Why do you think we are at war with the Irreconcilables of radical Islam?
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, May 15, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 6
The major questions I want you to answer for me is: Why do you think we are at war with the Irreconcilables of radical Islam?
My response is based on a web site I saw.
I am not asking you why we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not asking you whether we should have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. I am asking you as to what you think the root causes of 9/11 and the War on Terror.
Let me make my case as to what I think the root causes are.
By my standards the root causes of 9/11 and the War on Terror are because the Irreconcilables of Radical Islam are caught in a double bind. The Qu'ran is inerrant. The Qu'ran cannot be wrong. My assessment of Reality is that the Qu'ran tells Muslims unequivocally that Muslims deserve to be rulers of the world. The Qu'ran also says that Islam is the only true faith. The Qu'ran says that to be Muslim is to be the best that humanity can offer. On the other hand, Muslims throughout the world are not part of the dominate cultures of the world. Almost all Muslim countries are poor and their people cannot hope to get better. How can the Qu'ran be mistaken, because it is surely not wrong?
The Irreconcilables of Radical Islam are fighting to defend God's honor. They look at their plight and cannot admit that their problems are caused by their own failings. The Qu'ran says that if they are good Muslims, they will have all the good things in life. That is not what is happening. Their internal world says one thing. Their external world says another. They desperately want their internal world, the world of their dreams and their faith, to match the outside world.
In short, we are presently at war with a set of people who believe that their religion is so great that everyone else has to either convert, die, become a second class citizen or become a slave to members of Islam. The members of radical Islam are quite willing to behead, torture, maim and burn anyone who disagrees with them. Why is that correct behavior? Why are so many people condemning the behavior of the United States and not condemning the behavior of the Irreconcilables?
I have to accept that there are people in Islam who do not support the Irreconcilables. It sure doesn't look that way, because very few members of Islam are speaking up against the Irreconcilables. Why does that make sense? As near as I can understand, members of Islam, even in this country, are afraid to speak up, because they fear being hurt by their co-religionists. Freedom is NOT free. If the members of Islam refuse to condemn the behavior of the terrorists, then they appear to condone their behavior. If they cannot condemn the behavior because they are afraid, then are they truly free?
In addition there are a large number of American academics who seek to excuse the beheadings, torture, maiming and burning anyone who disagrees with Islam. In fact there is a web site called the Daily Kos which is part of the mainstream of the Democratic party. When three contractors working for Haliburton were killed, burned and their bodies hung up from a bridge. The editor of Daily Kos said, "Screw 'em. They're mercenaries and deserved to die." No, I'm not kidding you. The ensuing comments on the web site were even uglier. Why do people condemn the United States for bad behavior, yet applaud the bad behavior of the Irreconcilables or at best ignore it? How many letter writing campaign have been launched to protest the treatment of hostages held by the Irreconcilables in Iraq? You know, maybe they've tried that... I wonder what happened when those rats in human form got those letters, did they die laughing or what?
People have compared the insurgents in Iraq to our military in the Revolutionary War. The problem I have with that is that the terrorists in Iraq wish to establish a tyrannical state. They have proclaimed their intentions. Our Founding Fathers never said any such thing and subsequent events proved that they did NOT set up a tyranny despite what some would say.
In one context I believe the people who compare the Revolutionary War in this country to the terrorists in Iraq are right. During the Revolutionary War, only about 10% of the people in the Thirteen Colonies were in favor of full independence from the British Crown. If the Revolutionary War had gone the other way, most people in the colonies would have proclaimed their love of the British crown and gone on. Same way with Islam. If radical Islam triumphs worldwide, almost every Muslim will make a show of dancing in the street either figuratively or literally. If you're listening to this, you're saying that there is no damn way that radical Islam could ever triumph over the West.
You're mistaken.
There's two scenarios where I can see Islam winning. By winning I mean, that the Caliphate comes about and radical Islam takes over the rest of the world. The Caliphate is a political unit that should by their standards stretch from Algeria to Indonesia right now. They cannot quite understand why it does not. The first stage of their project requires that the Caliphate in fact does stretch from present day Algeria to Indonesia. After that, then the rest of the people's of the world will become part of the Caliphate.
In the first scenario, radical Islam gets enough room to create a viral agent that kills off 60% of the human race. From the ashes of world civilization would arise a Islamic state like no other in history. The leaders of such a political entity could reasonably proclaim that God had vanquished the nonbelievers and they would now rule forever. This one seems kind of unlikely at the present time, because it would take a nation state to fund such a project. I know, the Russians spent a gazillion bucks trying to come up with a delivery system for a biological weapon. They failed.
Times have changed. The Irreconcilables just have to infect a couple of hundred of their followers and have them shuttle between all the major airports in the world infecting travelers. They wouldn't even have to tell the poor nutjobs that they were infected with a deadly virus. The end result would be that a huge number of people would die.
You might say that the members of radical Islam could not possibly think that they could achieve their goals doing it that way. You are not following what the Irreconcilables say in their own language. They REALLY want to kill the infidels. You might suppose that they would worry about killing lots of Muslims. Nope. The Irreconcilables do not think there ARE any REAL Muslims except them. I draw your attention to the fact that too many of the dead in Iraq ARE Muslims. The Jordanians just now noticed that. It kind of upset them.
All it would take is if the United States were to let up pressure enough for the Irreconcilables to catch their breath and go forward with this project. In the chaotic environment that exists now in the Middle East, such a project would be revealed or someone would make a mistake and release the virus too soon.
If we ever let up, then this project could go forward.
The second scenario is where they take over Europe and little by little take over the world using the resources they acquire in the conquest of Europe. That scenario seems more likely every day. The Europeans are dying out. To have a breakeven point in your population, you have to have 2.1 births per female on average. Europe has an average birth rate of 1.7 per female and falling. At the same time the number of immigrants from the Islamic World is increasing and they have more children than the Europeans. Why couldn't a Muslim party come to power, declare the Caliphate in Europe and like Hitler cancel all future elections? The populace is disarmed in Europe. The have no second amendment right. What is to stop the Muslims from taking over? Their army? Not too put too fine a line on it, but the armies of Europe are unionized. They do not spend much on them. How can they protect their citizens from the one man, one vote, one time scenario? I had thought the Muslims would initiate this scenario about 2050, but the car-b-ques of the last few months have made me think that Europe will lose its freedom to the Muslims in the 2010-2020 period. I hope to God no one on our side of the ocean decides we should bail them out one more time.
Oh, there IS one thing that I think people on both the Left and the Right should understand. People on the Right have been REALLY upset with Bush because he continues to call Islam, the Religion of Peace. I mean, too many on the Right consider that name for Islam to be ludicrous, because they can point to Shariah's demand for beheadings for murder, hand removal for thievery, lashings for all manner of crimes, stonings for adultery and the ever-popular religious backed wife beating. All I can say is that you are missing something about how jihad is declared under Shariah.
The radical Islamists defines jihad as anything they want it to be. Under a closer inspection of the Qu'ran, you should know that jihad can only be declared when Muslims are being oppressed. By saying that Islam is a Religion of Peace, Bush has cut the legs out from under radical Islam by making it hard for them to say that the United states government is oppressing the Muslims in this country. Bin Laden wanted the U.S. to oppress domestic Muslims after 9/11, so they would awaken from their slumber in this country, rise up and overthrow our government.
Admittedly, so-called Muslim civil rights groups have found numerous cases of Muslims being oppressed in this country, but they have had to REALLY work at it and be REALLY hypersensitive to make the case that Islam is being oppressed in this country. My point is that Bush is a canny man. He has made it harder for a fifth column to form in this country. He has not eliminated the possibility of a fifth column, but he has made it harder for Islamic religious leaders to declare a general uprising in this country without them looking stupid in front of their members.
I find that kind of fascinating, because people over at Little Green Footballs have a hard time grasping that nuanced position. I know, I know, that's a stupid joke. Nuanced positions are by definition, French and Liberal positions, but it does not change the fact that Bush was confronted with the possibility of a general uprising of Muslims in this country and he made a decision to calm the waters for the moment. I find that to be a good strategy given the minimal cost to us by simply mouthing the silly phrase, Religion of Peace.
The only way we can lose is if we attempt to appease the Irreconcilables. If we modify our behavior to suit their tastes, not our own, then we will have lost.
Too many people in this country do not believe that we are at war with an implacable foe. The thinking on the Left is that we can appease the Irreconcilables. I think that is a stupid idea.
People have made the comparison between the War on Terror and the Cold War or even the run up to World War II. Unfortunately it is not exactly the same. The destruction of the fascist causes in Europe, could be done by force of arms. The destruction of Communism was possible because Communism doesn't work as an economic system.
How do you get an entire religion to accept that portions of their holy book are incorrect? I mean, under the Qu'ran, there is adequate passages to support the position that the West is decadent and must be destroyed. People who come out and say that the Irreconcilables are a fringe group with little in the way of scripture to back up their position are silly.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the ambassador of Lybia to Great Britain. The ambassador's reasons for attacking American ships in the Mediterranean were very similar to Osama bin Laden's reasons for attacking us today, except the representative of the Barbary pirates was more sure of his position than Osama bin Laden. The same logic applied. We either paid tribute to our betters or our ships would be attacked.
What we're seeing today in the terrorist attacks from the Irreconcilables is not a fringe position. It is mainstream Islamic thought. The cartoon jihad has proved that to any who wants to be convinced.
There are a huge number of people in this country who do NOT want to be convinced that the Irreconcilables mean what they say. I have heard various theories as to why the Left has adopted the position that the Irreconcilables can be placated, but the people who believe that are deluded. The Irreconcilables cannot appeased.
Again, I want you to go out to my blog and answer the question: Why do you think we are at war with the Irreconcilables of radical Islam? I have told you why I think we are fighting them. Please tell me why you think we are fighting them.
You might ask what this has to do with social activism. How can you have social activism if there is a chance that our Civilization will be wiped out?
The major questions I want you to answer for me is: Why do you think we are at war with the Irreconcilables of radical Islam?
My response is based on a web site I saw.
I am not asking you why we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not asking you whether we should have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. I am asking you as to what you think the root causes of 9/11 and the War on Terror.
Let me make my case as to what I think the root causes are.
By my standards the root causes of 9/11 and the War on Terror are because the Irreconcilables of Radical Islam are caught in a double bind. The Qu'ran is inerrant. The Qu'ran cannot be wrong. My assessment of Reality is that the Qu'ran tells Muslims unequivocally that Muslims deserve to be rulers of the world. The Qu'ran also says that Islam is the only true faith. The Qu'ran says that to be Muslim is to be the best that humanity can offer. On the other hand, Muslims throughout the world are not part of the dominate cultures of the world. Almost all Muslim countries are poor and their people cannot hope to get better. How can the Qu'ran be mistaken, because it is surely not wrong?
The Irreconcilables of Radical Islam are fighting to defend God's honor. They look at their plight and cannot admit that their problems are caused by their own failings. The Qu'ran says that if they are good Muslims, they will have all the good things in life. That is not what is happening. Their internal world says one thing. Their external world says another. They desperately want their internal world, the world of their dreams and their faith, to match the outside world.
In short, we are presently at war with a set of people who believe that their religion is so great that everyone else has to either convert, die, become a second class citizen or become a slave to members of Islam. The members of radical Islam are quite willing to behead, torture, maim and burn anyone who disagrees with them. Why is that correct behavior? Why are so many people condemning the behavior of the United States and not condemning the behavior of the Irreconcilables?
I have to accept that there are people in Islam who do not support the Irreconcilables. It sure doesn't look that way, because very few members of Islam are speaking up against the Irreconcilables. Why does that make sense? As near as I can understand, members of Islam, even in this country, are afraid to speak up, because they fear being hurt by their co-religionists. Freedom is NOT free. If the members of Islam refuse to condemn the behavior of the terrorists, then they appear to condone their behavior. If they cannot condemn the behavior because they are afraid, then are they truly free?
In addition there are a large number of American academics who seek to excuse the beheadings, torture, maiming and burning anyone who disagrees with Islam. In fact there is a web site called the Daily Kos which is part of the mainstream of the Democratic party. When three contractors working for Haliburton were killed, burned and their bodies hung up from a bridge. The editor of Daily Kos said, "Screw 'em. They're mercenaries and deserved to die." No, I'm not kidding you. The ensuing comments on the web site were even uglier. Why do people condemn the United States for bad behavior, yet applaud the bad behavior of the Irreconcilables or at best ignore it? How many letter writing campaign have been launched to protest the treatment of hostages held by the Irreconcilables in Iraq? You know, maybe they've tried that... I wonder what happened when those rats in human form got those letters, did they die laughing or what?
People have compared the insurgents in Iraq to our military in the Revolutionary War. The problem I have with that is that the terrorists in Iraq wish to establish a tyrannical state. They have proclaimed their intentions. Our Founding Fathers never said any such thing and subsequent events proved that they did NOT set up a tyranny despite what some would say.
In one context I believe the people who compare the Revolutionary War in this country to the terrorists in Iraq are right. During the Revolutionary War, only about 10% of the people in the Thirteen Colonies were in favor of full independence from the British Crown. If the Revolutionary War had gone the other way, most people in the colonies would have proclaimed their love of the British crown and gone on. Same way with Islam. If radical Islam triumphs worldwide, almost every Muslim will make a show of dancing in the street either figuratively or literally. If you're listening to this, you're saying that there is no damn way that radical Islam could ever triumph over the West.
You're mistaken.
There's two scenarios where I can see Islam winning. By winning I mean, that the Caliphate comes about and radical Islam takes over the rest of the world. The Caliphate is a political unit that should by their standards stretch from Algeria to Indonesia right now. They cannot quite understand why it does not. The first stage of their project requires that the Caliphate in fact does stretch from present day Algeria to Indonesia. After that, then the rest of the people's of the world will become part of the Caliphate.
In the first scenario, radical Islam gets enough room to create a viral agent that kills off 60% of the human race. From the ashes of world civilization would arise a Islamic state like no other in history. The leaders of such a political entity could reasonably proclaim that God had vanquished the nonbelievers and they would now rule forever. This one seems kind of unlikely at the present time, because it would take a nation state to fund such a project. I know, the Russians spent a gazillion bucks trying to come up with a delivery system for a biological weapon. They failed.
Times have changed. The Irreconcilables just have to infect a couple of hundred of their followers and have them shuttle between all the major airports in the world infecting travelers. They wouldn't even have to tell the poor nutjobs that they were infected with a deadly virus. The end result would be that a huge number of people would die.
You might say that the members of radical Islam could not possibly think that they could achieve their goals doing it that way. You are not following what the Irreconcilables say in their own language. They REALLY want to kill the infidels. You might suppose that they would worry about killing lots of Muslims. Nope. The Irreconcilables do not think there ARE any REAL Muslims except them. I draw your attention to the fact that too many of the dead in Iraq ARE Muslims. The Jordanians just now noticed that. It kind of upset them.
All it would take is if the United States were to let up pressure enough for the Irreconcilables to catch their breath and go forward with this project. In the chaotic environment that exists now in the Middle East, such a project would be revealed or someone would make a mistake and release the virus too soon.
If we ever let up, then this project could go forward.
The second scenario is where they take over Europe and little by little take over the world using the resources they acquire in the conquest of Europe. That scenario seems more likely every day. The Europeans are dying out. To have a breakeven point in your population, you have to have 2.1 births per female on average. Europe has an average birth rate of 1.7 per female and falling. At the same time the number of immigrants from the Islamic World is increasing and they have more children than the Europeans. Why couldn't a Muslim party come to power, declare the Caliphate in Europe and like Hitler cancel all future elections? The populace is disarmed in Europe. The have no second amendment right. What is to stop the Muslims from taking over? Their army? Not too put too fine a line on it, but the armies of Europe are unionized. They do not spend much on them. How can they protect their citizens from the one man, one vote, one time scenario? I had thought the Muslims would initiate this scenario about 2050, but the car-b-ques of the last few months have made me think that Europe will lose its freedom to the Muslims in the 2010-2020 period. I hope to God no one on our side of the ocean decides we should bail them out one more time.
Oh, there IS one thing that I think people on both the Left and the Right should understand. People on the Right have been REALLY upset with Bush because he continues to call Islam, the Religion of Peace. I mean, too many on the Right consider that name for Islam to be ludicrous, because they can point to Shariah's demand for beheadings for murder, hand removal for thievery, lashings for all manner of crimes, stonings for adultery and the ever-popular religious backed wife beating. All I can say is that you are missing something about how jihad is declared under Shariah.
The radical Islamists defines jihad as anything they want it to be. Under a closer inspection of the Qu'ran, you should know that jihad can only be declared when Muslims are being oppressed. By saying that Islam is a Religion of Peace, Bush has cut the legs out from under radical Islam by making it hard for them to say that the United states government is oppressing the Muslims in this country. Bin Laden wanted the U.S. to oppress domestic Muslims after 9/11, so they would awaken from their slumber in this country, rise up and overthrow our government.
Admittedly, so-called Muslim civil rights groups have found numerous cases of Muslims being oppressed in this country, but they have had to REALLY work at it and be REALLY hypersensitive to make the case that Islam is being oppressed in this country. My point is that Bush is a canny man. He has made it harder for a fifth column to form in this country. He has not eliminated the possibility of a fifth column, but he has made it harder for Islamic religious leaders to declare a general uprising in this country without them looking stupid in front of their members.
I find that kind of fascinating, because people over at Little Green Footballs have a hard time grasping that nuanced position. I know, I know, that's a stupid joke. Nuanced positions are by definition, French and Liberal positions, but it does not change the fact that Bush was confronted with the possibility of a general uprising of Muslims in this country and he made a decision to calm the waters for the moment. I find that to be a good strategy given the minimal cost to us by simply mouthing the silly phrase, Religion of Peace.
The only way we can lose is if we attempt to appease the Irreconcilables. If we modify our behavior to suit their tastes, not our own, then we will have lost.
Too many people in this country do not believe that we are at war with an implacable foe. The thinking on the Left is that we can appease the Irreconcilables. I think that is a stupid idea.
People have made the comparison between the War on Terror and the Cold War or even the run up to World War II. Unfortunately it is not exactly the same. The destruction of the fascist causes in Europe, could be done by force of arms. The destruction of Communism was possible because Communism doesn't work as an economic system.
How do you get an entire religion to accept that portions of their holy book are incorrect? I mean, under the Qu'ran, there is adequate passages to support the position that the West is decadent and must be destroyed. People who come out and say that the Irreconcilables are a fringe group with little in the way of scripture to back up their position are silly.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the ambassador of Lybia to Great Britain. The ambassador's reasons for attacking American ships in the Mediterranean were very similar to Osama bin Laden's reasons for attacking us today, except the representative of the Barbary pirates was more sure of his position than Osama bin Laden. The same logic applied. We either paid tribute to our betters or our ships would be attacked.
What we're seeing today in the terrorist attacks from the Irreconcilables is not a fringe position. It is mainstream Islamic thought. The cartoon jihad has proved that to any who wants to be convinced.
There are a huge number of people in this country who do NOT want to be convinced that the Irreconcilables mean what they say. I have heard various theories as to why the Left has adopted the position that the Irreconcilables can be placated, but the people who believe that are deluded. The Irreconcilables cannot appeased.
Again, I want you to go out to my blog and answer the question: Why do you think we are at war with the Irreconcilables of radical Islam? I have told you why I think we are fighting them. Please tell me why you think we are fighting them.
You might ask what this has to do with social activism. How can you have social activism if there is a chance that our Civilization will be wiped out?
posted by aRandomTexan at
7:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home