| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Radio Free America" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2006 02:40:42 PM |
| Object: |
The Islamic Question |
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/printDettaglio.jsp?id=48741&e
ng=y
The Islamic Question
by Roberto A.M. Bertacchini and Piersandro Vanzan S.I.
Islamic terrorism is a rather complex response to the
confrontation with the West, which Islam sees as a devastating,
deadly threat.
At the end of the 1980's, there was a pitched battle within the
Islamist camp between the positions of Abdullah Azzam and the
more extremist positions of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a true ideologue
of jihad in the form it has taken today, which includes in the
category of enemy the "Herodians," or those who collaborate with
the West. On November 24, 1989, Azzam was assassinated in
Peshawar, and Al-Zawahiri had an open field.
For the zealots, everything that comes from the outside is like
poison to their traditional ways of life, so they hold that
there is only one way to avert cultural catastrophe: expel the
invader and hermetically seal off the borders, so nothing can
pollute or corrupt their miniature world. This is, in part, the
position of Osama Bin Laden, who is opposed to the American
presence, not only in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia.
But this defensive program would never work against Western
civilization. Unlike all previous civilizations, it is not
localized or territorially circumscribed. The pervasiveness of
the global village is such that there is only one way to escape
its grasp: destroy it. And this is Al-Zawahiri's ideological
program, which he pursues with a complex strategy. For the
formula of "modernizing Islam," he substitutes another:
"Islamizing modernity," and therefore the West.
Within the Muslim world, Islamization means de-Westernizing
everything: from political and cultural institutions to
economic ones, even to the point of rethinking banking
operations. On the outside, it means spreading Islam through
vigorous missionary activity, in both Europe and the United
States: this activity is supported above all by Saudia Arabia.
But according to the most radical interpretations, Islamizing
the West means violently attacking its political and economic
power, without sparing the civilian population.
This pan-Islamist program might make some smirk, just as many
smirked at Hitler before his political ascent. But this is a
real program, which is being carried out according to a clear
plan, and although it is working slowly, it is producing
results.
That this is a real program can be seen in many ways.
The first piece of macroscopic data is that from Afghanistan to
Kashmir to Chechnya to Ossetia to the Philippines to Saudi
Arabia to Bosnia to Kosovo to Palestine to Egypt to Algeria to
Morocco, sizeable groups have unleashed a war against the West.
It is impossible to think that these attacks are completely
independent from each other.
The second piece of macroscopic data is terrorism, especially
if one has the patience to follow the thread that extends from
July 7, 2005 to 1969, and the airplane from the Rome Fiumicino
airport that Leila Khaled hijacked and blew up in Damascus.
1972 was the year of the Olympics in Munich and the massacre
that happened there. But before that, on August 16 of that same
year, an airplane headed for Tel Aviv was blown up by a record
player rigged with explosives that a couple of English tourists
had received from two Arabic men who had been romancing them.
Thinking about it today brings chills: Al-Qaeda is a new and
closely related phenomenon. Courting two women in order to
carry out an attack means being deeply steeped in ideology. And
it means that there is a connection between ideology and
organization - you can't just pick up an exploding record
player at the local hardware store. Unless two Arabs happened
to meet two tourists going to Tel Aviv, and then happened to
get the idea of carrying out an attack, and again happened to
have a friend at the ready to provide them with the surprise
package. But already in 1970, six airplanes had been hijacked
or blown up on the ground or during flight.
The conditions for carrying out the attack of August 16, 1972,
were so complex that they required a plan constructed over
years, assisted by excellent propaganda systems and economic
and human resources of the highest caliber. People's sense
morality cannot be altered in the blink of an eye. The young
women were probably attractive, and there may have been some
tenderness in them. Placing this episode side by side with the
massacre at the school in Beslan in 2004, with one hundred
fifty children killed, with those three days of torment in the
gymnasium and the torture of withholding water, with the girls
who were first raped and then killed, we see a ferocity at work
that is so opposed to the common sense of morality that it must
be sustained by an absolute ideological commitment. And such an
ideology, which has religious foundations, requires that the
theologians themselves weave together the theoretical
justifications for terror.
The third piece of evidence is anti-Zionism. Let's take a look
at the sequence of events. Anti-Zionism is evident in the first
attacks of the 1970's: the episode in Munich makes this utterly
clear. In 1973, we had the war of Yom Kippur, which again saw
the Islamic countries forced to concede defeat. But on October
16 and 17 of that year, during the Syro-Egyptian war against
Israel, OPEC held a conference in Kuwait City that established:
a) the quadrupling of the price of crude oil; b) the embargo
against the United States, Denmark, and Holland; c) the
progressive reduction of the amount of oil extracted; d) the
effort to extend the embargo to countries that would not accept
their conditions; e) including among their political conditions
the acceptance of the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied
territories on the part of their economic partners, the
recognition of the Palestinians, the presence of the PLO at the
peace negotiations, and the application of UN resolution
242. It is a positive fact that the Islamic countries did not
recognize the
newly established state of Israel. And Saddam Hussein's
hostility towards Israel was evident to the very end. So there
is a clear convergence of economic, military, and terrorist
policies. After the attacks on New York, Madrid, London, and
Sharm El Sheik, one would have to be blind not to see the
almost maniacal sense of coordination and timing in this form
of Islam. But there was also coordination between the OPEC
conference and the war of Yom Kippur. This sense of timing and
coordination is a cultural message directed toward the Muslim
world itself, an eminent means of asserting that Islam is
united and coordinated.
The fourth indication is missionary activity, and the fifth is
immigration. Aisha Farina, an Italian woman from Milan who
converted to Islam and has publicly expressed her veneration
for Bin Laden as for a reliable guide, said this: "Maybe all
the Italians will end up converting. In any case, we will
conquer you peacefully, because our numbers double every
generation, but you are at zero growth."
But Islam is advancing in other ways, too. In Mazara del Vallo
in Sicily, since the end of the 1970's there has been a
Tunisian community that obtained permission to preserve its
identity in all respects, with Tunisian schools, teachers sent
from Tunisia, Tunisian laws, etc. So although polygamy is
illegal there, it is tolerated. In other places, Muslims open
unauthorized schools, but no intervention is made. Infibulation
is practiced on women, but no one is put on trial. One the
whole, this creates an asymmetry among citizens before the law,
by virtue of which some minorities are first protected, but
then become privileged. And this proves the incompatibility of
radical multiculturalism and the rule of law.
But there is an obstacle to this strategy: the American troops
on Islamic soil. From this are derived two political stances
that differ not according to the result they seek, but
according to the strategies they employ. In fact, Bin Laden -
but also Iran, and perhaps Pakistan - thinks that the oil pump
will, in the end, be less influential than the nuclear trigger.
Two reasons are given for why blackmail using oil supplies
cannot last for long: one is that if the price of crude is
raised too high, other sources of energy will become more
economically attractive. The other is that, when the West is
really put into a bind, it will react with force. That is why a
different strategy is necessary, which, by bringing the war
into the heart of Europe and America, blocks the use of nuclear
weapons. But doing this requires an enormous amount of money
and control of the political power that is now in the hands of
less radical Muslims. So the terrorist political approach
proceeds
along two parallel guidelines: fighting the "moderate" Islamic
regimes
and carrying out spectacular attacks in the West, in order to
reinforce its own prestige in the eyes of the Muslim world and
establish itself as a legitimate guide. If these are the
plausible scenarios, the politics of George W. Bush also takes
on an entirely different meaning. It is the politics of the
"countertrigger." The validity of this option is yet to be
verified.
The sixth and final piece of evidence is the feelings of joy
expressed by the Islamic population in the public squares, on
websites, and even in the press after September 11, 2001, and
also after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, which the
Kuwait daily "Al'Siyassa" called "a soldier sent by God." If
one comes to the point of rejoicing at horrible things, this
joy breaks off natural human solidarity and sharpens the
meaning of the expression "infidel dogs." A massacre of dogs
doesn't affect me; they are not human. This is racism, and one
must begin with calling it by its name, and then arrive at the
appropriate consequences.
* * *
In short, the Islamization of the West is neither a phantasm
nor merely something feared: it is an intention and a fact that
emerges from an objective examination of the evidence.
Moderate Islam, properly so called, does not exist because
there is no institutional and moderate form of Islamic
theology. There are moderate Muslims, and some of them see
things with a clear and long-term perspective. But Islam
itself, or rather the institutional religious culture of the
Muslims, has reacted in its encounter with modernity by
entrenching itself in fundamentalist positions. And this is
true not only in Iran or Pakistan, but also in Egypt.
There is, therefore, an objective convergence between the trend
in Islamic theology and the ideology of the terrorists.
Fortunately, not all the imams have the same zeal for jihad,
but the problem is that there is no moderate Islam, or rather
there does not exist an Islamic theology that has integrated
modernity. This is why it would not only be prudent, as
cardinal Giacomo Biffi has suggested, to discourage Islamic
immigration in Europe, it would be masochistic to encourage it
without demanding reciprocation in terms of integration.
Islam is not compatible with liberal democracies for stronger
and deeper reasons than those that usually come to mind: it is
not only a question of polygamy, the veil, Friday religious
observance, etc. That is, it is not only a problem of the rules
of behavior, morals, and worship. It is seen in how Islam
functions on its home turf. In Iran, there are mullahs who are
appointed to supervise morality. And apart from peering into
the bedroom, many more of them scrutinize the cinema, the
press, and books: this is the monitoring of the public
expressions of thought, which are censured if they are not in
conformity with shari'a or the Qur'an and its official
interpretation. A professor cannot say what he likes at school,
and if an intellectual publishes his own views, he is taking a
risk.
By way of explaining this issue, it is true that the Church did
not abolish the index of prohibited books until Vatican II, but
before it was abolished this institution did not carry any
weight in civil affairs. That's not how it is in Islam.
Religious censure is "ipso facto" civil censure, because the
religious authorities have civil authority, and vice versa. The
entire spectrum of these and other related facts calls for
intellectual honesty on our part, because we cannot interpret
them as isolated cases devoid of general significance. And if
these are not isolated cases, only one conclusion can be drawn:
the word "freedom" did not exist in Arabic for centuries
because Islamic civilization simply makes no provision for it
(it was introduced with the word "hurriyya," meaning
"entitlement," only in 1774, and out of the necessity of
signing treaties with Westerners). So the absolutism of Saudi
Arabia or other emirates, the legal inferiority of women and so
forth, are not correctible eccentricities. They are the
effects of a
deep-rooted cause, which cannot be removed without destroying
Islam. And this is why these eccentricities are so fiercely
defended: because they have an intrinsic relationship with
Muslim identity. And therefore integration can be achieved with
Muslims on an individual basis, but not with Islam.
Unfortunately, open and liberal society becomes paralyzed when
it encounters a closed and incompatible civilization. The
problem of tolerance was worked out within Christian
civilization in order to defuse its internal conflicts. But its
introduction made sense, because tolerance was a value
recognized by all parties, in that it was able to find a
theological foundation.
But in Islam, there is no foundation for tolerance in the broad
sense that characterizes our secular societies. Freedom of the
press does not make sense. The Middle Ages had Boccaccio, and
the Renaissance had Pietro Aretino. But in a much less
offensive case, Islam censured the mathematician and poet Omar
Khayyam (1048-1122) for talking about wine and drunkenness. And
the fact that he was rehabilitated to some extent in Iran at
the end of the twentieth century does not represent the sort of
openness that one would like to believe it does. In Saudi
Arabia, Islam protects itself by banning even the visible
wearing of a necklace with a cross. But how can it protect
itself in Europe? It's not just the problem of girls wearing
jeans. It is the problem of schools, newspapers, labor unions,
women in leadership roles, cinema, television, libraries: it is
the West in the sum total of its institutions that is a threat
to Islam. And not because it wants to be, but simply because it
exists. Like Israel.
* * *
The necessity for extensive self-criticism on relations with
Islam, one that would finally emerge from a blind and suicidal
"niceness," is therefore unavoidable.
Dialoguing with those who have, in the back of their minds, the
idea of Islamizing us and reducing us to dhimmi status, as
subjects of an inferior order, simply makes no sense. Dialogue
with moderate Muslims should not only be pursued; it should be
increased, and the moderates supported in every way possible,
even more so than the support that was given to the anti-Soviet
resistance. But these forms of openness must be combined with a
politics of distrust and suspicion, which would tighten the net
as much as possible and utterly discourage the presence of the
Islamizers in Europe. These are, in fact, the ideological
column of terrorism: you cannot fight the one without opposing
the other.
In order to enter the banquet, one must wear the wedding
garment, which we must demand of those who knock on our door.
It is a garment that makes acceptance dependant upon the
observance of our laws. Otherwise we cannot prevent some
mosques, centers of Islamic culture, and circuits of electronic
preaching from cultivating hatred against us. And that's just
it, hatred - a sentiment toward which we have for too long
shown a suicidal tolerance. It is a sentiment that renders
social life impossible.
And anyway, it would be too sad if everything were to end this
way. We should, instead, be the prophetic proponents of a phase
of tolerance and integration.
From the point of view of intercultural relations, a certain
reduction of the level of secularism in Western societies is
probably necessary, and this will not happen without overcoming
great resistance. But from the point of view of Islamic
theology, the road ahead is not so obvious, in part because
their cultural centers seem like fortresses that will be
difficult to expunge. One way that might be practicable is that
of returning to the great mystics of the Muslim world: for
example, Rabi'a or Al-Hallaji. But Al-Hallaji was martyred by a
caliph, and not by the Christians. So this problem is connected
with that of the theoretical and practical possibility for a
pluralistic Islamic theology. We think that the problem is a an
arduous one, but that it would be equally wrong to maintain
either that it is insurmountable or that it does not exist.
And this also holds true on the political level. Today's Islam
presents Europe with the problem of the civil recognition of
its identity. This is a serious problem, which Christianity has
not been able to present on its own behalf with the same
forcefulness. Finding a solution on a basis of equity - of
harmonizing and safeguarding the rights of all religious groups
in the same way - will not be easy, but it is unthinkable that
a Muslim minority would be granted the civil protection of its
identity and the cultural recognition that the secularism
sprung from the French Enlightenment presumes to withhold from
the Christian majority.
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Oreilly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
14 Apr 2006 03:12:56 PM |
|
|
An excellent article.
This pan-Islamist program might make some smirk, just as many
smirked at Hitler before his political ascent. But this is a
real program, which is being carried out according to a clear
plan, and although it is working slowly, it is producing
results.
You better believe this is a *real* program. All this shilly-shally
posturing over Iran is merely playing into the hands of the Islamists. When
will NATO finally flex it's muscles & deploy it's Nuclear arsenal in
eliminating Iran off the map. Making an example of a major player in the
Muslim world would send a clear message to the surviving Muslim populations.
DON'T MESS WITH THE BIG BOYS. And if you do, expect to be punished.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
14 Apr 2006 04:11:00 PM |
|
|
In article <a56dnVLR-dfBn93ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@bt.com>,
Bill Oreilly <user@btinternet.com> wrote:
...... When
will NATO finally flex it's muscles & deploy it's Nuclear arsenal in
eliminating Iran off the map. Making an example of a major player in the
Muslim world would send a clear message to the surviving Muslim populations.
DON'T MESS WITH THE BIG BOYS. And if you do, expect to be punished.
In the old days of mutual assured destruction and force projection
by major powers, such a brutal approach might have worked. In today's
world, war is waged by not surrogate nations but surrogate individuals
that are hard to trace and control. Global terrorism has changed a great
deal. Also, global oil dependence complicates things as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Oreilly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
14 Apr 2006 05:27:07 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Packman" <pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:e1p354$thq$1@news.ucar.edu...
In article <a56dnVLR-dfBn93ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@bt.com>,
Bill Oreilly <user@btinternet.com> wrote:
...... When
will NATO finally flex it's muscles & deploy it's Nuclear arsenal in
eliminating Iran off the map. Making an example of a major player in the
Muslim world would send a clear message to the surviving Muslim
populations.
DON'T MESS WITH THE BIG BOYS. And if you do, expect to be punished.
In the old days of mutual assured destruction and force projection
by major powers, such a brutal approach might have worked. In today's
world, war is waged by not surrogate nations but surrogate individuals
that are hard to trace and control. Global terrorism has changed a great
deal. Also, global oil dependence complicates things as well.
I agree to a certain extent. If a preemptive nuclear strike were to be
ordered, then internment measures need to be implemented to prevent the
inevitable revenge attacks. As in WW2 with the US Japanese ALL Muslims will
need to be rounded up, interned and if necessary shot. When the gloves
finally come off the Muslim arrogance will replaced by Muslim subservience.
Why should the sleeping giant fight with one hand tied behind it's back
against a backdrop of unprecedented provocation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Libertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
14 Apr 2006 05:31:26 PM |
|
|
"Bill Oreilly" <user@btinternet.com> wrote :
"Daniel Packman" <pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote in
message news:e1p354$thq$1@news.ucar.edu...
In article <a56dnVLR-dfBn93ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@bt.com>,
Bill Oreilly <user@btinternet.com> wrote:
...... When
will NATO finally flex it's muscles & deploy it's Nuclear
arsenal in eliminating Iran off the map. Making an example of
a major player in the Muslim world would send a clear message
to the surviving Muslim populations.
DON'T MESS WITH THE BIG BOYS. And if you do, expect to be
punished.
In the old days of mutual assured destruction and force
projection by major powers, such a brutal approach might have
worked. In today's world, war is waged by not surrogate
nations but surrogate individuals that are hard to trace and
control. Global terrorism has changed a great deal. Also,
global oil dependence complicates things as well.
I agree to a certain extent. If a preemptive nuclear strike
were to be ordered, then internment measures need to be
implemented to prevent the inevitable revenge attacks. As in
WW2 with the US Japanese ALL Muslims will need to be rounded
up, interned and if necessary shot. When the gloves finally
come off the Muslim arrogance will replaced by Muslim
subservience. Why should the sleeping giant fight with one
hand tied behind it's back against a backdrop of unprecedented
provocation?
With a handle like that, he's gotta be a troll, and not a very
good one either.
--
Lady Libertarian - United States of America
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Oreilly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
15 Apr 2006 03:24:02 AM |
|
|
"Lady Libertarian" <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote in message
news:Xns97A5A81C7E4D7LadyLibertarianFreeW@216.196.97.142...
"Bill Oreilly" <user@btinternet.com> wrote :
"Daniel Packman" <pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote in
message news:e1p354$thq$1@news.ucar.edu...
In article <a56dnVLR-dfBn93ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@bt.com>,
Bill Oreilly <user@btinternet.com> wrote:
...... When
will NATO finally flex it's muscles & deploy it's Nuclear
arsenal in eliminating Iran off the map. Making an example of
a major player in the Muslim world would send a clear message
to the surviving Muslim populations.
DON'T MESS WITH THE BIG BOYS. And if you do, expect to be
punished.
In the old days of mutual assured destruction and force
projection by major powers, such a brutal approach might have
worked. In today's world, war is waged by not surrogate
nations but surrogate individuals that are hard to trace and
control. Global terrorism has changed a great deal. Also,
global oil dependence complicates things as well.
I agree to a certain extent. If a preemptive nuclear strike
were to be ordered, then internment measures need to be
implemented to prevent the inevitable revenge attacks. As in
WW2 with the US Japanese ALL Muslims will need to be rounded
up, interned and if necessary shot. When the gloves finally
come off the Muslim arrogance will replaced by Muslim
subservience. Why should the sleeping giant fight with one
hand tied behind it's back against a backdrop of unprecedented
provocation?
With a handle like that, he's gotta be a troll, and not a very
good one either.
--
Lady Libertarian - United States of America
Now see what you've done. By using the words Troll, Racist, Nazi, Bigot you
more or less signal your intention of ending the discussion. You may not
like the reality of the situation Lady L, however burying your head in the
sand is weak.
This is how i see the situation. DP made the point that in modern (Nuclear)
warfare "war is waged by not surrogate nations but surrogate individuals".
What does he mean by that? Is DP suggesting that the enemy (the muslim)
currently streaming across the North & South US borders could be smuggling
WMD's? Why have the terrorists not struck the US since 9/11? Could it be
they are planning a spectacular WMD attack in ALL 50 States simultaneously?.
Why not, it makes perfect sense to me.
We know the technology exists
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76990,00.html and we know how deadly
bio-chemical WMD's are in the wrong hands. So why the denial? We know that
Muslims are plotting a spectacular, you only have to listen to one Zacarias
Moussaoui who said he had "no regret, no remorse" about the Sept. 11
attacks. Asked by prosecutor Rob Spencer if he would like to see it happen
again, Moussaoui responded: "Every day until we get you."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191583,00.html . GET YOU. The KAFIR.
So my argument was this. In the case where a preemptive Nuclear strike would
be necessary then for it to succeed an internment policy would be a
necessary & sensible precaution to take. You may not like the scenario Lady
L, however i deal in realities, replying to complex questions. Perhaps you
can enlighten us on how you would deal with this likely scenario without
reverting to the Liberal tactic of smears and insults. Or are you denying
the scenario exists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
16 Apr 2006 01:14:26 AM |
|
|
In article <esydnUnKmO48MN3ZnZ2dnUVZ8s2dnZ2d@bt.com>,
Bill Oreilly <user@btinternet.com> wrote:
......
This is how i see the situation. DP made the point that in modern (Nuclear)
warfare "war is waged by not surrogate nations but surrogate individuals".
What does he mean by that? Is DP suggesting that the enemy (the muslim)
currently streaming across the North & South US borders could be smuggling
WMD's? Why have the terrorists not struck the US since 9/11? Could it be
they are planning a spectacular WMD attack in ALL 50 States simultaneously?.
Why not, it makes perfect sense to me.
Sure, such an attack might be in the works. But my point was a more generic
one that if an attack occurs, it might take the form of a handful of
perpetrators (perhaps suicide terrorists) leaving no obvious target
for a counter attack. They may be native born americans or they may
represent a minority group of extremists in a country that is not actively
behind any such plot.
.......
So my argument was this. In the case where a preemptive Nuclear strike would
be necessary then for it to succeed an internment policy would be a
necessary & sensible precaution to take.......
In your plan, we become the identifiable target for the world.
You would need to incarcerate the majority of the population
of the world to avoid a counterstrike.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Oreilly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
16 Apr 2006 11:54:52 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Packman" <pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:e1snc2$gdk$2@news.ucar.edu...
In article <esydnUnKmO48MN3ZnZ2dnUVZ8s2dnZ2d@bt.com>,
Bill Oreilly <user@btinternet.com> wrote:
.....
This is how i see the situation. DP made the point that in modern
(Nuclear)
warfare "war is waged by not surrogate nations but surrogate individuals".
What does he mean by that? Is DP suggesting that the enemy (the muslim)
currently streaming across the North & South US borders could be smuggling
WMD's? Why have the terrorists not struck the US since 9/11? Could it be
they are planning a spectacular WMD attack in ALL 50 States
simultaneously?.
Why not, it makes perfect sense to me.
Sure, such an attack might be in the works. But my point was a more
generic
one that if an attack occurs, it might take the form of a handful of
perpetrators (perhaps suicide terrorists) leaving no obvious target
for a counter attack. They may be native born americans or they may
represent a minority group of extremists in a country that is not actively
behind any such plot.
......
Denying the enemy (Muslims) the freedom of movement & communication should
prevent such an atrocity. If the enemy were interned how would they
perpetrate such a crime? My suggestion may be unpalatable to some, however
what is the alternative? The Trojan Horse theory has been realised as was
seen on 9/11, therefore we now need to deal with the contents of this Trojan
Horse before the contents destroy us.
So my argument was this. In the case where a preemptive Nuclear strike
would
be necessary then for it to succeed an internment policy would be a
necessary & sensible precaution to take.......
In your plan, we become the identifiable target for the world.
You would need to incarcerate the majority of the population
of the world to avoid a counterstrike.
Targets of whom? The Russians, The Chinese? No, these nations are by and
large a civilised people who understand that Mutually Assured Destruction is
counter productive to survival, whereas Pakistan and other Muslim nations
live by the Islamic doctrine of death & martyrdom. It is the Islamic nations
which are the greatest threat in the context of a Nuclear exchange and must
therefore be taken out preemptively.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Libertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
16 Apr 2006 02:39:42 PM |
|
|
"Bill Oreilly" <user@btinternet.com> wrote :
"Daniel Packman" <pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote in
message news:e1snc2$gdk$2@news.ucar.edu...
In article <esydnUnKmO48MN3ZnZ2dnUVZ8s2dnZ2d@bt.com>,
Bill Oreilly <user@btinternet.com> wrote:
.....
This is how i see the situation. DP made the point that in
modern (Nuclear)
warfare "war is waged by not surrogate nations but surrogate
individuals". What does he mean by that? Is DP suggesting
that the enemy (the muslim) currently streaming across the
North & South US borders could be smuggling WMD's? Why have
the terrorists not struck the US since 9/11? Could it be they
are planning a spectacular WMD attack in ALL 50 States
simultaneously?. Why not, it makes perfect sense to me.
Sure, such an attack might be in the works. But my point was
a more generic
one that if an attack occurs, it might take the form of a
handful of perpetrators (perhaps suicide terrorists) leaving
no obvious target for a counter attack. They may be native
born americans or they may represent a minority group of
extremists in a country that is not actively behind any such
plot. ......
Denying the enemy (Muslims) the freedom of movement &
communication should prevent such an atrocity. If the enemy
were interned how would they perpetrate such a crime?
You have to identify who the enemy are first. It's wrong to
punish good people for what bad people want to do.
My
suggestion may be unpalatable to some, however what is the
alternative? The Trojan Horse theory has been realised as was
seen on 9/11, therefore we now need to deal with the contents
of this Trojan Horse before the contents destroy us.
By all means, if you can find the guys who actually plan to harm
us, and PROVE it, then arrest them.
If you want to arrest people who have nothing to do with it, that
would just make you a tyrant, and help the cause of the people
who do want to harm us.
So my argument was this. In the case where a preemptive
Nuclear strike would
be necessary then for it to succeed an internment policy
would be a necessary & sensible precaution to take.......
In your plan, we become the identifiable target for the
world. You would need to incarcerate the majority of the
population of the world to avoid a counterstrike.
Targets of whom? The Russians, The Chinese? No, these nations
are by and large a civilised people who understand that
Mutually Assured Destruction is counter productive to
survival, whereas Pakistan and other Muslim nations live by
the Islamic doctrine of death & martyrdom. It is the Islamic
nations which are the greatest threat in the context of a
Nuclear exchange and must therefore be taken out preemptively.
Take out who? Again it sounds like you want to punish the good
people long with the bad.
I'm all for hunting down actual terrorists and killing them. The
guys behind 9/11 should be hunted down like dogs and killed. But
don't punish the people who didn't do it.
--
Lady Libertarian - United States of America
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Oreilly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 03:42:40 AM |
|
|
"Lady Libertarian" <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote in message
news:Xns97A78B013A81ELadyLibertarianFreeW@216.196.97.142...
I'm all for hunting down actual terrorists and killing them. The
guys behind 9/11 should be hunted down like dogs and killed. But
don't punish the people who didn't do it.
Of course your arguments are well founded Lady L, and i would agree to a
large extent with your overall premise, however the enemy we face today
(followers of the islamic death cult) is more cunning & more brutal than you
realise. How can we (the west) effectively fight an enemy if we delude
ourselves into believing that the majority of Muslims are a docile peace
loving people? They are not . Islam is a fundamentalist nazi subterfuge, and
the sooner we wake up to that fact, the sooner we can stop this "who is the
enemy" BS.
With respect Lady L may i suggest you read up on the following:- Salafism,
Wahhabism, Shariah & Hadith. These are the fundamentals of Islam, and those
who reject these fundamentals are considered Takfir in the Muslim world.
Whilst i agree, it is never fair to punish the so called "innocent", however
how many "innocent" (millions) lost their lives during WW2 thanks to the
same idealistic, liberal doctrine?
Make no mistake Lady L, islam is a cancer, and the sooner the West wakes up
to this fact, the sooner Chemotherapy can be administered. Unpleasant but
necessary treatment. Do nothing and you face the
consequence................DEATH.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Libertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 04:31:28 PM |
|
|
"Bill Oreilly" <user@btinternet.com> wrote :
"Lady Libertarian" <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote in
message
news:Xns97A78B013A81ELadyLibertarianFreeW@216.196.97.142...
I'm all for hunting down actual terrorists and killing them.
The guys behind 9/11 should be hunted down like dogs and
killed. But don't punish the people who didn't do it.
Of course your arguments are well founded Lady L, and i would
agree to a large extent with your overall premise, however the
enemy we face today (followers of the islamic death cult) is
more cunning & more brutal than you realise. How can we (the
west) effectively fight an enemy if we delude ourselves into
believing that the majority of Muslims are a docile peace
loving people? They are not .
That's not true. If the vast majority of them weren't, we'd be up
the creek without a paddle.
The terrorists and islamofascists might be 5% of all muslims, I'm
not even sure about that. If they were more than that, we'd be in
deep caca right now.
Islam is a fundamentalist nazi
subterfuge, and the sooner we wake up to that fact, the sooner
we can stop this "who is the enemy" BS.
They could say the same about Christians but they'd be wrong too.
With respect Lady L may i suggest you read up on the
following:- Salafism, Wahhabism, Shariah & Hadith. These are
the fundamentals of Islam, and those who reject these
fundamentals are considered Takfir in the Muslim world.
Same as with funnie entalist Christianity here, yet most people
aren't.
Those Fred Phelps idiots have been protesting at military
funerals and claiming that our combat deaths are because god
doesn't like this country accepting gays. What abject morons.
Whilst i agree, it is never fair to punish the so called
"innocent", however how many "innocent" (millions) lost their
lives during WW2 thanks to the same idealistic, liberal
doctrine?
It's not liberal it's libertarian. And it's just good sense. When
you punish good people for what bad people do ( gun control and
banning, for instance - a liberal thing ) you just make the good
people mad at you for the loss of their rights, their life and
their liberty.
So it's EXTREMELY important to only punish the bad people for
what they did, not the good people.
Make no mistake Lady L, islam is a cancer, and the sooner the
West wakes up to this fact, the sooner Chemotherapy can be
administered. Unpleasant but necessary treatment. Do nothing
and you face the consequence................DEATH.
Others could plug Christianity into the same paragraph and they'd
be just as wrong. It's erroneous thinking dearie. Never punish
good people for what bad people do. It only leads to loss of
liberty for all.
--
Lady Libertarian - United States of America
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 04:48:19 PM |
|
|
"Lady Libertarian" <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote
.....How can we (the
west) effectively fight an enemy if we delude ourselves into
believing that the majority of Muslims are a docile peace
loving people? They are not .
That's not true. If the vast majority of them weren't, we'd be up
the creek without a paddle.
Actually, they've been pointed more Easterly in the last thousand years-
in conquest.
The terrorists and islamofascists might be 5% of all muslims, I'm
not even sure about that. If they were more than that, we'd be in
deep caca right now.
We are.
Is our 'army' comprised of more than '5%' of our citizens?
And, do the math; 5% of 1.6B is 80,000,000 islamofascists you need to worry
about.
With respect Lady L may i suggest you read up on the
following:- Salafism, Wahhabism, Shariah & Hadith. These are
the fundamentals of Islam, and those who reject these
fundamentals are considered Takfir in the Muslim world.
Same as with funnie entalist Christianity here, yet most people
aren't.
Crap-
fundamentalist Christians mostly want to sing songs and feed you pie.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Libertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 05:42:56 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote :
"Lady Libertarian" <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote
.....How can we (the
west) effectively fight an enemy if we delude ourselves into
believing that the majority of Muslims are a docile peace
loving people? They are not .
That's not true. If the vast majority of them weren't, we'd
be up the creek without a paddle.
Actually, they've been pointed more Easterly in the last
thousand years- in conquest.
The terrorists and islamofascists might be 5% of all muslims,
I'm not even sure about that. If they were more than that,
we'd be in deep caca right now.
We are.
Is our 'army' comprised of more than '5%' of our citizens?
And, do the math; 5% of 1.6B is 80,000,000 islamofascists you
need to worry about.
I didn't have figures to cite, I was just pulling an example up.
Say there are 100,000 actual radical nutball islamofascists in
the world. We don't have to wipe out 1.6B muslims to get them
I think there are something like 50,000 people in this country
who are actual members of racist orgs. That doesn't make
Christianity bad.
With respect Lady L may i suggest you read up on the
following:- Salafism, Wahhabism, Shariah & Hadith. These are
the fundamentals of Islam, and those who reject these
fundamentals are considered Takfir in the Muslim world.
Same as with funnie entalist Christianity here, yet most
people aren't.
Crap-
fundamentalist Christians mostly want to sing songs and feed
you pie.
Not the radical nutballs. If given a chance, they'd be burning
the people they hate.
--
Lady Libertarian - United States of America
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 05:56:13 PM |
|
|
"Ms Libertarian" <Ms_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote
I didn't have figures to cite, I was just pulling an example up.
Say there are 100,000 actual radical nutball islamofascists in
the world. We don't have to wipe out 1.6B muslims to get them
The muslims themselves quote about 10% of their total as being
'fundamentalists', ims. That's 160,000,000 young, strong, highly motivated
jihadim.
I think there are something like 50,000 people in this country
who are actual members of racist orgs. That doesn't make
Christianity bad.
Christianity doesn't demand world conquest as a tenet of their religion-
Islam does.
The most basic tenet of Islam is to 'Submit' and to 'Recite'- submit to the
'will of allah', and recite the oath of allegiance to their founder.
Not the radical nutballs. If given a chance, they'd be burning
the people they hate.
Even the most generous number is only about 50,000 out of a population of
300M- that's minuscule.
Even at that, the 50,000 number would contain whites, blacks, browns, asians
and amerindians in their various racist orgs- that reduces the numbers of
those of like mind to virtually nothing.
Chas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Libertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 09:26:26 PM |
|
|
"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote :
"Ms Libertarian" <Ms_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote
I didn't have figures to cite, I was just pulling an example
up. Say there are 100,000 actual radical nutball
islamofascists in the world. We don't have to wipe out 1.6B
muslims to get them
The muslims themselves quote about 10% of their total as being
'fundamentalists', ims. That's 160,000,000 young, strong,
highly motivated jihadim.
If that many had started attacking us, we'd still be in deep
yogurt.
Look, from what we can see from experience so far, how many have
actually attacked us? Maybe a few thousand in Afghanistan and
Iraq, and of course the 17 here at the WTC?
I think there are something like 50,000 people in this
country who are actual members of racist orgs. That doesn't
make Christianity bad.
Christianity doesn't demand world conquest as a tenet of their
religion- Islam does.
I don't know, because I couldn't get 2 pages into the Quran years
ago when I tried to read it. It reminded me of the southern
baptists. Hellfire and brimstone in every page. Not for me.
Do you have a cite for that statement from the actual Quran?
The most basic tenet of Islam is to 'Submit' and to 'Recite'-
submit to the 'will of allah', and recite the oath of
allegiance to their founder.
The guy who married the 6 year old?
Not the radical nutballs. If given a chance, they'd be
burning the people they hate.
Even the most generous number is only about 50,000 out of a
population of 300M- that's minuscule.
Even at that, the 50,000 number would contain whites, blacks,
browns, asians and amerindians in their various racist orgs-
that reduces the numbers of those of like mind to virtually
nothing.
Um, ok. But what about the evangelicals like Bush, who MAY
believe that we're ready for the end of the world, to happen in
the mideast? I have to feel just a little nervous when I hear
that.
--
Lady Libertarian - United States of America
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
19 Apr 2006 11:26:04 AM |
|
|
"Ms Libertarian" <Ms_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote
Look, from what we can see from experience so far, how many have
actually attacked us? Maybe a few thousand in Afghanistan and
Iraq, and of course the 17 here at the WTC?
And the hundreds of attacks against US interests all over the world- spread
over the last thousand years.
As a Northern European white man, muslims have been my hereditary enemy
since they found out we exist. That's probably not of interest to people of
other cultures, but they don't figure much in my perceptions in any case.
Do you have a cite for that statement from the actual Quran?
As the other guy said- there's hundreds of them; just hit google and choose
which ones you like.
The most basic tenet of Islam is to 'Submit' and to 'Recite'-
submit to the 'will of allah', and recite the oath of
allegiance to their founder.
The guy who married the 6 year old?
Well, in all fairness, he didn't consummate the marriage until she was nine-
as she played with her dolls, ims.
Um, ok. But what about the evangelicals like Bush, who MAY
believe that we're ready for the end of the world, to happen in
the mideast? I have to feel just a little nervous when I hear
that.
If you're worried about someone precipitating the 'end of the world', look
to the guys that set up as the enemy to be confronted.
Chas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Oreilly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
19 Apr 2006 06:06:59 AM |
|
|
"Ms Libertarian" <Ms_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote in message
news:Xns97A9CFF703900LadyLibertarianFreeW@216.196.97.142...
"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote :
Christianity doesn't demand world conquest as a tenet of their
religion- Islam does.
I don't know, because I couldn't get 2 pages into the Quran years
ago when I tried to read it. It reminded me of the southern
baptists. Hellfire and brimstone in every page. Not for me.
Do you have a cite for that statement from the actual Quran?
Simply Google, Quran Jihad, and you will find endless citations for
submission & conquest to Islam.
As with the majority of well meaning Kafir, you are preaching on a subject
you no little or nothing about Lady L. How can you you possibly argue your
corner if you have not even read & understood the basic teachings of both
the Quran & the Hadith?. Your attitude, if i may say so, is both complicit &
foolhardy, and it saddens me too listen to someone so obviously educated and
reasoned, yet so naive. Again there is no such thing Islamic fundamentalism.
You either believe in the teachings of Islam or you do not....You are either
a Muslim or a Takfir/Apostate. It's that simple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Libertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
20 Apr 2006 05:02:38 PM |
|
|
"Bill Oreilly" <user@btinternet.com> wrote :
"Ms Libertarian" <Ms_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote in
message
news:Xns97A9CFF703900LadyLibertarianFreeW@216.196.97.142...
"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote :
Christianity doesn't demand world conquest as a tenet of
their religion- Islam does.
I don't know, because I couldn't get 2 pages into the Quran
years ago when I tried to read it. It reminded me of the
southern baptists. Hellfire and brimstone in every page. Not
for me.
Do you have a cite for that statement from the actual Quran?
Simply Google, Quran Jihad, and you will find endless
citations for submission & conquest to Islam.
As with the majority of well meaning Kafir, you are preaching
on a subject you no little or nothing about Lady L. How can
you you possibly argue your corner if you have not even read &
understood the basic teachings of both the Quran & the
Hadith?. Your attitude, if i may say so, is both complicit &
foolhardy, and it saddens me too listen to someone so
obviously educated and reasoned, yet so naive. Again there is
no such thing Islamic fundamentalism. You either believe in
the teachings of Islam or you do not....You are either a
Muslim or a Takfir/Apostate. It's that simple.
Ok, as much as I like to argue on usenet :)
I'll check into this.
--
Ms. Libertarian - United States of America
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
19 Apr 2006 11:58:42 AM |
|
|
"Bill Oreilly" <user@btinternet.com> wrote
You either believe in the teachings of Islam or you do not....You are
either a Muslim or a Takfir/Apostate. It's that simple.
It's true.
I've studied Islam for about thirty-five years, including the practice of a
muslim-oriented indonesian martial art for approaching thirty years. The
martial art connection gives a special insight into their views on
warfare/conquest, the Warrior Religion, moral/ethical perspectives and so
on.
The history is there; the religious directives are there; the actuality of
their present-day implementation of those attitudes is demonstrable with
incidents *all over the world*.
My own teacher was killed some years ago by the muslim mob, along with sons
and sons-in-law, in Jogjakarta. He was of Chinese ethnicity from a family
long in Java (hundreds of years), and closely connected to the family of
Megawati Sukarnoputri.
We ignore the muslim Sultanate east of India, but they set a standard for
ruthless oppression and religious warfare that is legendary in it's
brutality.
Now, it's pointed at us once again.
--
Chas
The Warrior's Chest
http://warriorschest.com/pals.htm (blackjacks, saps & conditioning tools)
http://www.kuntaosilat.net/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris X" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 03:47:18 AM |
|
|
"Bill Oreilly" <user@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:OYqdnf-lX_oUO9nZRVnyrA@bt.com...
"Lady Libertarian" <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote in message
news:Xns97A78B013A81ELadyLibertarianFreeW@216.196.97.142...
I'm all for hunting down actual terrorists and killing them. The
guys behind 9/11 should be hunted down like dogs and killed. But
don't punish the people who didn't do it.
Of course your arguments are well founded Lady L, and i would agree to a
large extent with your overall premise, however
(Snip drivel)
Ignore this cretin - he's off his head.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 01:45:36 PM |
|
|
"Chris X" <Chris_x@postmaster.co.uk> wrote
Ignore this cretin - he's off his head.
What part of his commentary did you find objectionable?
Chas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: The Islamic Question |
18 Apr 2006 09:27:42 AM |
|
|
"Bill Oreilly" <user@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:OYqdnf-lX_oUO9nZRVnyrA@bt.com...
"Lady Libertarian" <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xtx> wrote in message
news:Xns97A78B013A81ELadyLibertarianFreeW@216.196.97.142...
I'm all for hunting down actual terrorists and killing them. The
guys behind 9/11 should be hunted down like dogs and killed. But
don't punish the people who didn't do it.
Of course your arguments are well founded Lady L, and i would agree to a
large extent with your overall premise, however the enemy we face today
(followers of the islamic death cult) is more cunning & more brutal than
you realise. How can we (the west) effectively fight an enemy if we delude
ourselves into believing that the majority of Muslims are a docile peace
loving people? They are not . Islam is a fundamentalist nazi subterfuge,
and the sooner we wake up to that fact, the sooner we can stop this "who
is the enemy" BS.
With respect Lady L may i suggest you read up on the following:- Salafism,
Wahhabism, Shariah & Hadith. These are the fundamentals of Islam, and
those who reject these fundamentals are considered Takfir in the Muslim
world.
Whilst i agree, it is never fair to punish the so called "innocent",
however how many "innocent" (millions) lost their lives during WW2 thanks
to the same idealistic, liberal doctrine?
k00k-a-d00dle-d00000!!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
