Skip to comments.Second Opinion Needed on Shariah [Woolsey&McCarthy&Soyster]
Posted on 09/15/2010 4:55:04 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
It is time for a "Team B" approach to Islamist ideology. The strategy has worked before, against a similarly determined threat to freedom. In 1976, George H.W. Bush, then director of central intelligence, invited a group of known skeptics about the strategy of detente to review the classified intelligence regarding Soviet intentions and capabilities. The point was to provide an informed second opinion on U.S. policy toward the Kremlin.
The conclusions of this experimental Team B study differed sharply from the government's regnant theory. The skeptics found that, pursuant to its communist ideology, the Soviet Union was determined to secure the defeat of the United States and the West and to tyrannize the globe. Thus, not only was detente unlikely to succeed, but national-security policies undertaken in its pursuit exposed the nation to grave danger. The study was particularly persuasive to former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who would use it not only to challenge the detentist policies of the Ford and Carter administrations but to build the strategy that ultimately brought down the "Evil Empire."
Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat: Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism. Translated as "the path," Shariah is a comprehensive framework designed to govern all aspects of life. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of it as a "religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere - economic, social, military, legal and political. That regulation is oppressive, discriminatory, utterly inimical to our core constitutional liberties and destructive of equal protection under the law, especially for women.
We consequently have joined a group of security-policy practitioners and analysts in ... a new Team B study that challenges bedrock assumptions...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
"If we are to face down Shariah, however, we must understand what we are up against, not simply hope that dialogue and "engagement" will make the challenge go away. The brute fact is that Shariah adherents perforce support objectives that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, the civil rights it guarantees and the representative government it authorizes. Our security depends on confronting them, not sitting silent as they gradually efface our liberties".
R. James Woolsey, Andrew C. McCarthy and Harry E. Soyster are three intellectual heavyweights who clearly understand the threat of Shariah and the ideology of The Path to Islamization.
This is what Freepers have been saying all along.
Absolutely. It’s not that hard to figure out:
Good article. I’m glad somebody is taking this seriously.
All I needed to know about Shariah law I learned from Karl Rove and the Republicans last night. These creeps want to send beautiful and accomplished women back into their houses with the windows blacked out. Maybe Rove et al can somehow make it legal to put Palin in a burka and stone Ms. O’Donnell. I’m sure they’d love to try.
Do I sound bitter? I will never vote for a male Republican ever again...unless it’s Jim DeMint and maybe Dennis Miller if he runs...or Rush or Hannity or Mark Levin...the few and far between Republic men who really seem to love and cherish women.
I was stunned by Karl Rove last night. Quite despicable. However, don’t even begin to equate that with Shariah law!
Well, Shariah law probably started out by just asking women to politely get the hell out of sight and then escalating. Who knows? But I do know woman-hatred when I see it and Rove was practically on fire with it. I was ashamed of him and sickened.
Don’t mean to be rude; just upset.
HOORAY R. James Woolsey, Andrew C. McCarthy and Lt. Gen. Harry E. “Ed” Soyster!
Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarian collectives.
this country is a freakshow. it is what we do. our culture disolves individual mania like spit on sugar. most do not give a crap, few are within the bounds of any control, and some are just itching to shoot someone who tries to make them do anything they simply will not.
these threads are a manifestation of individualized fear, nothing more. i personally find such to be unamerican; churlish, demonstrating to all a fear, and a cowardice mentality, at the very least.
no one can control this country, not even the existing governing structure.
convince me otherwise, and i will send you a cupid doll.
Shariah law isn't mere woman-hatred. I have a picture of an 8-year old boy whose arm was shattered by driving a car over it, in compliance with Shariah law, because he stole a loaf of bread.
Awful. Just awful. The world’s a hard place for little ones.
On the other hand, thanks for your understanding! I’m feeling better already.
a fool's mission. No thanks.
Hopefully,Woolsey,McCarthy,Soyster are not implying that communism is less of a threat, or no longer a threat, to the United States.
Marxism ( the religion of all “liberals”) is our nation's **MOST** serious threat. It is occupying center stage. Islam is waiting in the green room.
By the way, schools ( K-12 through graduate school) are the Marxists’ most powerful weapon against us.
you must be too informed to educate me, or just too busy dropping turds about the ether...?
got no game going..?
go find another leg to hump.
The Quran was Mohammed realizing that Arab culture was barbaric and using Christian and Jewish ideals to try to make it less so. Sharia was formed centuries after his death by Arabs mostly on rumors of what he is supposed to have said and done, and it basically re-introduced much of the pre-Muslim barbarity.
What has your neighbor done to infringe on your liberties. Has he attacked you or your other neighbors. If so why did you not stop him or at least call the police. Muslims have attacked us.
It’s nice to know Mohammed was really a nice guy!
You describe the early years of Mohammed. He quickly turned even more barbaric than the culture he fought, using his self-proclaimed "visions" to justify his barbarism. By 622 A.D. Mohammed's anger toward the Jews was not just rhetoric. The period from 622 C.E. until Mohammed's death in 632 C.E. was punctuated by periods of intense anti-Jewish violence as he systematically expelled, plundered and even slaughtered the Jewish tribes of Nadir, Khaybar and Banu Qurayza who lived in and around Mecca. Mohammed's victories of the Jews are discussed in great length in Sura 59 of the Koran.
He was also at war and Jihad against his fellow Muslims too. Once he had made Medina his stronghold, Mohammed mobilized an army of 10,000 men and, in 630 CE, moved against Mecca, meaning to purify the Kaaba and turn it into a center of worship of the one God, Allah.
“when did we become such a nation of pussies...?”
you are the who is afriad of his “neighbor and his scary entourage.”
How is that for perspective.
As far as Banu Qurayza is concerned, it's quite understandable. One, they were threatening his power. Two, they violated the Medina charter, which was agreed to by the tribes in order to stop the constant fighting between Arab (not Muslim) and Jewish tribes. That gave Mohammed legitimate grounds. The Banu Nadir also allied with the Quraish in violation of the charter. The Khaybar Jews were aiding the Banu Nadir.
At this point it was more about the old tribal rivalries and alliances than anything else. These tribes hadn't been able to keep from fighting with each other over power and revenge long before Mohammed, and old habits die hard.
Once it blew up into full-blown religious wars, well, that's standard fare for the time, and even much later, in religious wars. The Jews themselves practiced genocide according to the Bible, and Charlemagne slaughtered Saxons who wouldn't convert to Christianity. We're talking about Sharia law, how they treat themselves, especially their women, and others living under their rule.
Mohammed mobilized an army of 10,000 men and, in 630 CE, moved against Mecca, meaning to purify the Kaaba and turn it into a center of worship of the one God, Allah.
The tribes of Mecca (mainly the Quraish) and Mohammed had been at war, but it was settled with a peace treaty that allowed Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca (Mecca was a historical pilgrimage site for all local religions) and included protection of allies on both sides. In 630 a Quraish ally, Banu Bakr, attacked an ally of Mohammed's tribe, with which Mohammed had a mutual defense treaty. Mohammed offered the Quraish three terms, to disally with the Banu Bakr (allowing Mohammed to honor his mutual defense treaty with his ally without violating the peace treaty), to pay blood money, or to dissolve the peace treaty. The city chose the last option, and the Muslims thus resumed the war by invading Mecca.
IMHO, Mohammed was becoming a bit power mad around this time, but his enemies kept giving him valid reasons to attack, not a good idea when facing a power-mad ruler with a big army.
i think i said ‘annoys’ or ‘bothers’ or someother inconsequentially i lost in the last ten seconds.
the paranoids here are a hoot. not a one of you dares to use your god given name. how is life in the bunker...? moldy...?
don't worry, soon we are coming to take you all away.
He was quite benign in the beginning. He was requested as a mediator for the infighting between the tribes of Medina, making him well-liked there. Then when he moved there he stopped the fighting by taking control of the city and enforcing the Medina charter, which included complete religious freedom and autonomy for all and equal rights. While mandating financial and military contribution to the protection of the city, it exempted non-Muslims from contributions to purely Muslim religious actions.
Then the power started getting to his head and he basically continued the larger tribal warfare common in the region.
Even the Jizya, tax on the conquered unbelievers, was standard in the region for conquered tribes that did not assimilate into the conqueror's tribe. They wouldn't be forced to fight for the conqueror, so they'd have to pay a tax instead. In the Ottoman Empire they even changed the name to what it was, a military substitution tax (Jews and Christians didn't have to fight in the Ottoman military if they could pay). Paying to get out of military service was common in our country, and even Switzerland has a military substitution tax today.
IMHO, parsing between Mohammed and the Muslim culture at his time is like the question, “Who was more benign - Hitler or Stalin?”
” is more dangerous to my liberty than my crack smoking neighbor and his scary entourage.”
Your neighbor is more dangerous, you are afraid.
mmercier and friends ....
Muslim culture at his time? It was mix of pagan Arabic and Jewish before Islam.
Wowee! I’m sold: I’m going out and getting a burka.
Remember that major part of the Victory Mosque@ G0 is to be a Sharia Shilling Center.
I have no idea how anyone would want to live according to seventh century tribal Arab standards.