Failure to see jihad for what it is

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | April 27, 2007 | Diana West

[livius]

Every time Islam gets more “moderate,” mostly by being forced to share space with another culture that it cannot entirely eradicate for one reason or another, it is sooner or later attacked and overrun by a more orthodox (i.e., “radical”) Islam. This is a constant throughout Muslim history.

And it’s no different now. Diana West is right.

[gunnyg]

The enemy?
More like taking the fight to fellow Americans, as I see it.
The enemy was, in fact, the new budding BigBroMoFo let loose on America.

[Joe 6-pack]

I didn’t say “the enemy,” and very deliberately worded my post, “his enemy.” Like I said, love him or hate him, someone of his ilk unleashed in Iraq would put a pretty quick end to a lot of this islamo-nonsense.

[gunnyg]

OK, apparently he did perceive fellow Americans as his enemy.

[Cicero]

The joke of it is that General Petraeus is actually using better rules of engagement than his predecessors.

Now instead of being 100% nice, we are being 95% nice.

Petraeus is right, to a degree. He is, for instance, using alliances with various Sunni Sheikhs to root out foreign terrorists, and that is certainly better than before. And he is not giving a free pass to the shiite militias because they are pals of the political leaders.

But I agree we still aren’t going far enough. And by prosecuting troops for doing their jobs, we are still telling the rest of the military that they’d better be careful not to shoot anyone, or they’re liable to be court martialed. Bush should have intervened right after the surge began, if not earlier, and told the military to put an end to the PC kangaroo courts, by whatever means necessary.

[Joe 6-pack]

An unfortunate part of our nation’s history is, I believe, that a lot of Americans at the time (on both sides of the conflict) shared his sentiment.

[gunnyg]

Yep, and obviously these non-thinkers are still with us.

[Joe 6-pack]

Yep...we are once again becoming a nation at war with ourselves...

...Only this time, there is an enemy without, anxiously circling like a starved buzzard.

[Beckwith]

I’d like to meet this lady.

[Beckwith]

Islamization startegy

The following is a description (slightly modified) from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness.

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs [Europe, Australia, USA and Japan]. Six percent of US prison inmates are Muslim. Like any other minority, they won’t integrate, but work to build their own separate community.

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world, but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. (Paris car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats.

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning (India, Mindanao, Philippines and Israel).

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare [Indonesia].

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya (infidel tax). (Sudan, Kosovo, Lebanon and Egypt).

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide [Sudan, Western Papua (New Guinea), Biafra, Turkey and North Nigeria].

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" - House of Peace - as in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

[Logical me]

Win their allegiance -- is he kidding? I hate to be the one to break it to Gen. Petraeus, not to mention President Bush, but the fact is, in an Islamic war zone, an "infidel" army just isn't going to win Islamic allegiance... portraying jihadist war goals (Shariah, caliphate) as belonging to a "tiny band of extremists" is nuts...

Our forces, although been handicapped and slow, building the Iraq forces to do the job. Building an Army from scratch is not easy and takes lots of time. And much of the control of the extremist is being cleaned up by the Iraqi forces which are doing a great job. Sure there will be terrorist attacks and may even be increasing, but "criminals" do not obey the law, neither here in the US or Iraq.

[3AngelaD]

It would have been easier and taken less time if we had not gone in for Limited war in the first place. See Japan.

[secretagent]

What a provocative post. Thanks!

[EnigmaticAnomaly]

"There's an hilarious video on youtube of George Patton being interviewed as to what he'd do about the global war on terror. He says, "We don't need 21,000 more troops, we only need 48. Forty-eight aircrew, six men per Boeing B-52 Super Stratofortress times eight aircraft. Targets to be Mecca, Medina, Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Beirut, Riyad, and Jeddah. Weapons to be hydrogen bombs.

Result: instant Democracy! Everyone would be equal because everyone would be dead!"

Have a link?

[Turbodog]

Ms Diana West is exactly right, winning hearts and minds, doing nation building, and attempting to democratize Muslims are totally impossible unless you take the Islam out of the Muslim first. Not only that, but it’s very counter-productive for us at the same time, since if you lift Muslims up, you are in effect just making it easier and quicker for them to resume their Global Jihad intended to turn the darb al harb into the darb al Isalm.

Our defense against Global Jihadism should be limited to and concentrate only on removing those regimes and entities that still threaten us (i.e., Iran, the Saudis, Pakistan, etc.), no more and no less. Leave it to them to pick up the pieces and if they want to create Taliban style Islamic Sharia States, then so much the better for us because there is no greater path to ruinous poverty than Islamic Sharia States, and a poverty stricken country should be exactly what we are shooting for, since a poverty stricken country can never represent that great of a threat to us. Indeed, our primary priority should be to render them all into poverty ASAP and the more they do it to themselves, the better it will be for us!

Indeed, given the unlikely and unfortunate choice of having to make war between two countries, one being an Islamic Sharia State and the other a modern industrialized state, I’d pick the former over the latter any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[3AngelaD]

I agree with you. The only thing I would add is that I would not let any of them into this country, and the ones who are here would have to go home.

[Celebratelife008]

There’s the umma...and then there’s the ‘other’. That’s it. who will be victorious?

[Turbodog]

Now my turn: I agree with you!