Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An idea whose time has come? (Pat Buchanan)
Townhall.com ^ | June 23, 2006 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 06/23/2006 1:29:57 PM PDT by Frank T

In 1938, the year of Anschluss and Munich, a perceptive British Catholic looked beyond the continent over which war clouds hung and saw another cloud forming.

"It has always seemed to me ... probable," wrote Hilaire Belloc, "that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent."

Belloc was prophetic. Even as Christianity seems to be dying in Europe, Islam is rising to shake the 21st century as it did so many previous centuries.

Indeed, as one watches U.S. armed forces struggle against Sunni insurgents, Shia militias and Jihadists in Iraq, and a resurgent Taliban, all invoking Allah, Victor Hugo's words return to mind: No army is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

The idea for which our many of our adversaries fight is a compelling one. They believe there is but one God, Allah, that Muhammad is his prophet, that Islam, or submission to the Quran, is the only path to paradise and that a Godly society should be governed according to the Sharia, the law of Islam. Having tried other ways and failed, they are coming home to Islam.

What idea do we have to offer? Americans believe that freedom comports with human dignity, that only a democratic and free-market system can ensure the good life for all, as it has done in the West and is doing in Asia.

From Ataturk on, millions of Islamic peoples have embraced this Western alternative. But today, tens of millions of Muslims appear to be rejecting it, returning to their roots in a more pure Islam.

Indeed, the endurance of the Islamic faith is astonishing.

Islam survived two centuries of defeats and humiliations of the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk's abolition of the caliphate. It endured generations of Western rule. It outlasted the pro-Western monarchs in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia and Iran. Islam easily fended off communism, survived the rout of Nasserism in 1967 and has proven more enduring than the nationalism of Arafat or Saddam. Now, it is resisting the world's last superpower.

What occasioned this column was a jolting report in the June 20 Washington Times, by James Brandon, alerting us to a new front.

"Arrests Spark Fear of Armed Islamist Takeover" headlined the story about the arrest, since May, of 500 militants who had allegedly plotted the overthrow of the king of Morocco and establishment of an Islamic state that would sever all ties to the infidel West -- to end the poverty and corruption they blame on the West.

The arrests raised fears that Al Adl wa al Ihsane, or Justice and Charity, was preparing to take up arms to fulfill the predictions of the group's mystics that the monarchy would fall in 2006. Though illegal, Al Adl wa al Ihsane is Morocco's largest Islamic movement, which boycotts elections, but has hundreds of thousands of followers and has taken over the universities and is radicalizing the young.

Its founder is Sheik Abdessalam Yassine, who has declared its purpose is to reunite mosque and state: "Politics and spirituality have been kept apart by the Arab elites. And we have been able to reconnect these two aspects of Islam -- and that is why people fear us."

And, one might add, why people embrace them.

If Morocco is now in play in the struggle between militant Islam and the West, how looks the correlation of forces in June 2006?

Islamists are taking over in Somalia. They are in power in Sudan. The Muslim Brotherhood won 60 percent of the races it contested in Egypt. Hezbollah swept the board in southern Lebanon. Hamas seized power from Fatah on the West Bank and Gaza. The Shia parties who hearken to Ayatollah Sistani brushed aside our favorites, Chalabi and Iyad Allawi, in the Iraqi elections. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the most admired Iranian leader since Khomeini. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is staging a comeback.

This has all happened in the last year. And where are we winning?

What is the appeal of militant Islam? It is, first, its message: As all else has failed us, why not live the faith and law God gave us?

Second, it is the Muslim rage at the present condition where pro-Western regimes are seen as corruptly enriching themselves, while the poor suffer.

Third, it is a vast U.S. presence that Islamic peoples are taught is designed to steal their God-given resources and assist the Israelis in humiliating them and persecuting the Palestinians.

Lastly, Islamic militants are gaining credibility because they show a willingness to share the poverty of the poor and fight the Americans.

What America needs to understand is something unusual for us: From Morocco to Pakistan, we are no longer seen by the majority as the good guys.

If Islamic rule is an idea taking hold among the Islamic masses, how does even the best army on earth stop it? Do we not need a new policy?


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: allourfault; antisemitepat; bitterpaleos; blamethejews; buchanan; catholic; dhimmi; islam; mullahpat; quisling; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
He never quites let go, does he?

To answer the headline, here's my brainstorming on what idea, exactly, whose time has come:

1) The most immediate implication is to withdraw from the global war on terror. Uncle Paddy has been saying for some time now that it's futile. Given the expansion of wahhabist islam, like he points out is happening in Morocco, we're on the losing imperialist side. Perhaps fair?

2) Since Islam is high between Morocco and Pakistan, cede all terroritory, including and especially the western nation Israel, to the jihadists? For the sake of stability?

3) This is more tinfoil hat territory, but I'll say it: time for white Europe to convert to Islam? Is that what he's getting at? The muslims are in favor of the noble idea of merging mosque and state, therefore they are better than us, so we should join them?

4) Adopt a pre-Vatican II style government, so that the muzzies will not attack us? At least be less decadent, so that the caliphate will eat us last? No thanks, Paddy.

1 posted on 06/23/2006 1:30:00 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Frank T
1) The most immediate implication is to withdraw from the global war on terror. Uncle Paddy has been saying for some time now that it's futile

It's a damn good thing the Europeans didn't follow this approach a few centuries back. You cannot withdraw from this battle, because the Islamists will eventually bring it to you in your own country - in fact, they already have.

2 posted on 06/23/2006 1:32:14 PM PDT by dirtboy (When Bush is on the same side as Ted the Swimmer on an issue, you know he's up to no good...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

"Islam is peace."

-- GWB, 9/01.


3 posted on 06/23/2006 1:38:40 PM PDT by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

Paddy has the gift of gab and no realistic answers as usual.
His third party kind gave us Carter and Clinton.


4 posted on 06/23/2006 1:45:20 PM PDT by SoCalPol (.We Need a Border Fence Now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
If we are the bad guys, then we should be the bad guys.

The world is full of rat bastards––indeed, these control the UN General Assembly.

What is there to counter it? European pacifism? More evidence that Europe has yet again learned some of the wrong lessons from history, part of why they keep repeating their mistakes in new, and ever more creative/deadly ways. Simply, the commentator was right when he said that tyrants don't let themselves be defeated with words ... but "nice" people will often do so if they think they can secure "peace in our time." (to quote Chamberlin)

"Cowboy" works because at the end of the day most cowboys just want to sleep easy. So why NOT be ethical rat bastards?

I seem to recall that some of the most dangerous gunslingers worked for the law. Let us shamelessly and with boldface do what is best for us. Shout it to the uncaring sky.

At least that way they'll trust us even if they don't like us.
5 posted on 06/23/2006 1:45:57 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
It's a damn good thing the Europeans didn't follow this approach a few centuries back. You cannot withdraw from this battle, because the Islamists will eventually bring it to you in your own country - in fact, they already have.

The Democrats are saying cut and run after the victory over Zarqawi and Pat is joining in the chorus, which serves as a Paleoconservative coda to the butchering of those two marines of ours.

This is the result of a foreign policy based on hatred of Jews neoconservatives.

The PaleoConservatives base their program on frustrated powerlust -- allegedly frustrated by those wascally Jews neoconservatives.

Incidentally, when Pat talks about the U.S. exploiting Arab resources, they would've never had oil or the Suez Canal without the West. They're parasites who rob the valuable property of the U.S. and the West and try to kill us with the wealth we created for them.

This shows what kind of patriot Mr. Buchanan is.

6 posted on 06/23/2006 1:46:11 PM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

I don't read that into this particular essay.

It is disappointing that Patsie validates the "blame others for our own dysfunction" worldview of arab islamics.

The interesting aspect of this essay is the highlighting of the radicalization of the arab world. The radicals will have to follow up on their rhetoric, the death cult will do what it has done consistently for the last 1400 years, and we will be forced settle this once and for all -- Asian and Western civilization against arab/Islamic barbarism.

Islamic nihilism makes any of the fluff put out by Marx and the post-modernists look like kindergarten story time. The arab/islamic culture is not and never will be ready for prime time. No matter how messed up we get, failure against the grand masters of dead end ideology is pretty much out of the question.


7 posted on 06/23/2006 1:46:39 PM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat [This is some nasty...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
"If Islamic rule is an idea taking hold among the Islamic masses, how does even the best army on earth stop it? Do we not need a new policy?"

Get real and answer Pat's question. Pat pointed out a problem for the West. Do you think the best army on earth will stop an idea? Ideas e.g. Communism can be defeated by other ideas. Neither the Jewish or the Christian religion has been wiped out by 4000 years of armies.

8 posted on 06/23/2006 1:46:39 PM PDT by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
So Pat admits that Islam is spreading around the globe and yet we're supposed to just hide out in Fortress America.

Pat, thank God those fine folk from 1938 didn't listen to your kind, else you would have written that article on something called a VolksWriter.

9 posted on 06/23/2006 1:47:08 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
Indeed, as one watches U.S. armed forces struggle against Sunni insurgents, Shia militias and Jihadists in Iraq, and a resurgent Taliban, all invoking Allah, Victor Hugo's words return to mind: No army is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The idea whose time has come is freedom! Mr. Buchanan.

The jihadists are recycling the same tired fanaticism from 700 years ago which is why their civilization is and will continue to be, void of any culturally advancing principles.

The masses read the koran and live sharia...when the jihadists destroy the Jews they will come after the Europeans, when the Europeans are destroyed they will come after the Americans, then the Chinese, and finally when all the infidels are destroyed they will go after each other. We are not the side that is losing Mr. Buchanan, islam is already bankrupt.
10 posted on 06/23/2006 1:49:02 PM PDT by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
"Islam is peace."

-- GWB, 9/01.
"All I want is PEACE! A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France ...."

M. Brooks
11 posted on 06/23/2006 1:49:03 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
Its founder is Sheik Abdessalam Yassine, who has declared its purpose is to reunite mosque and state: "Politics and spirituality have been kept apart by the Arab elites. And we have been able to reconnect these two aspects of Islam -- and that is why people fear us."

Islam's biggest flaw is that there is no such thing as "Islam" in the sense that the "mosque" and "state" can be reunited. Pat incorrectly portrays this as a clash between Islamic and Western civilizations, when in fact there is no place in the world today where one prominent Islamic civilization exists without being involved in a constant, ongoing conflict between multiple sects of Islam. The future of a state reconnected to Islam is not one of peace, stability, or anything remotely resembling virtue and spirituality. The more likely scenario is one that is currently being played out in the West Bank and Gaza, where two different Islamic elements (Hamas and Fatah) are engaged in a simmering conflict that will pretty much gaurantee that the place remains a Third World sh!t-hole for a thousand years.

12 posted on 06/23/2006 1:49:40 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

"His third party kind gave us Carter and Clinton."
What are you talking about?


13 posted on 06/23/2006 1:51:51 PM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Get real and answer Pat's question

Oh please! Try getting real yourself. If we were just trying to smash Islam with our army, we would not be fighting so PC like and showing so much restraint. We would not be spending hundreds of billions on building schools, roads, water tanks, and on and on. Bush would not be speaking the ideas of FREEDOM over and over again.

Where have you and Pat been the last couple of years, smoking weed together in some bunker?

14 posted on 06/23/2006 1:53:06 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
Pat's right on top of things as usual...

Yes, evil is on the rise again.

Left unchecked it will continue to grow as it always does.

Pat isn't smart enough to know it isn't American troops or "policy" they hate, it is American culture which they see as corrupting their way of life. We can't make our culture go away by simply changing "policy" that will somehow placate them.

It is either them or us.

Just like the fascism that was on the rise in the 1930's. It can't cohabit.
15 posted on 06/23/2006 1:53:14 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
The interesting aspect of this essay is the highlighting of the radicalization of the arab world. The radicals will have to follow up on their rhetoric, the death cult will do what it has done consistently for the last 1400 years, and we will be forced settle this once and for all -- Asian and Western civilization against arab/Islamic barbarism.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Exactly right! well put. islam contains the seeds of its own destruction.
16 posted on 06/23/2006 1:54:01 PM PDT by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rmlew; Cacique

PaleoPat Ping!


17 posted on 06/23/2006 1:54:34 PM PDT by Clemenza (The CFR ate my bilderburgers! Time to call for a trilateral commission to investigate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

Are you going to refute what he said or is it easier to resort to ad hominem attacks?


18 posted on 06/23/2006 1:55:26 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

Islamism is not as popular as its cheerleaders in the west like to pretend. Mubarak allowed them to contest a tiny number of constituencies, while excluding the more popular reformers, so that anyone who hated him would vote for them. Now he can turn to the west and say, "stop pressuring me to reform or it will only get worse". As long as the mosques are the only independent organisations in Arab countries, there will be support for the jihadists.

But if you open up to real democracy, everything will change. And that is the process that is taking place now. Arab countries are, slowly, reforming. Despite Pat Buchanan, John Kerry, and all their allies suggesting that there will be civil war in Iraq and jihadism will win, the facts on the ground are against them.


19 posted on 06/23/2006 1:56:31 PM PDT by qlangley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

So what is his solution? Last time I heard, it was to build a wall on our boarders. Does he have another solution?


20 posted on 06/23/2006 1:56:43 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
If Islamic rule is an idea taking hold among the Islamic masses, how does even the best army on earth stop it? Do we not need a new policy?

What a crock - this is from the populist, Ross Perot school of politics. Spend all your time whining about the problem (as you see it), then ask what is being done to solve the problem. But nowhere do you propose a concrete solution. This is the current Demoncrat strategy - whine about the mean, awful Republicans, but don't offer ANY specific solutions.

If you offer solutions, people might actually analyze them and point out where you are wrong. Someone should ask Pat what he thinks we should do - but I am afraid he might write another article (knowing that no one will actually implement whatever he suggests).

21 posted on 06/23/2006 1:58:02 PM PDT by BruceS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
What America needs to understand is something unusual for us: From Morocco to Pakistan, we are no longer seen by the majority as the good guys.

As usual Patty is full of it.

You really have to wonder if he has ever been out of the country except on carefully orchestrated "tours"

At least be less decadent, so that the caliphate will eat us last?

The Wahabist considered the church socials in 1930's Colorado to be decadent.

22 posted on 06/23/2006 2:02:17 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (The bottom 60% does 40% of the work, the top 40% does 60% of the work. Just who are the "workers"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

It's puzzling that a dedicated, traditional Catholic as Pat Buchanan seems to be expressing admiration for Islamic militancy. We can justifiably take the West to task for its secularist, moral decadence, but that, I think, is used by the Islamists as an immediate excuse, and in no way does it justify the brutality of terrorism. I can be more Catholic than the Pope, but an Islamist will still consider me an "infidel" whose life is worth nothing if I don't follow the tenets of Mohammed and the Koran.


23 posted on 06/23/2006 2:02:31 PM PDT by rrstar96 (Strength and Honor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BruceS
Spend all your time whining about the problem

Pat, this is dedicated to you:

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Paris Sorbonne,1910)

24 posted on 06/23/2006 2:07:45 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
it is resisting the world's last superpower

Only because the world's last superpower is holding its d*** in its hand and not really fighting. And that's only because of our puke liberals. If we ever cut lose on the muzzies, God (the real God, not Allah) help them.

And is it just me, or is Pat back on his meds again? This article almost made sense.

25 posted on 06/23/2006 2:11:43 PM PDT by Hardastarboard (Why isn't there an "NRA" for the rest of my rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rrstar96
It's puzzling that a dedicated, traditional Catholic as Pat Buchanan seems to be expressing admiration for Islamic militancy. We can justifiably take the West to task for its secularist, moral decadence, but that, I think, is used by the Islamists as an immediate excuse, and in no way does it justify the brutality of terrorism. I can be more Catholic than the Pope, but an Islamist will still consider me an "infidel" whose life is worth nothing if I don't follow the tenets of Mohammed and the Koran.

I think Pat has become more of a Wotanist (described in 'The Pink Swastika' than a Catholic). The head Catholic (if I can call him that), Pope Benedict the XVI, not only seems like a nice guy, but he's an astonishingly intelligent, inciteful commentator to boot IMHO.

26 posted on 06/23/2006 2:14:17 PM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

Capitulation or death are the options militant Islam offers the West. Assuming most Americans prefer a third way, the answer to the problem seems obvious: Adopt retaliatiatory ruthlessness as our governing foreign policy. Those who will never love us will at least grow to fear us.

While most would today recoil from proposals to answer a future 9-11 with, say, the erasure of Tehran, such reservations will evaporate with the next act of mega-terrorism in the U.S.


27 posted on 06/23/2006 2:22:24 PM PDT by Columbusborn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

If they would all stay put and enjoy their Islamicist countries, that might be ok. But they won't.


28 posted on 06/23/2006 2:25:11 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
Victor Hugo's words return to mind: No army is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

I'll say this: there is no such thing as time coming for an idea which is provably wrong, no matter how many people may temporarily believe it.

Islam utterly depends on the idea that there is such a thing as prophets and prophecy within our age of the world. That is provably false.

The last real prophet died around the time of Zechariah, something like 2500 years ago depending on whose ideas about chronology you subscribe to. Anybody claiming to be a prophet in 600 AD or anywhere close to that is a BS artist. The long version of that story is found in Julian Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness" which can still be found in paperback at book outlets.

Prophecy involved using the human mind in a way which ceased to be possible long before the time of Christ. The only two remaining vestages of that antique paradigm for the use of the human mind are schizophrenia and hypnotism.

29 posted on 06/23/2006 2:26:01 PM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Columbusborn
such reservations will evaporate with the next act of mega-terrorism in the U.S.

Yea, where even the Soccer Moms will go mega blood thirsty.

30 posted on 06/23/2006 2:26:12 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Columbusborn
You've got it. That and the large scale use of animal husbandry as it relates to hogs in our dealings with the slammite world. Jack Pershing had that figured out a hundred years ago, and it would still work.

We need the S bomb (Slammnation bomb), i.e. a weapon which spelled outright damnation for slammites within five miles of it going off, and this should consist mainly of freeze-dried pork ground at least as fine as flash powder.

31 posted on 06/23/2006 2:29:39 PM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
Third, it is a vast U.S. presence that Islamic peoples are taught is designed to steal their God-given resources and assist the Israelis in humiliating them and persecuting the Palestinians.

He managed to get surprisingly far into the essay before he started blaming the Joooos. It must have been a tremendous strain on the poor man.

32 posted on 06/23/2006 2:31:40 PM PDT by steve-b (Hoover Dam is every bit as "natural" as a beaver dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

I do not understand why every single non muslim religious leader is not touting the invalid beginnings of the religion of the plagarist pedophile.


33 posted on 06/23/2006 2:32:41 PM PDT by tkathy (The "can do" party can fix anything. The "do-nothing" party always makes things worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

Pat admires the Muslims because they hate Jews just like he does.


34 posted on 06/23/2006 2:33:03 PM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Pat admires the Muslims because they hate Jews just like he does

But what Pat does not understand is that in this case the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The Muslims certainly hate us Jew infidels, but they also hate the followers of the Trinity, too. The Qu'ran warns they will be sternly punished.

His support of Islam, because of the common enemy Pat and the Muslims have, shows how irrational his policies are and is a further reason for not listening to him.

35 posted on 06/23/2006 2:42:54 PM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
Islam survived two centuries of defeats and humiliations of the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk's abolition of the caliphate. It endured generations of Western rule. It outlasted the pro-Western monarchs in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia and Iran. Islam easily fended off communism, survived the rout of Nasserism in 1967 and has proven more enduring than the nationalism of Arafat or Saddam. Now, it is resisting the world's last superpower.

Note that in the above list of "survivals", the Ottoman Empire under Ataturk was indeed successful in repressing the moslems for centuries, even to the point of abolishing the caliphate. The question is: how did the Ottomans accomplish that which no one for centuries before them had been able to accomplish?? The U.S. needs to do the same thing. With the largest and most powerful military in world history, I would think that the USA should be capable of "putting the muzzies back in their place", so to speak, just like the Ottoman's did for centuries. So, how did the Ottoman's do it?? Let's do the same thing, and be done with it.

I think that Buchanan is being deliberately disengenuous. The "world's last superpower" could dispose of militant islam quite handily, were it not for the fact that we are deliberately fighting with one hand tied behind our back. In addition, who cares if militant islam re-emerges AGAIN a few centuries from now?? If it does, it will be dealt with AGAIN, when and if the need arises. Buchanan seems to think that simply because islam has "re-emerged", it has some sort of extra legitimacy, and respectability. I say 'so what if it has re-emerged'?? Paganism and witchcraft are also "re-emerging" in our modern times, but I don't see anyone suggesting that we should "surrender" to or "respect" their beliefs (well, OK, maybe we are in many ways, but that is a topic for a different post!!!)

Buchanan seems to be saying that he sees some sort of equivalency between what the moslems want in a society, and what Christians want. He fails to mention that the moslems of today are STILL willing to accomplish their goal of a world-wide theocracy by any means necessary - including horrific violence, and brutish tyranny (in fact they are engaging in these tactics in just about every nation where they have been "successful"). For Buchanan to make this sort of analogy twists the facts and makes it appear that he in some way supports the goals AND methods of militant islam.

Shame on him!!
36 posted on 06/23/2006 2:55:33 PM PDT by Zetman (I believe the children are the next generation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

I'm sorry, I couldn't get past Patsy's first paragraph where he (yet again) brings up the third reich.


37 posted on 06/23/2006 3:12:59 PM PDT by AmishDude (I am the King Nut.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank T; Clemenza; Paleo Conservative
Belloc was prophetic. Even as Christianity seems to be dying in Europe, Islam is rising to shake the 21st century as it did so many previous centuries.
Actually, this is a cause and effect. For 260 years, from the defeat of the Ottomans at Vienna through the Third Balkan War and the campaigns in North Africa, Islam was in retreat. Many times Islam had broken into Eruope only to be beaten back. However, Now the Europeans were colonizing the Muslim world, making use of their cultural and technological advances.

This died in World War I, but few realised it. Christian Europe lost a generation and its confidence in the trenches. Communism, nihilism, and scientific socialism took over from the corpse of Christian progress. Moreover, in one of the lesser known villanies of war, the Germans had set out to create a Jihad against Great Britain and Russia. The Germans, who were the Great Orientalists, sought Iranian and Afghan support in invading India. Fortunately, the Brits bribed the King of Afghanistan. The Germans also bribed the Ottomans into joining the Central Powers in oprder to isolate Russia and close the Suez canal. Likewise the Nazis sought Islamist and Arab Nationalikst support in World War 2.

Indeed, as one watches U.S. armed forces struggle against Sunni insurgents, Shia militias and Jihadists in Iraq, and a resurgent Taliban, all invoking Allah, Victor Hugo's words return to mind: No army is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
For starters, Shia and Sunni Muslims don't like each other, so this is hardly one idea. Moreover, the Muslims only have power because the EU and US are not united, and Russia and China are supporting the Islamists.

Islam survived two centuries of defeats and humiliations of the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk's abolition of the caliphate. It endured generations of Western rule. It outlasted the pro-Western monarchs in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia and Iran. Islam easily fended off communism, survived the rout of Nasserism in 1967 and has proven more enduring than the nationalism of Arafat or Saddam. Now, it is resisting the world's last superpower.
Christianity and Judaism have survived more. Perhaps Buchanan is thinking of political Islamism, which is actually rather new and is a response to Modernity. (The Islamic revivalist movements really only started with the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate, although the Wahabists had been fighting their own battle against "decadent" Islam for 200 years.

Islamists are taking over in Somalia. They are in power in Sudan. The Muslim Brotherhood won 60 percent of the races it contested in Egypt. Hezbollah swept the board in southern Lebanon. Hamas seized power from Fatah on the West Bank and Gaza. The Shia parties who hearken to Ayatollah Sistani brushed aside our favorites, Chalabi and Iyad Allawi, in the Iraqi elections. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the most admired Iranian leader since Khomeini. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is staging a comeback.
This is due to our weakness as well as our silly policy of democratization.

Third, it is a vast U.S. presence that Islamic peoples are taught is designed to steal their God-given resources and assist the Israelis in humiliating them and persecuting the Palestinians.
1. The Saudi clan following the teachings of Ibn Wahab started a Jihad against the Ottomans and the more loberal Hashemites back in the 1750's.
2. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1923, not 1948.
3. Since Mohammed there have been waves of jihads of conquest. We may be driving some towards the Islamists, but how much more powerful are the Islamists thanks to western weakness?

If Islamic rule is an idea taking hold among the Islamic masses, how does even the best army on earth stop it? Do we not need a new policy?
1. End our reliance on oil.
2. Stop the expansion of Islam in Europe.
3. Contain Islam in the Muslim countries. 4. Kill any Islamists who attack us.
5. Keep the Islamic world divided and weak.
6. Keep Muslim countries militarily weak.

Pat's desire for isolationism does none of this.

38 posted on 06/23/2006 4:41:05 PM PDT by rmlew (Sedition and Treason are both crimes, not free speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Actually, Msulims have done a pretty good job of reducing the number of non-believers in the lands. The former Byzantine Empire is almost without Christians.


39 posted on 06/23/2006 4:43:17 PM PDT by rmlew (Sedition and Treason are both crimes, not free speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
Even as Christianity seems to be dying in Europe, Islam is rising to shake the 21st century as it did so many previous centuries.

Islam does not have what it takes to destroy Christendom, never had it, never will.

40 posted on 06/23/2006 4:51:55 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Make them go home!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
1. End our reliance on oil.

Can be done and will be done within our lifetime. Advances in technology in extrapolating energy from fuel cell technology (at the moment, we really need more nuclear power to do this), to say nothing of designing engines that can run on ethanol in cold climates and more efficiently in general(the latter, along with the high cost of corn and soybeans, is currently mitigating against this). It all depends on how much cost per gallon for petrol the American consumer can stand. We've just been spoiled with CHEAP and plentiful oil for most of our history.

2. Stop the expansion of Islam in Europe.

Not much we Americans can do here. If the rest of Europe follows the example of the Dutch, the problem can be contained.

3. Contain Islam in the Muslim countries. I can see this happening in Iran (which has a rapidly secularizing urban population), Turkey (where, contrary to paranoia from the European far right, it has been contained), and Pakistan (if the Generals ever embraced free market economics and cracked some skulls at the Madrasses), to say nothing of Indonesia. Don't see much happening in the Gulf States unless the price of oil plummets and the Wahabists lose their main source of income.

4. Kill any Islamists who attack us.

If only we had the will to ignore the media and the Europeans, this could be done with little backlash at home. There is also the matter of placating the Saudis, which has been Foggy Bottom's stock in trade since the fall of the Ottomans (Grrrr!).

5. Keep the Islamic world divided and weak. VERY easy. Easier than most "Middle East Experts" in the press/academia and Foggy Bottom think. As we have seen most recently in Iraq, even WITHIN Shi'a Islam, any sort of long term unity is impossible. Lets also not forget the strong ethnic rivalries/hatreds which preclude religious unity (of the 20 or so folks from Iran I have met in my life, NONE, religious or secular, thought of the Arabs as anything more than camel sh-t. I'm sure the Arabs have similar feelings towards the Persians).

6. Keep Muslim countries militarily weak.

Let's give credit where credit is due in the administration for keeping Pakistan's ambitions in check and for keeping the pressure on Iran. Even in cases where we give considerable aid to Islamic states, the results are not impressive. I mean, is anyone out there REALLY afraid of losing a war to Egypt? NATO-member Turkey could probably defeat the Greeks, but I don't see that happening barring a 180 in eastern mediterranean geopolitics. 2. Stop the expansion of Islam in Europe. 3. Contain Islam in the Muslim countries. 4. Kill any Islamists who attack us. 5. Keep the Islamic world divided and weak. 6. Keep Muslim countries militarily weak.

41 posted on 06/23/2006 5:19:40 PM PDT by Clemenza (The CFR ate my bilderburgers! Time to call for a trilateral commission to investigate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Then there are some of us that believe Islam is simply going supernova before it is absorbed by Western Culture and the belief in science and progress.


42 posted on 06/23/2006 8:00:33 PM PDT by claudiustg (¡En español, por favor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Then there are some of us that believe Islam is simply going supernova before it is absorbed by Western Culture and the belief in science and progress.


43 posted on 06/23/2006 8:00:35 PM PDT by claudiustg (¡En español, por favor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

"Paddy has the gift of gab and no realistic answers as usual. His third party kind gave us Carter and Clinton."

On the other hand, if you believe some of the speculation surrounding the 2000 election, he caused Bush to win. One of the districts in Florida with a higher than typical (relative to the national average) jewish population also had a higher than average vote share for Buchanan's Reform party. Some said the style of the ballot confused some voters, and resulted in people misintentionally voting for him. I believe he said something to the effect that he doubted that result, also. I wonder if he thinks about it much now, given that the dreaded Bush has two terms.


44 posted on 06/24/2006 5:43:45 AM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12

What I don't get is why his counterparts in western Europe, those who are conservative and who deal with a more present Islamic threat, aren't as concerned as perhaps we would be in the same situation. The LePen movement wants to deport what they call Africans back to northern Africa. It's talked about as an issue of race, whereas it's about competiting civilisations. The one propounded by the immigrants and their descendants is that of Arab supremecy, and their religion. I don't get why the focus is on race animus.


45 posted on 06/24/2006 5:49:51 AM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Columbusborn

"While most would today recoil from proposals to answer a future 9-11 with, say, the erasure of Tehran, such reservations will evaporate with the next act of mega-terrorism in the U.S."

The problem with that is, what would be the appropriate response if the perpetrators were born in the US? Which country to strike in retaliation? So-called homegrowns have the advantage of being protected by the same laws as anyone else, but it also clouds the issue as to who is responsible.

When there was the threat of war with the Soviets, it was understood that a pre-emptive nuclear attack would be met with equally lethal nukes in return. With a divided muslim "ummah," who's in charge over there? Their advantage is that their religious schooling and centres for radicalising are all over the place, in many countries, including western Europe. Do bombs get dropped on them, too, if a nuke goes off in America? All this is to say, at least when the Soviets were threatening invasion, we all knew where we stood, and what the response would be. Mutually assured destruction, as a regulating concept, is gone.

Best, I say, would be for strong leadership to spell out which cities (ie. Mecca, Medina, Tehran, etc) would be wiped out automatically, if a catastrophic attack were to happen here at home. The concept needs to be put out there.


46 posted on 06/24/2006 6:56:23 AM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Frank T
What I don't get is why his counterparts in western Europe, those who are conservative and who deal with a more present Islamic threat, aren't as concerned as perhaps we would be in the same situation. The LePen movement wants to deport what they call Africans back to northern Africa. It's talked about as an issue of race, whereas it's about competiting civilisations. The one propounded by the immigrants and their descendants is that of Arab supremecy, and their religion. I don't get why the focus is on race animus.

Maybe it's tactical. Maybe Le Pen feels it can only get elected by appealing to the famous snobbery and bigotry of the French people. Or maybe Le Pen is of that mindset itself and the only way it can address Islam is on deplorable racial grounds. It may be emotionally and intellectually incapable of addressing Islam via means of its Qu'ran and culture.

47 posted on 06/24/2006 7:28:32 AM PDT by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12
This is the result of a foreign policy based on hatred of Jews neoconservatives.

Are you saying that all neoconservatives are Jewish? Are you saying that criticizing neoconservatives is a form of antisemitism? Are you saying that Jews who criticize neoconservatives are self-hating Jews?

48 posted on 06/24/2006 7:31:45 AM PDT by A. Pole (For today's Democrats abortion and "gay marriage" are more important that the whole New Deal legacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: photodawg; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; FITZ; ...
The idea whose time has come is freedom! Mr. Buchanan.

Oh yeah? "Freedom" of PR slogans and nation building?

The jihadists are recycling the same tired fanaticism from 700 years ago which is why their civilization is and will continue to be, void of any culturally advancing principles.

In matters of survival it does not help if your civilization has "culturally advancing principles" like gay marriage. It matters how many children will you have and how strongly you adhere to your own religion.

49 posted on 06/24/2006 7:38:53 AM PDT by A. Pole (For today's Democrats abortion and "gay marriage" are more important that the whole New Deal legacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Frank T

No religion or political movement should be so foolish as to pursue a policy of ushering paradise into this world, but some aspire to doing just that. We are established as a nation that honors religions and political ideas of every stripe, provided they are dedicated to civility. A religion or ideology bent on world domination by force is bound to create conflict on a wide scale. For this short life I'll side with those who establish, protect, and defend the freedoms we enjoy here in the USA instead of the New York Times.


50 posted on 06/24/2006 7:53:33 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson