And Nazism had none either. Open your eyes.
A few points Luis. First, how reliable is your intelligence if you forget it's been less than a hundred years since "absolute" genocide was pursued by a world power. Your first point is nothing but shaking incredulity.
Next, your "'Islam' has no agenda" carries all the weight of "there is no left-wing media conspiracy." True enough on it's face, but critics never claimed it was a conspiracy. They claim it's a "consensus."
If there is no consensus between moslems on what the Koran commands, evidenced by cooperation with non-moslems, then you have a point. If not, you're making a distinction without difference.
Finally, the enemy has been reliably identified. Your "failed miserably" is just a smoke-screen, because you are unwilling to admit the enemy's size.
And please don't insult my intelligence by inferring something other than what we did with Germany and Japan as a corrective.
So absurd a statement that it's scary. But then again, considering your agendae, I'm not surprised.
"Islam" does indeed have an agenda -- it's spelled out in the Qu'ran (and yes I have read it myself).
For "extremist Islamic fundamentalists" substitute "believing Muslims". Yes, there are people whose official religion is Islam, who are secular in outlook. These people may be peaceful, but it's purely because they are not really Muslim. This does not mean that they (or their children) won't experience a reawakening of Islamism.
The bottom line is that Islam, itself, is incompatible with Western civilization
As is true regarding most issues, Luis, you don't have a clue about the Islamic agenda beyond some vague community college-quality sense of it.
Islam has a definite and clear agenda. It would never have survived to control the territory and souls that it presently controls or formerly controlled for more than 1000 years if it lacked a definite and clear agenda. The extent to which each Muslim identifies with and supports the agenda is an open question, but the agenda itself is very clear.
"If we look at the sources and foundations of modern ways of living, it becomes clear that the whole world is steeped in Jahiliyya (pagan ignorance of divine guidance), and all the marvellous material comforts and high-level inventions do not diminish this Ignorance. This Jahiliyya is based on rebellion against God's sovereignty on earth: It transfers to man one of the greatest attributes of God, namely sovereignty, and makes some men lords over others. It is now not in that simple and primitive form of the ancient Jahiliyya, but takes the form of claiming that the right to create values, to legislate rules of collective behavior, and to choose any way of life rests with men, without regard to what God has prescribed. The result of this rebellion against the authority of God is the oppression of His creatures...
"The Islamic civilization can take various forms in its material and organizational structure, but the principles and values on which it is based are eternal and unchangeable. These are: the worship of God alone, the foundation of human relationships on the belief in the Unity of God, the supremacy of the humanity of man over material things, the development of human values and the control of animalistic desires, respect for the family, the assumption of the vice-regency of God on earth according to His guidance and instruction, and in all affairs of this vice-regency, the rule of God's law [al-Shari'a] and the way of life prescribed by Him . . .
"In the scale of God, the true weight is the weight of faith; in God's market the only commodity in demand is the commodity of faith. The highest form of triumph is the victory of soul over matter, the victory of belief over pain, and the victory of faith over persecution."- Sayyid Qtab
I have but one belief: that my people have a right to survive in freedom. And yes, this is an absolute belief. The slightest threat to that survival is something I am willing to crush like a cockroach. And I strongly deplore your urgent campaign to persuade us otherwise. I might remind you that you are a newcomer to this land. You are here reaping the benefits of sacrifice and zealous blows to the enemies of freedom dealt by my people for more than 350 years. You urge me to restrain the frevor of my extremist position, yet every day you live out the American dream created by that very passion. We are not "peaceful" people. We are filled with wrath and brimstone. Don't expect anything else from us! If you want gentility, try the French Riviera.
Luis, I have a new name for you: Ganelon:
|During his final battle against militant Islamic hordes at Roncesvalles, traitor Ganelon delayed Charlemagne's relief force by telling the Frankish king that Roland was not blowing his horn to call for help, he was out hunting.|
Oh I know your whole frame of logic. You think that if we do end up fighting a billion people because we mishandle our diplomatic and humanistic obligation to avoid offending their religious sensibilities, then we may indeed have a global war on our hands. Might we then be up against genocidal rage? Luis, I must remind you of the Alamo. Every American patriot knows the story. And deep in our hearts we know that someday we must face a similar challenge: die for what we believe, facing down impossible odds, to make a statement. If a billion Muslims or if four billion decide they want to end our hold on freedom and kill us all, I'll simply whisper, "Remeber the Alamo."
Earlier you inferred that some group was manipulating me into concluding that Islam was a death cult, saying "You understand that which you have been led to understand by people with agendas."
I'm choosing to confront you on this thread because it is a clearly Jewish professor outlining his assessment of the Islamic threat. I can guess that you either meant that Jews were manipulating my point of view, or that Islamic extremists were cajoling me into global conflict with their religion, or both. In the second case, it is true. On 9/11, I was enticed into a global war against Islamism, that is Islamic extremism. But it is also true that I have looked to Jewish people for help in understanding the problem. I see them as my brothers in arms in the global fight for liberal democracy. Unlike Patrick Buchanan's suggestion in an article you demanded that I read, I do not see a legitimate cause in the Palestinian Intefadah. Pleas for a right of return some like so much reconquista to me. So I accept the militant Jewish assertion of an absolute right -- by fiat of force -- to hold Israel and either pacify their unruly guests or expel them, failing that. Patrick Buchanan is well known as an anti-Semite, and has on several ocasions expressed sympathy and admiration of Adolf Hitler. Example:
In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)Indeed, those who question Israel's absolute right to exist in peace -- at any cost -- ought to all be identified clearly for the anti-semites they are. Why? Because a free people has a right to exist at all cost. Likewise, America has a right to exist at all cost. And despite the softer, gentler image you see displayed in the officialdom of this nation today, we still believe that as a people.
"Islam" has no agenda, extremist Islamic fundamentalists do, the first rule of war is to identify your enemy...thus far, you're failing miserably.
On the contrary. Your argument is simple: a billion Muslim people do not hate me or wish to convert me to their devout faith; rather a small percentage of them do. As is the stated argument of my duly elected political leaders, we have no quarrel with this lion's share of the umma, or Allah's people. And to this I will say I agree. I do not have a quarrel with them directly. But what is their responsibility in the matter? Edmund Burke said that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. And I will have to say that the silence of "good" Muslims has been deafening. On the other hand, there have been a brave few who have been willing to raise a faint cry of warning to the west, such as Mansoor Ijaz. Most are too terrified to utter a sound, however.
As a nation, I agree with President Bush and Colin Powell's diplomatic stance. I am in complete agreement with their positioning of this global war on terrorism as one between the forces of good and the forces of extremism. This is exactly what my nation should be doing. I, on the other hand, am free to interpret events in the quiet of my own home. I can look out across the planet and see things in a different light. And I am not constrained by the international protocols of diplomacy when I conclude that Islam in its current form is my enemy. Will there be a "reform" that transitions this belief system toward something more humane? Why would that happen? I'll suggest an answer: it will only happen when the zealots are all dead, or when the moderates conclude that they must choose sides and reform themselves. I am free to come to this conclusion, and I have. It is a worst case scenario, but when the survival of one's people is at stake, one must consider the extreme possibilities.
Earlier you asked, Do you not agree that their goal is to initiate a world wide war between religions?"
Yes, and what of it? Luis, you cannot undeclare war that has been declared by your enemies. You can try, but as Neville Chamberlain learned, it simply does not work. You said in an earlier post:
I could parse the Old Testament, and make it appear to people who are not acquainted with Christianity, that Christians are every bit as evil and violent, but we know that we are not, so we can easily deflect the arguments. We are not versed in the Qur'an, and what we don't realize, is that those parsed bits that we read are part of a bigger story, most of them instructing Muslims to fight against anyone who wishes to suppress their practice of Islam, or to repel invaders.I simply reject this comment outright. Christianity has undergone a series of reformations. Western civilization has greatly benefited from its close ties to Judeo-Christian values. The results speak for themselves. Do not engage in cultural relativistic polemics with me. I have absolutely no use for such abnegation of my culture.
I doubt I have persuaded you one iota, Luis. By now you've had two years to ponder the implications of 9/11 and what it meant to the future of the human race. You've chosen to remain on the sidelines. That is acceptable by our laws and by our commitment to democracy. We do not want people fighting with us who can be so objective anyway. You and your family can sit back and enjoy the sacrifice of my people. We are proud to offer you this service.
What is more, I am proud to stand with Jews whom my parents' generation saved from utter annihilation by this same sort of appeasement. Neither they nor I should ever be asked to be gentle on those who promise us death, and neither should we be asked to avoid offending those who can't make up their minds -- including you.