultural utopia, and the Saudis and Sudanese and Pakistanis and Iranian mullahs won't even try to be nice to those who differ. Am I correct, Phylo?

Self-criticism is healthy for me personally, and it's what energizes the democratic principle of freedom of speech, as we see in the vigorous exchange of points and reasons here in this blog--and in the internet phenomenon of blogging itself (a public, bulletin-board version of e-mail linked to a more formal, edited publication.) This re-birth of the old belles-lettres tradition gives evidence of the on-going vitality of our Western culture.

But try convincing Wahhabist terrorists or the president of Iran that they should practice self-doubt, quietism, and pacifism. The internet may be an information resource and communication avenue--and a propaganda tool--but there's no 'public debate' within al Qaeda, and Iran restricts the internet for political purposes. The totalitarian impulse tied to radical action in service of fanatical ideology does not favor self-criticism.

This recalcitrance of radical Islam is a problem for any naive multi-culturalist in the West. But the self-contradictions of multi-culturalism make the necessary self-criticism difficult for those who profess belief in the innumerable and debilitating faults of the West (especially its religions), and in the manifold but frequently unspecific and unhistorical virtues of any non-Western culture.

Multi-culturalism preaches that the source of evil in the world is the evil white man, whose high priests presided over the sacrifice of innocent natives for the bad gods of gold, oil, land, money or (ugh) the egos or hierarchy or idols of religion. The "noble savages" of America would never have tortured settlers if it hadn't been for the white man. Surely no Indians would wantonly kill buffalo; that's the cowboy's fault. If only the Europeans would stop colonizing Africa, the Africans would self-determine their fate, and there would be "peace on earth" and "joy to the world"--whoops!

History and Africans disagree. No wonder the multi-culturally sensitive critics do not like Mel Gibson's "Apocolypto," which shows us in bloody detail what trying to live in the Mayan culture must have been like--just before the 'evil' white man came!

Racism and slavery likewise are an interesting case today. Where is there "anti-black" racism and the cultural endorsement of slavery now? Try Arab Muslim Sudan, where the killings in the southern Christians and animists have given way (thanks to a peace treaty) to killings of western 'black' Muslims. What do you suppose the Koran and radical mullahs say about racism, murder of pagans, and slavery?

Contrast that with the much more complicated history of racism and slavery in the West. Did you know that slavery disappeared in the so-called Dark Ages of Europe, precisely as Christianity came to dominate the culture? You don't hear that in a 'multi-cultural' history class.

Further, we have been inculturated with racist terminology today, and this affects how we understand history and the news. In medieval times, 'Moors' were strangers, African or Arab, not a lesser race: that happened officially, 'scientifically,' with the zoological classification of homo sapiens into sub-species in the 18th century. Shaking that conceptual baggage will take more than the multi-cult anti-westernism.

When slavery made its comeback in Europe, with the rise of Machiavellian politics and colonial empires, the market for slaves was African and Arab. The revolt against slavery here was religious and Western, of course, but that process of cultural self-criticism (perhaps Hegel's dialectic) does not fit multi-cult's anti-West bias.

What has arisen in multi-cult culture instead is a doctrine of neo-racism. The biologically determined 'racial' categories either are retained or else are softened into socially conventional 'ethnic' categories. What is changed is the value put on the designated races: so it's not just that "black is good," but white is bad. Hispanic must be good, gringo bad. Etc.

So what's the default multi-cult position on the conflict between poor 3rd world Muslims (who happen to have a lot of oil money) and rich, arrogant Westerners? Good vs evil, of course. All that's required is a blind eye toward the faults of one and the good qualities of the other.

Any lingering doubts about the relative value of Wahhabism et al., in contrast to that of Western Judeo-Christian culture? See what Shefali writes: Thursday, December, 21, 2006 11:35 AM
""Difference bet. Muslims and Christians
Both Christians and Muslims are human beings, so they, like all human beings, have done good and bad things. That's just a bromide that happens to be 100% accurate.

However, one difference I have noticed - the more closely and truly a Christian tries to live according this his/her faith, the more closely they try to follow the teachings of Jesus, the kinder and more loving they usually get. Of course there are exceptions, but this seems to be the trend.

However, in my experience, the more devout a Muslim is, the more violent they seem to be. I have many Muslim friends who are secular Muslims - they drink alcohol, go around without veils, etc., and they are very nice people who get along wtih everyone. However, when Muslims start to get more devout, surprisingly, they seem to become less loving to non-Muslims, less tolerant, etc.

These are just my observations, but they seem to be borne out; the most Christian country in the West is probably the U.S., and within its borders, Muslims are allowed to build mosques, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists their temples, etc., and per capita giving by the citizens to charity is very high. The most Islamic country in terms of shari'ia law is probably Saudi Arabia, and within that country, Christians are not even allowed to wear a cross, much less build a church, and except for funding of terror, I haven't heard much about their charity.
""

VDH did a good job with this one.
Why now?
Thank the Liberal Peaceniks for inviting modern war.
And we can expect them to continue the same mistakes over & over.
Claiming to want peace they procede to reduce the strength of our military, cut funding for military equipage and appease despotic dictators with generous foreign aid they pocket or use to fund terrorists.
Liberals can't seem to grasp the FACT that every time American military might wanes, war breaks out someplace.
The Anti-War Liberals are actually RESPONSIBLE for most wars because they remove the deterrants to war. The wannabe dogooders are actually causing all the suffering and death and they are too blind to see it and WILL do it again if able.
Our Military was deliberately weakened. That's why now!

Mstone
Absolutely correct. A relative handful of muslims willing to kill anyone in disagreement is setting the agenda for the whole muslim world. Muslims are no diferent than Americans. They are wishful thinkers who have no stomache for participating in dangerous situations. Like Americans are doing today, they rationalize, kid themselves that if they only stay out of the violence, they will come through ok. This is what the "good" Germans thought in 1938. They paid with their refusal to stand up to evil will millions of their lives, just as the Brits and French did, except the Brits and French never had to deal with the 8th AF and Thousand plane Lancaster raids. Now its going to be one side or the other in the jihadi war. Thousands, if not millions, will die to reach a resolution. Whichever side, the West or islam provides the majority of the deaths, there will be no true innocents. These people will be the 99 out of 100 who stood back and watched, hoping not to be involved, as those 4 horsemen rode out of the warclouds and across the land.

I hope we win this one....
I think that the US has to consider imposing a slowly increasing (over time)gasoline tax (on imported oil). That is, introduce it slowly over time ($0.1 - the first year, $0.2 - the second year) so as to move people towards alternative energy sources (ethanol, domestic oil supplies, plug-in hybrids, nuclear power, etc).
We will not become energy independent without internalizing the cost of our dependence on the middle east (into the price we pay at the pump).
If people are concerned about excessive taxation, tie it to a slowly decreasing income tax rate.

response to David Mac
David Mac: "I pointed out that your post suggested that the US attack Saudi Arabia and that the US wasn't brave enough (no "guts")."

Phylo: I never suggested attacking Saudi Arabia. My point was that we need to confront them and strongly encourage them to open up their society. By "strongly encourage", I mean threaten to dramatically reduce the amount of oil we buy from them.

David Mac: I mentioned your contrarianism because that's your mind set. Whatever course the US embarks on, you take the opposite point of view.

Phylo: Wrong, I supported going after the Taliban and Bin Laden. I just think we should have finished the job. I don't hate everything America does, I hate the stupid, greedy, thoughtless things that we do.

David Mac: Of course, you don't think the US has the "guts" because of oil. Yet according to you and your ilk, the US attacked Iraq because of oil. We could have gotten more oil if we'd attacked Saudi Arabia. How can you justify you statement that the US didn't have the "guts" to attack the Saudis if we had the "guts" to attack Iraq?

Phylo: If you think that oil had nothing to do with this sad misadventure than you're a naive fool. Even Medved admits that oil was a factor. By the way, I don't believe we went there to steal their oil, but I do believe we are there to try to ensure a steady supply at a good price.

The "guts" I'm talking about are the kind of guts it would take George Bush and Dick Cheney to confront the Saudi Royal Family about their oppression of their people and their financing the Wahabi Madrasahs." This would take guts because it would upset a lot of their political supporters and it would mean running the risk that the Saudis might shut off our oil supply.

And my point is that Bush and Cheney will never do that because the only reason they are in office is to protect the interests of the very people he would have to confont (the Saudis and the Oil people in this country).

I hope that helps you to understand my positions a little more clearly because your assumptions about me are wildly off base. I think you've been taking Rush Limbaugh a little too seriously. For the record, nearly everything that man says about the left is a lie.

Phylo out.

DavidMac
You can't reason with someone who has such a twisted view of America.
I don't think he even is an American.
He is definately anti-American, probably one of thos foreigners who intrude on TH from time to time.

In any case, you waste patience trying to reason with someone who lacks intellect.

US tactic in Iraq is a spent cartridge

After the fall of Ottoman empire, Muslims had to leave Europe and they reverted back to their capitals; repenting. It was a colossal set back. At this stage some new reforming Islamic movements emerged in Muslim world and came up with new forms of self blame repentance dispose; to seek forgiveness from God and travel into ones inner self to purify the maligned soul; and regain the lost glory of Muslim Empire.

This self pity and self blame repentance induced a state of hibernation in the masses. Organisations like Akhwan-e- muslamoun of Egypt were at the top. All worldly interests were abandoned. Arts, advance education and research and development work in modern technology were thrown away. Muslim masses went into self deprivation and inhalation. Society drowned into disillusion and chaos. No education, arts, no technology and a dearth of jobs and capital made the common man impoverished and destitute. Where as other world after WWII had started advancing leaps and bounds.

European colonial forces after in the wake of WWII were forced to withdraw and fall back home; in Europe. Muslim World in Middle East also got some relief; that they had found them self freed and independent; but the badly demarked boundaries made and corrupted economies left; once a cohesive and united societies split; headed by brutal despot dictators as rulers, imposed upon them. The colonial land divisions resulted into many land disputes and left many tribes and countries as; arch enemies of each other.

We all know that anarchy, chaos and mismanagement spread in third world countries are the aftermath of colonial era. The colonial rulers were out in these countries to subjugate and oppress the simple naïve, defenceless masses. The perpetrators; sucked away all their viable energies and forcibly squeezed and took away the assets.

Soon after in fifties, when the discovery of oil and its connected industry was about to get its foot hold in Middle East, the former colonial powers now with the new names and new flags as; Western powers started showing eager ness to come back. Oil is the life line of western industrial world and they started moving in to exploit the impoverished and creeping in rags economies of disillusioned Islamic world; in order to grab their energy resources.

Even the donkey cart driver of Middle East is well aware of it that the old colonial powers under their new denominations, once again want to revisit them to subjugate them and take away their oil resources and leave them bare.

This time a scheme of fallacy and deception is very skilfully devised by the Neocons. In accordance with the plan; all the oil pit owners; countries of the area have either been declared ‘axis of evil’ or ‘terrorists’. On the divisive false pretexts a war of inhalation with the name; ‘Global war on terror’ is on. Three years back Iraq was invaded on the same false pretext. After Israel; As per plan, the first anchorage in Iraq is being established in Iraq. Although, in Iraq, the first phase of US exploitation is currently proving very precarious; but that has to be neutralised at any cost. Victory in Iraq to secure US mega base (anchorage) near Baghdad is must; otherwise the master Us-Neocons plan may go awry.

But now the native of Middle east; predominantly Muslims are awakened. We all have witnessed how a rag-tag force, Hezbollah in Lebanon, forced the invincible mighty US backed Israel mighty army to bog down just on border for over a month and Hezbollah resilience made them retreat bleeding.

West must avoid approaching them with the old tricks of divide and rule and imposing or installing some collaborator governments or despot dictators upon them. These devises are the spent cartridges and tactics involved is bound to fail miserably.
--------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none.

C.R.
At least you are suggesting a plan to solve the problem. That is good.

However, while I believe that your plan is better than just setting around crying about it, I would like to suggest a different idea.

First, we do not have time to do it slowly. I wish we did but I fear we do not. I think we are 5 years late getting started now but we need to start now.

We need our auto's to operate on diesel fuel made from our own coal. We have that available NOW. Our Auto's need to be Diesel/Electric Hybrids getting 50 MPG or better and encourage every individual to conserve.

Then produce Oil from ALL our KNOWN RESOURCES. Gulf of Mexico, (now before China and Cuba drain them dry). West Coast off shore and East Coast and ANWR too. Also produce shale form Colorado.

When we don't depend on Arab Muslim Oil and/or Venezuelan Oil, and when we can produce our own needs; then we can be INDEPENDENT enough to control Immigration without the fear of hurting the feelings of our "Dealer" who supplies our "Drug of Choice" - - - OIL. Until then we are afraid to offend them and therefore slaves to them.

History of Islam - parts they leave out
What I find fascinating about Islam is its' focus on the Crusades. Yes, certainly that was a bloody episode and a stick in their eye. But they ignore five crucial events.

First. The Byzantine-Sanassid War. Without the two great powers of western Asia bloodying themselves into pulp Islam could not have risen. Its stories of glorious warriors are based on circumstance. They attacked at the right time, that is all. There was no act of Providence or moments of supreme generalship by Abu Bakr and others. They just faced two powers that had nothing with which to defend themselves.

Second. Spain. It was the Moors who attack Europe and Christiandom first during the reign of Charlemagne. That they were beaten back there and eventually forced out of Spain is hardly mentioned in Arab-Islamic history. That these events provoked the Europeans and led directly to the Crusades is also largely ignored.

Third. The Islamic renaissance. It is a myth of a glorious time and brilliant scholarship. The Arabs took most of their ideas from the Greeks, while the others they cribbed from India. In fact, both the so-called Arabic Numerals and Algebra come from the latter source. The Arabs, and many Western scholars, point to this time as an age of wonders. Yes, it may well have been, but Islam and Arabs were not at all responsible for it -- save for keeping some of the works of the Classical scholars alive.

Fourth. Byzantium again. The brutality of these people is revealed by the end of the siege of that great city (yes, I will admit that I trace a distant ancestry to one line of its imperial family and their satellite-state of Trezobind). After taking the city, the Moslem conquerors killed all of the men in the most brutal ways possible, and then proceded to rape all of the women and children. To commemorate that day Islam chose the Crescent as its symbol, as that was the moon's shape on that night.

Fifth. The Mongols (my ancestors, as well). They so severely traumatized the Islamic world that Moslems do not remember it. To begin with, when the King of Kwarizim (sp?) despoiled a caravan sent by Temunjin (Ghengis Khan), the great Khan began the war that nearly destroyed the Arab world and ended the Crusades. He had that king's head boiled in gold for the man's greed. Then the Sultan/Imam of Damascus -- the equivalent of Islam's pope at the time -- threatened Mongol armies with the Wrath of Allah, they put that man in a sack and had their horses stomp him to death. No man has, since that time, assumed the mantle of the Supreme Leader of Islam, though Bin Laden seems to be trying.

It is these and other similar incidents that the Islamic world cannot come to terms with, never mind what it does today. To paraphrase Santayana (sp?), they will be doomed to repeat their history and drag us into the bloody mess along with them. We certainly should not ignore their past or present history, nor forget what they (or any fanatics, for that matter) are capable of.

GREGDN
Gregdn, you're fixated on Israel. Israel has a right to exist just like any other country.......get used to it.

BUTCH
RIGHT ON!

Khokar
It's hard to imagine a more distorted view of history than the one Khokar presents. Unfortunately, it's probably representative of what many Muslims currently believe.

Khokar, Muslims INVADED Europe. They were driven out by the indiginous Europeans long before the breakup of the Ottoman empire, which didn't come about until the early 20th Century.

The period of European colonial management of the Middle East was fairly brief--from the end of World War I to the end of World War II--and it bears mentioning that it was the Europeans (actually, the British) who freed the various Arab states from domination by the Turks.

As for the West's use of oil from the Middle East, you seem to forget that we BUY the oil. Have you checked the price of oil lately? Almost unimaginable wealth is flowing into Persia and the Arab world today, and it's coming from Western pockets. If you don't feel this wealth is being distributed equitably, you need to talk to the tribal sheikhs who own the oil fields. It's not the West's fault.

As for "conquer"ing the Middle East, the West really couldn't care less how the countries there run their own affairs, so long as Israel is safe and the trade in oil is not impeded. We liberated Kuwait in 1991 partly to protect the flow of oil, and partly at the request of the legitimate rulers of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

And if Osama bin Laden had left America alone, we would never have gone back to Iraq.

fredo1 BRAVO!
You did a great job on that one.

Spiritual War--
Since, as posted, many of us are convinced that we are at war, and as stated several times, a spiritual war, I would like to comment as follows--
The Muslims have their holy book, the Koran, and
we as Christians have our Holy Book, the Bible.
Is it too much of a stretch to conclude that the information in these two books have absolutly nothing basicly in common. I am quite aware of the on-going discord among believers in the Bible
and the differences that causes separation amongst us. However, for the sake of focus and the necessity of being consistent, let's say, that more that not, we are together.
The many prophecies in the Old and New testaments
that have already been fulfilled and are relevant
to us as believers today, give voice to our position and security and the future. Soooo---
If for what-ever-reason I am not familiar with the information, and my understanding is limited as to the written Word, I find myself at a great disadvantage when the test comes. If I am named as a believer, and as a student, I should have a working-knowledge of the text book. (Of course the greatest advantage is--to know the Author of the text and have His guidance in my daily life.)
THE POINT---
What do I know about spiritual war-fare? How would I recognize it? Is it collective or is it
singular in nature? What is the source, and who is the leader? What is the goal and objectives
of such a war? Do I have a choice whether to be a participant or not? (Are these questions relevant to the world I live in?)
Am I as dedicated to my belief system as the Muslims are to theirs? Would I die for it?
I need to think about these things---big time!!

atheocracy helped Islamofascism arise
McGrath, Alister. 2004. _The Twilight of Atheism:
The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World_
(USA: Doubleday), 306pp. On 276:
The rise of militant Islam in Afghanistan was the direct
outcome of the Soviet invasion of that nation in 1979,
and its clumsy attempts to support an atheist regime. As
Karen Armstrong has repeatedly pointed out in her
_Battle for God_ (2000), the best way to encourage the
rise of religious fundamentalism is to try and impose a
secular agenda on people who want to get on with their
religious lives. The great secularist attempt to control
religion by confining it to a purely private space has
failed. More than that; it has backfired by causing a
reaction against precisely those goals it hoped to
achieve.

////////////////////
Beslan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409041200.1d223c3b%40posting.google.com

WHY RADICAL ISLAM? IGNORANCE.

Radical Islam would not have an opportunity to spread its infection if it were not for the ignorant and poor.

Education, if any, is limited to males only. Those people (leaders of the packs) are scared to death to educate women. Those leaders know that an educated female is a real and true threat to their perceived superiority.

That is why the Taliban recently killed five people in Afghanistan, including two female teachers. The very idea of a female teaching anything makes the pack leaders tremble in their boots.

The Taliban's new Rule No. 24, according to an Associated Press story on 12/10/06, "forbids anyone to work as a teacher 'under the current puppet regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels.' One rule later, No. 25, says teachers who ignore Taliban warnings will be killed."

Is it any wonder education is limited only to the few, and those few males only? The radical Islamists want people who are ignorant enough to believe everything they are told by their leaders.

It would seem it is our job as Americans some way to see that a view of the world exists outside the myopia of the poor and ignorant and hopeless and uneducated.

fredo 1..Only one problem..
Trying to follow the bit about negotiating with evil, where evil always wins. Does islam win, or does John Kerry win? Which is the greater evil. Liberals who kill the unborn, or islam who kill infidels? I mean, in God's Eyes, who's worse?

Hollywood helps extremist Islam spread
Do you think Hollywood assists in helping extremist Islamic ideas to
take root in the Middle East?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1161179978.675544.189930%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

a gem of an essay:

2 December 2005
Under God or Under Darwin?
Intelligent Design could be a bridge between civilizations.
by Mustafa Akyol
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/akyol200512020813.asp

Radical Islam?
If an Islamist isn't radical, by the words of the most infamous epileptic in the history of the world - Mohamed - they're an infidel.

What else is there to do?
When you've outlawed everything that doesn't meet with radical religious beliefs, what more is there to do, then just to kill to feel alive. Your taught to hate since day one and the only thing that grows with you is your hatred of Jews and Americans. You sit day in and day out thinking of ways to cause as much death and destruction as possible. The only way, is the Islamic way because no other options are open to Islamic beliefs or tolerated by radical Muslims who carry out their own form of Islamic justice by beheading their critics. It's a never ending crop of radical Muslims who comes of age thinking it's time for Islamic justice and Islamic rule. There's no outcry from the Muslim community condemning the actions of the radical Muslims. History has shown, whenever the numbers are right in whatever country Muslims occupy, it's time for Islamic justice and Islamic rule. If the radical Muslims thought the conditions weren't right for such death and destruction, they too would have stayed underground with their hateful religious teachings. It's only because of the tolerance they see around the world in trying to appease them, that they do so much killings.

Synthesizer quotes:
...the best way to encourage the rise of religious fundamentalism is to try and impose a secular agenda on people who want to get on with their religious lives. The great secularist attempt to control
religion by confining it to a purely private space has failed."

If this is true then the liberals/socialists need to get off the secular wagon.


Request Apology for Terrorists Attacks??

Consider the probable circulation improvements the MSM would enjoy if they reported balanced news attempting to write perspectives which could be quoted unrevised in 100 years as an accurate representation of these times.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - United States leadership in the War Against Radical Islam was reinforced by Robert Gates during his Secretary of Defense swearing in ceremony on December 18th 2006. In a 6 minute speech Gates acknowledged the publics desire to bring home Americas sons and daughters but cautioned a military loss in Iraq would be a calamity including decades of negative effects for the country. A trip to Iraq for consultation with ground commanders is among many planned SOD activities focused on development of a forward WARI strategy. Far left anti-war sources were dismayed believing Republican election losses in November 2006 confirmed public support for the exit Iraq at any cost strategy while supporters remained silent observing the public calm which supports a measured approach to the war strategy revision.

The above is a refreshing improvement, now answer this:

Was protest and request for apology adequate for 9/11, for World Trade I, for Embassy Bombing, for Cole, for Lebanon Marine Barracks Bombing, for . . . . .



Follow the money
Pogue_Mahone writes "Loftus? I fail to see why it matters if an article by John Loftus does not 100% agree with this independent article by VDH......"

Simple. Because not only do Loftus & VDH not agree 100%, but they totally disagree on the causes. This is important becacause if we are going to win this thing, we need to do 2 things. 1. Deal with the symptoms (whatever it takes) so we are safe in the short term. But 2. long term we need to know what caused it. If it's the Koran we deal with that. If it's western meddling we deal with that. If it's oil we deal with that. But it would seem likely to me that there is no 1 simple cause of this, but a number of causes. Don't buy simplistic theories. The simplistic theory everyone seems to be exclusively focusing on is 'Islam is the problem'. For me that might be 1 of 50 variables involved.

Now I don't know what caused it (fanatical Islam). So I read about it from all sorts of sources: Spencer, VDH, Loftus etc & make up my own mind. They all write convincingly. And if I see glaring contradictions, that makes me want to read more.

I'm not saying Loftus' views are necessarily 100% spot on. But I find it hard to believe he's way off the mark either. And for me VDH disappointingly does not answer the question he poses at the start, Why radical Islam & why now?, very lucidly at all. It's fluffy & vague. Here are VDH's 5 answers, ready?

1. "radical Islam is....a natural culmination of a century's worth of failed political systems."

2. "its current appeal is not hard to figure out....it's not a foreign movement, but locally grown",

3. it's anti-"modernist and globalist message resonates in stagnant, impoverished Muslim countries."

4. "They sense a new hesitation in the West."

5. "they have also waged a brilliant propaganda war".

Interestingly, while VDH has many supportive posters here, none (that I can see) seem to echo any of VDHs 5, but offer the following, or variations of it:

6. Islam is the problem. (not even VDH gives that one) (note well that I am not suggesting Islam does not have problems, but remember VDHs question: why now?).

Someone tell me that VDHs 5 are not ridiculously vague. Who can honestly say when they read that they went "oh, now I understand!"

Here's Loftus in a nutshell: we aren't really interested in catching Al-Q & thereby halting terrorism (we'll do enough to keep them at bay & out of our back yard), even if that terrorism is directed at us, but certainly not if that terrorism does not affect us. To properly hunt down Al-Q would implicate Saudi Arabia who are funding Al-Q to fight elsewhere & thereby stay out of S Arabia. We don't want to upset the Saudis because that might joepardise the flow of oil to us & lose us a valuable partner & influence in Middle-East geopolitics.

That all sounds more logical to me than any of the 6 above.

Here's my own personal view: given Saudi & US are very rich players & have a tendency to hire & pay off under covert deals, terrorists figure, these people make good bosses - they pay well & are easy to bribe. We'll create problems & they'll just pay us off. They've done it in the past, they will do it again. I think the same goes for the Iranian & NKorean regimes, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah etc etc.

I think there is no big difference between the mafia & Al-Q etc. What do all people want? Money & power. I think terrorism is a very lucrative business, especially for those at the top. The foot soldiers on the other hand in all outfits in all times are pawns & get used & screwed (especially Muslim foot-soldiers!). They are blind because they are barraged with propaganda. Unfortunatley I think the same goes for our footsoldiers.

I know this will sound like heresy to more than a few Townhall readers.

Tom
I believe you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Islamism. You view this problem through "Western eyes". Much of the Islamic world despises materialism. That is one reason it is so hostile to Western influences.

Bin Laden has, or had, many millions of dollars yet he lives like a pauper in a cave. He even lived that way with the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, well before he became a major target.

Bin Laden and other true believers view money only as a tool to further their ideology. It is the ideology that drives them, not any quest for materialism, or sense that terrorism is a business. He would have no use for flat-panel high definition television, unless it can be used to spread the word of Allah.

What a silly man, huh.

I do agree with you on VDH.

I reject VDH's contention that Western totalitarian systems such as communism and fascism were instrumental in the rise of socalled radical Islam.

In my opinion, radical Islam is nothing more than traditional Islam undergoing a rebirth after lying dormant for a number of decades following the demise of the Ottoman Empire. It is merely returning to what it always was.

Since Mohammad, its history has been that of conquest and forced conversion, from the middle east through much of Indian subcontinent and into Europe. That is its nature.

frigglesnitz
If your view is that poverty, ignorance, and oppression account for the appeal of radical Islam, then presumably you would endorse G.W. Bush's crusade to "democratize" the middle east, beginning with Iraq(to serve as a model for others to emulate).

I cannot state that G.W. Bush's approach to this probem has met with any success, at least in the short term.. Indeed, rather than muslim masses in Iraq coalesing around our Western notions of tolerance and pluralism, we see a bloodfest, where ancient antagonisms between sects have been unleashed, and where old scores are being settled.

The 9/11 hijackers did not have backgrounds in poverty. Most were middleclass, and had skills which would allow them to make comfortable livings. What drove them was rage at us, and the damaging effects our culture was having on their view of the purity of Islam.

I don't disagree with you that more education would probably have a benign effect upon the muslim masses.

We can see today that student protests against Ahmadinejad are occurring in Iran, and that his party has lost municipal elections to the reformers and moderates. But, I think even the moderates would side with the regime if they perceived U.S. policy was contemplating an attack on Iran's nuclear program.

Radical Muslims
Muslims are always fond of telling us that only about 10% of Muslims are radical extremists. Given the fact that there are over a billion Muslims in the world, I take great comfort in knowing that only 100 million want to kill me so they can go to paradise on the cheap.

frigglesnitz's thoughts
Few commentators mention the anti-intellectualism and misogyny of contemporary Islam. Frigglesnitz has made a valuable contribution.

Crushing free thought & inquiry and consigning the distaff side of humanity to irrelevance seem like serious weaknesses. It seems Islamists are continuously shooting themselves in the foot -- angry at modern cultures, seething at repeated humiliations, yet committed to backwardness. It seems like an illiterate running around Manhattan in a loincloth and complaining because he can't get a job or be accepted in Fifth Avenue society. Even Crocodile Dundee wore practical boots and spoke with wit and sagacity.

Although Islam is culturally weak and politically chaotic, perhaps it's not sufficient to prevent militant Islam from ushering in a new Dark Age. The Goths were inferior to the Romans in most those respects, too, but they managed to topple the classical world and march humanity backwards for a thousand years.

I've read that in some circles an Islamic "scholar" is someone who spends seven years memorizing the entire text of the Koran. Is there any equivalent for that in the West? Does a Shakespearean scholar memorize the Bard's Complete Works to the exclusion of learning anything else? If one did, would his outlook be broad enough to contribute anything of note in math, chemistry or music?

Communism, a semi-Western foolosophy, was a bit like that perhaps. Memorizing and parroting the slogans of economic ignoramuses like Marx & Mao prolonged poverty in half the world for nearly a century.

I don't know if average Muslims are basically peaceful or not, but I do feel that basic human emotions obtain no matter how virulent their indoctrination. Could it be that a big part of Islam's grudge against the West is sour grapes?

They invented (or popularized) algebra a thousand years ago, but haven't contributed much to the advancement of civilization recently. They've figured out how to use cell phones, the internet and jet planes against us in order to get their own fanatics into Heaven, but inveterate anti-intellectualism is apt to be a handicap for some time to come.

Yo drewrush
When you use the term "conservative" to describe one who says they are christian, it is a complement to them, but should be a slap to those who describe themselves as christian, but are not "conservative". Using the term "conservative christian" to describe one who has committed their lives to follow Christ is redundant. If a person calls him/herself a christian, they are saying they follow the teachings of Christ (with the help of the Holy Spirit) which are explicitly explained throughout the gospels. Without getting into serious exegesis, Jesus admonishes several of his churches in Revelation, who have swerved off course, and particularly in Laodecia whom he calls "lukewarm". He clearly doesn't appreciate "believers" who are lukewarm and choose to stay that way. Throughout our history with Him, God has always expected us to be decisive and to be committed.

Greatest Threat
I believe that the greatest threat to the United States of America since 1776 is the Radical Islam movements! Convert to Islam and accept Allah or die is their bottom line. This very well may lead to the mark of the beast mentioned in the Bible. Think about it before you laugh.

Shakespeare versus the Prophet
Perhaps I am a cultural imperalist, but one would get through life quite effectively by not only memorizing Shakespeare, but understanding the depth and significance of the Bard's plays. He is for all time, eternal.

It is sacrelige to place the Koran in the same category as Shakespeare.

Indeed, one of the reasons muslims have difficulty coping with the world is precisely due to their reliance upon the Koran. It restricts and narrows their world, keeping them in the 7th century.

Anti Christs
Muslims do not accept Christ as a prophet or as the Son of God.

Guess who is the false prophet! Better read Daniel,in the Bible. I will not quote from it because it is time for you to get familiar with the Bible.

Our father has "stirred up the Medes" because we have forgotten Him. That is in Isiah.

There is no such thing as a peaceful Muslim. READ THE KORAN". It is so simple to read that a third grader could understand it.

The people who wrote the Bible understood "Precession". Do you? They knew the earth was round long before Christ. It states "He sits on the CIRCLE of the earth" "The earth stands on nothing"
We discovered snitation in the 18th century. They knew about it at least 1400BC.

hey GWB - wake up
Radical Islam has been fighting a war of aggression since the days of Muhammed, and this is just the latest phase. And by the way, the Islamic fundamentalists declared war on us in 1979 while Jimmy Carter was president. And they haven't just declared war on the United States, but on almost every other country in the West, regardless of their role in the Middle East. France and Spain and Germany and Norway are facing a greater threat than America from this common enemy. They've also declared war on Hindus in India and Buddhists in Thailand.
Oh, and we've given as much welfare, if not more, to the Palestinians, whose leaders just take it and put it in a bank in Paris, while they encourage families to blow themselves up at weddings and at school buses. Also, America gives 2 billion dollars to in aid to Egypt every year. Tell me, do you also believe in an Egyptian conspiracy? Wake up.

Yo GWB
Did your sense of history begin with your birth? Before you put ignorance in writing, you should at least to make an attempt at getting reading credible history on your subject. Intelligent dissent is always appreciated by those truly seeking truth. If you are too lazy to read, wait for the specials on Islam by the History Channel (hardly a right wing supporter) They refute everything you wrote in your missive.

and by the way
no one believes that it's possible for the Islamists to achieve their goals (well, except in France), but that's not the question. The question is how much violence, chaos, and death they will cause trying to do so.
And Timothy McVeigh? Liberals stopped using that one a couple years ago - atleast read up on your liberal propoganda.

boxermk and ralph
"And by the way, the Islamic fundamentalists declared war on us in 1979 while Jimmy Carter was president."

Why because they rejected our puppet dictator?

"Oh, and we've given as much welfare, if not more, to the Palestinians"

That is an absolute lie. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

Ralph:
Great, you can form sentances, how about disproving my statements instead of saying nothing substantive. I don't need the History Channel to tell me how to think, I can read government documents and read about US intervention in the Middle East without having somebody arrange a few facts here and there and leaving many important ommissions.



GWB
you said the following:

"If you don't even consier these factors you have your head way up your @ss."

"And finally if you retards really think that the "Islamofascists", "

"achieve you are seriously mentally insane."

Nice talk, guy. Must you be so obnoxious when writing your posts besides being anti-semitic?


Oh here we go Peppermint...
Not wanting to be involved in the Arab Israeli conflict makes me Anti-Semitic? I never thought Alan Dershowitz would use a username like Peppermint. Typicial likudnut comeback, they don't want the facts to be discussed, so instead of proving me wrong, which they can't, they call me anti-semitic. You support the policy of welfare to Israel, why can't you defend it like an adult.


Ralph:
Did they talk about this on the history channel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

GWB
If you spoke like an adult I probably would respond to your arguments. But, since you talk like a potty mouth 3 year old, I don't care to argue anything with you.

GWB - you're so angry!
The Shah of Iran wasn't our puppet dictator, he was a pro-western dictator. Iran was a secular, highly civilized country, and the Shah was quite unpopular. But Iran was far from being an Islamic Republic. Iran is the perfect example of the reemergence of Radical Islam. And the greatest victims of Radical Islam are in the Middle East. And the Palestinians get hundreds of millions aid from Europe, and hundred of millions of dollars from the United States. What don't I know?
Now what about the Arabs? They don't allow Palestinians citizenships, they don't give aid to Palestinian families, they only support Jihadist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. They've purposefully kept the Palestinians in miserable refugee camps (run by the U.N and the Arabs) for the past forty years, not because they haven't had many oppurtinities to establish a Palestinian state, because they've been offered this many times, but because they need these refugees to be as miserable as possible for PR purposes and to breed their next generation of Martyrs.
Please inform me, how come when clinton forced Israel to offer up 90 percent of the disputed territories to the Palestinians during the Oslo peace process, why did Yassir Arafat reject this offer and then proceed to launch the second intifada in which over 1500 israeli civilians died from hundreds of terrorist bombings just since 2000?

oh - and wikipedia
Wikipedia? Is that where you get your info? No wonder why this is so easy.

On McVeigh
"And Timothy McVeigh? Liberals stopped using that one a couple years ago - atleast read up on your liberal propoganda."

First, I am a conservative. As far as McVeigh is concerned, the large bombing of OKC Building was horrible and a travesty. I also think that housing a daycare facility in a building that houses law enforcement is horrible as well. Too many innocent people died in that disgusting attack. However, I believe if he would have done a more surgical attacks, targeting Lon Horiuchi, Janet Reno, etc. it would have been completely justified. If government officials trample the rights in the constitution, especially if it leads to death or prison, and if there is a coverup afterwards, violence against those individuals involved in the conspiracy is totally justified. It was the basis of the Declaration of Independance.

and also
Rejecting a puppet dicator is not an act of War.
However, storming the embassy and holding American diplomats hostage for over a year and shouting "Death to America" - "Allah Akhbar" - that's a declaration of war

I repeat boxermk and peppermint
Boxermk:

Show me how the US gives equal if not more money to the Palestinians, that was your original charge.

Also you bashed Wiki, fine, does that mean that you don't believe Operation AJAX existed or was that the best comeback you could think of? Do you deny that we overthrew a democratically elected head of state and installed a dictator, and that the dictator was so unpopular that the Fundamentalists overthrew him. Who has a right to pick their leaders, the people of that sovereign country or the USA?

I do agree with you that the Arab states have not been angels either, they use the Palestinian conflict for PR purposes. This isn't good versus evil. It is something that we should not be involved in, what good has come of our intervention in it? Whose interests are we serving?

Peppermint:

Do you deny that we give the Israelis at least three billion in welfare a year, that they lie about their nuclear status so the amount of aid remains "legal", and that there have numerous instances of Israeli espionage? Just answer the questions or don't waste the memory on Townhall's servers.

Boxermk
If Iran grew into a new Persion Empire and they wanted Iranian companies to buy up US toll roads but the US Government was charging taxes that they deemed too high, so they overthrew our President and installed a despotic dictator, how would you feel towards them?


make up your mind
operation AJAX happenned and we give 3 billion of dollars a year in welfare to Israel. there.
You still have yet to win just one of your arguments.
Your point about us intervening is completely valid and I don't disagree with you, atleast not entirely, on that.
But Radical Islam is raging a war against us, and as much as you'd like to think if only we weren't supporting Israel, they would just leave us alone. Well, tell that to London, to Madrid, to Russia, to India, to Thailand, to the black Christians and animists in Africa, even to Argentina. An Islamist will come up with a grievance in each case, but why don't you just face it?
We Are At War With Radical Islam. If Iran nukes Israel tomorrow, then that will just leave more energy for them to fight Europe and America. Face it.

Iran
Georgy, Islamists don't hate us because of what we did fifty years ago. They just hate.

and you just don't get it
Iran was a secular society. Radical Islam took over Iran because Radical Islam wanted to take over Iran. Did America invent the Islamic revolution?

Boxermk, The only reason...
the radicals can recruit people to fight the US is because we are over there, because we give tons of welfare and UN support to Israel. If we would just stay neutral, they would not have the popular support to come "over here". Then the onus would be on the Arab countries to either deliver a solution in the Arab/Israeli conflict or tone down their rhetoric since they lose their scapegoat. Then the onus would be on Israel to come to a peaceful settlement because they have 3 billion dollars less to buy bombs and lobbyists, plus their trusty security council veto would be replaced by an abstain.

At least now we agree on most of the facts, we just come to different conclusions. I am at least happy with that, we cannot convince each other either way but as long as you know about AJAX, Israeli Aid, Israeli Espionage, Israeli Lobbies and their influence and still think we are currently conducting foreign policy on behalf of the AMERICAN people, there is nothing I can do. I do disagree however.

Regarding Iran and the "War on Terror", here is a little tidbit, it's Oped but has been an interesting topic of debate lately:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22leverett.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Also
As far as Israel influence, it is strong in the Neocon contingent. They are pro radical Likud, OPEC busters.

The old school crowd, Bush I, Baker, etc. are bought and payed for by the Saudis. They like the OPEC status quo.

Bush seems to be trying to balance both sides, but it appears the the Neocons are winning because they have congress.

GWB & "WE"
GWB Please stop using the term "WE" as though you are an American.
You lack sufficient first hand knowledge to comment on America BUT;
You have actual first hand knowledge of ENGLAND.
Tell us about the TV cameras & microphones that spy on ALL English citizens and record private conversations while keeping track of where you are.
Us Americans get real upset if they scan overseas calls to known terrorists.

Tell us how your anti-weapons laws disarm honest citizens so they are helpless victims and crime is so out of control that police only respond to the more serious crimes.
We have fools here in America who want to duplicate English weapons laws.
Now that you have outlawed pointed knives, what will you outlaw next?
When will you outlaw sticks & rocks?

MyOpine
I am American not British. You do like to create your own premises so you can ramble about whatever you want, but please stick to the topics.

I agree that GB is a surveillance society and to accept that is foolish. I would like to know your evidence that Bush is only spying on terrorists. That is why I'd like judicial oversight on wiretaps, so at least someone can make sure he is watching terrorists. How many terrorist convictions have there been because of the Patriot Act? How many drugs, weapons, financial convictions have there been because the Patriot? Do you think the new laws and breaking of other laws are to combat terrorism, or to make our government as intrusive as GB? I think your opinion and the statistics may clash.

I agree that Bush was a fascist for saying that he would sign the assault weapons ban if congress passed it. Gun control is a horrible infringement on the Constution and the Second Amendment is necessary for a free society.

George W Bush
I see that we have the same facts. It's just one of us is blinded by a certain little fixation.
You just can't get past Israel.

RADICAL ISLAM IS ON THE MOVE. That's the point of this article. It's been on the move for the past thirty years, but the reasons for that, which Islamists themselves vocally provide, go back thousands of years.
And muslim terrorism didn't decrease during the 1990s when Clinton pressured Israel to give away land, and handed Kosovo over to Al-Qaeda. It actually increased. You forgot 9/11 happened 8 months into your namesakes presidency. Less than a decade after CNN and BBC fell for Radical Albanian propoganda about "ethnic cleansing" of muslims. After the U.N. the E.U, Clinton and Albright decided to bomb innocent Serbian civilian populations who didn't even have anything to do with Slobodan Milosevic. They even went so far as to brand the war as Christians ethnically cleansing muslims, when the reality was Ethnic serbs who were communist for decades defending their country from the onslaught of Albanian Radicals. The result? There's a nice little Afghanastan in the middle of Southeastern Europe. Over 150 medieval churches have been destroyed in Kosovo since 2000 (http://emperor.vwh.net/churcpics/list.htm). That tells you who lives there now. This spells disaster for that continent. That's why i'm certainly not for intervention, and don't think Iraq was a very bright idea. But that doesn't change the reality of this larger war.

Let me get this formula straight:
pressure Israel to give away land to a Jihadist death cult, bomb innocent populations involved in a civil war in favor of the the side supported by Al Qaeda, and 8 months later..... A huge terror attack on the same buildings that were attacked in 1993 by the same people. Or do you think Israel was behind that one too?

My opologies to GWB
Guess I had you in the wrong bag.
You often come across like one of the Anti-American English far Left.

The War?
This war started before America existed.
We have been dragged into it. How or why is of no consequence now. You can believe whatever pleases you.
Right now we have 3 options.
#1 We can WIN!
#2 We can DIE!
#3 We can submit to slavery.

My choice is #1

Boxermk
I don't think Israel did 9/11, they had spies who were supposedly following the hijackers as reported by Foxnews' Carl Cameron(just google it up). And just to re-clarify, I don't want to pressure Israel into anything, they would be on their own, free to invade, retreat or do whatever is in their own interests, just hands off our government. My view could possibly give Israel more leeway because we will not be a broker, we will not be involved.

I see unwarranted bias and support for Israel as a cause of many of these problems. The radical fundamentalists may control a percentage of the muslim population, but they don't have very influential lobbies that control our government and we then give them money, some of which goes right back to their lobby efforts. That is an invasion, a lobby that powerful who works in the interest of a foreign country. Like it or not Israeli influence has caused repression of discussion of the topic in most medias and in congress. I am sorry, that is more dangerous than terrorists, especially when I feel that the expulsion of these foreign lobbies, just as an expulsion of the lobbies that may have been involved in the dubai port deal, and Saudi interest groups will ultimately help eliminate the terrorist problem.

So no I did not forget about 9/11 and all those other talking points, I am looking at the best way to eliminate terrorism in the most efficient manner, meaning without wasting unnecessary blood and treasure(especially with how our government spends). I feel the political route will help restore our government to serve the people in foreign policy and eliminate the causes of the terrorist's ideology.

Hey I agree that our involvement in Bosnia was wrong. The people in the Bush Administration disagree. PNAC wrote a letter of support for Clinton's interventions.

MyOpine
I am a Paleo/Libertarian Conservative. I will probably be more radically conservative on fiscal matters. Radical conservatives have foreign policy beliefs that are somewhat similar to radical liberals, except for foreign aid, military spending, and the UN. It is easy to make that misconception. Obviously my libertarian beliefs would mean that I think that Bush should be impeached for violations of the fourth amendment, I even go farther to say he should be tried for treason. It's not partisan, I think Clinton should have been tried for treason with the Waco coverup. It's very easy to confuse me with Libs on foreign policy.

Also, while I don't think Bush was behind 9/11. The commission was an out and out coverup of what our response to that day was, that can be proved.

What suppression?
JImmy Carter was just paraded around on every TV show possible and his book is the first thing you see walking into a Barnes & Noble in New York. You have academics publishing anti-israel treatises every single day, which i'm sure you've read. Compare this with the cartoon and pope controversy. There are many jews who don't support Israel, and many of them are powerful. The media right now is more anti-Israel than you think. The Saudi Funded propoganda Jihad is much more powerful than todays Israeli lobby. They are giving our universities millions and millions of dollars. THey are paying our politicians millions and millions and dollars, and they are the ones intimidating the western media.

The difference?
Jews don't randomly blow people up. That's why it's so easy to blame them for everything.

I'm not saying we don't have valid reasons for distancing ourselves from Israel or changing our ME policy. I'm no fan of the Bush Administration either. But history shows that our problems will get worse if we do what you want to do.

look at what's going on
I probably share a lot of your Libertarian beliefs, but somehow you've allowed all the suspicion and hatred and rage that should be directed at our current enemies to be redirected by the media onto George Bush.
The man is incompetent. But spying on Saudi Monetary movements is an absolute necessity at this time and has already saved hundreds of American lives.
The level of denial about what we face is amazing.
Guess what? France didn't go into Iraq, France HATES Israel, and yet the French authorities just uncovered three Islamist terrorist plots in Paris for the Holiday season. How come their problems aren't going away? They've already distanced themselves completely from Israel, which is your plan.

mearsheimer
The Mearsheimer report is comming in book form for the 2008 elections. It will be getting tons of coverage, just you wait. And It's not my fault Jew-haters aren't intellectual geniouses.

What war are we fighting for them? If the Jews really do control our gov't, why the Hell would they go into Iraq? Have you looked at a map? I thought Jews were supposed to be smart.

Guess what, the Arabs/Palestinians get tons of munitions from the Russians and the Chinese, and they do use these munitions against Israel. It's just not reported as much.

I guess some people see a war against Radical Islam, and some people don't. But I think you have to agree that we're not as retarded and insane as you first thought, huh?

just remember
While the Israel Lobby makes you quiver in your boots, the minute Little Satan goes, and there is a probably chance of that happening, the enemy will move onto Great Satan and everything in between. And then you'll wish we sold more bombs to the zionists.

you're just plain obsessed
You're just obsessed. I get it, those poor Arabs, the Zionist Entity and America have been ruining their lives for the past 1000 years. By the way I don't think Iran is going to Nuke Israel. I do think that the Arabs are planning on destroying it, and probably not too far into the future. Like I said, when they do, our problems with them will get worse, not better.

i enjoyed this by the way
I never thought I'd enjoy a conversation with someone named George W Bush so much

makes sense but
There's no such thing as neutral and non intervention, unless you take the Swedish model which means letting one country march over your land to attack your neighbor or the Swiss model which is even worse. Isolationism is more suicidal and dangerous than anything the Bush admin has done in this globalized world. People who don't want to participate in globalization don't have to. But they'll be irrelevant pretty soon.

I share your feelings about out troops though. It's horrible and Iraq is a mess. That was one intervention that was not called for. But Islamist militias aren't killing Africans and Buddhists and Europeans because of their Israel Lobbies.

There is no such thing as neutral or non intervention to people who view all non-muslims as the house of war.

ANd by the way, I wouldn't be so sure about Iran not being suicidal. Their concept of death is much different than your concept of death, and things that seem suicidal to you make perfect sense to them.

arab states don't want instability?
Instability is how Arab states operate. If they were only interested in economics, the Arab states would be very different today. But there's one factor which makes them different from everyone else, and that's their particular combination of Arab Nationalism and Wahhabi Islam. Their logic is quite different from yours.

no i don't
I don't think Arab leaders are religious. But they are a product of a certain culture, and none of that changes the fact that Radical Islam is on the move and Radical Islam is what creates terrorists who kill Africans, Europeans, Jews, and everyone else, not Bush. I know the Saudi Royal family isn't relgious. Islamic Radicals threaten them as much as they threaten the king of Jordan and the Christians in lebanon. That's the whole piont. They want to make it all about Israel but it's really all about power.

I could tell you hate your government. But don't worry, I think things are moving your way and soon you'll be hating a different goverment which sucks a lot worse. You think things are bad now?

History will teach you.

Ha - We agree on something
Things will get worse. Atleast you still live in one of the more libertarian societies on this planet, all though who knows how long that shall last. Time will tell us everything else..

i should add
I think time will else tell you that the government forcing you to quarter troops (which hasn't even happened and probably won't) will seem like the good old days. Again, you seem more afraid of George W than the real threat today. And force is the only thing that keeps the Middle East from exploding right now. That's how things work on this planet. Force.

The North American Union is a travesty. That is for sure.

i just reread your post
You forget that the Arab states tried to destroy Israel three times already, with the full knowledge and consent of the United Nation. And they are much stronger now. They don't share your logic. They want to destroy Israel and they'll keep trying.

U.S. REAPS BENEFITS FOR AIDING ISRAEL
GWB why don't you denigrate the handouts to Egypt, the PLO, Jordan, etc? Since the U.S. cooperates with Israel on defense, intelligence, and economic matters we benefit because Israel buys 74% of U.S. goods from the 90% given to it. Israel's military serves as a powerful presence in the region in deterring terrorism and it keeps extremist forces in check in the eastern Mediterranean without the need for a single American soldier. Contrast that with the Gulf region where we have had to send troops because there is no Israeli equivilant to provide stability. Our military uses Israeli technology, including unmanned aerial vehicles, decoys to confuse enemy radar, and reactive armor on Bradley tanks to repel enemy fire. What have do we get back for our even bigger packages of aid to the Arab governments in the region? A big fat O

i just read that document you linked to
Uh just beacuse Iran and Syria are mentioned by Israelis who have ties to Bush proves..... nothing. What a lame conspiracy theory.

i meant Iraq
and your argument about who hasn't killed the Africans is funny but still... nothing.

GWB
If you "hate our government", I would suggest that you do yourself and America a favor by leaving. We do not need ungrateful anti-semitic gasbags and while you're at it, see if George Soros and Michael Moore will join you.