by the Indepundit (The Milblogger Formerly Known As Lt. Smash)
DID YOU FEEL IT?
At some point in the past few weeks, a shift occured. Maybe it started back in November, when Congressman Jack Murtha lost his bid to be House Majority Leader.
Or perhaps it was on January 27, when Jane Fonda staged a defeatist demonstration on the hallowed grounds of the U.S. Navy Memorial. On that same day, some of her fellow defeatists vandalized the West Steps of the U.S. Capitol, while others spit at the foot of Iraq veteran Joshua Sparling (that's not a typo, Sparling lost his right leg in Iraq).
Maybe it all came to a head last Friday, when the House of Representatives expressed their institutional preference for defeat over victory in Iraq.
Whenever the shift began, it was evident by Saturday afternoon that something had changed. That was when a motion in the Senate to take up the House's anti-war resolution failed to win enough votes to move forward. And that was for the mildest, most watered-down rebuke that could possibly satisfy the defeatists. On that same day, the Washington Post slammed Congressman Murtha for advocating a "slow bleed" strategy to end the war in Iraq.
. . . an increasingly vocal number of Americans are indeed "finding fault" with Jack Murtha and his friends in the defeatist movement. . . . Last week, a Navy officer in Baghdad and a retired soldier began circulating a petition amongst the troops, "The Appeal For Courage," urging Congress to "fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat." Such petitions are rare, but are allowed under DoD directives designed to protect military whistleblowers. For the first few days, their petition garnered little interest. Over the weekend, the number of signatures doubled.
At the same time, blogger NZ Bear established a new advocacy group, "The Victory Caucus." By week's end, his new website had recieved over 100,000 visits, and 3,400 had registered to join the group. If you think this is small potatoes, consider that this is exactly how the left-wing advocacy group MoveOn.org got started in 1998, at the height of President Clinton's impeachment crisis. . . .
Please take note in particular of the link to the Victory Caucus. I respectfully ask Mayor Fred and the Mods to consider adding a permanent link to the Victory Caucus on the 'Burg's homepage.
It's linked.
This article starring:
al Qaeda in Iraq
Jack Murtha
Jane Fonda
Joshua Sparling
Moqtada al-Sadr
Posted by: Mike ||
02/20/2007 09:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I guess this would be a good place to post an apology for my outburst yesterday about mr. murtha.If I have offended anyone with my wacking comment I sincerly apologize. It's just that this POS really PISSES ME OFF
#4
This is treading new ground. The defeatism that happened during the Vietnam war never had any significant organized opposition. And yet it was terribly weak-kneed. Had somebody stood up as a group to support what the soldiers were doing, it might have changed the outcome.
It can also be said that much of the Watergate scandal was an effort by the democrats to attack Nixon, out of the dread fear he was going to initiate an investigation of "Who lost Vietnam?"
But Nixon never did start such an investigation, so the democrats just continued with the momentum of Watergate.
If 100,000 military signatures can be gathered in support of the mission, it may be the kick in the crotch the anti-war movement needs.
#7
Armyguy: to echo the others, you're alright with me. I didn't even read your rant, but don't have to with Murtha. Like the billboards up here in suburban Atlanta state (w/ flag and camo on the background):
"Rep. Murtha, you may cut and run, but TRUE Marines never do!"
Posted by: BA ||
02/20/2007 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Smash missed it. It was when Petraeus implemented the new ROE. Without that, nothing else will make a difference. With it, everything is changed.
#9
I am definitely on board with the idea new media allows what used to be called "the silent majority" an opportunity to stand up to the narcissists and apologists who fueled the "anti-war" "movement" over Vietnam. I support any effort by the West to encourage military action against our enemies and for the President's noble vision for an Iraq that may one day resemble Japan or Germany decades after fascism.
That said, I no longer share his optimism. I think the death cult ruling so much of the world is an order of magnitude more pernicious than the twisted vision of the Nazis or Japanese imperialism. I do not believe "extremism" is the problem; I believe islam is the problem. I do not believe it can be redeemed, only aggressively treated as the lethal infectious and endemic meme it is.
#11
ARMYGUY: I share your sentiments, as do most people here. Fred and the mods (Mod Squad?) give us all a generous allotment of bandwidth and considerable freedom of expression, but the one hard-and-fast rule is that no death threats or death wishes against fellow citizens will be tolerated. There's a good reason for that: if some misguided fool or random street thug were to harm Mr. Murtha, would you want the moonbats or the plaintiff's lawyer--but I repeat myself--to be able to claim that Rantburg "incited" the violence? More importantly, this is a democratic republic, and in a democratic republic we don't shoot our political opponents.
That said, let us all raise a glass and toast the eventual political and electoral defeat of the Murthas of the world. May they spend their twilight years in bitter retirement, as the nursing home TV plays endless reruns of the History Channel Shootout episodes on Iraq and Afghanistan, interspersed with uncut showings of United 93.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/20/2007 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#12
You're much too nice, Mike. I'd have 'em watch (un-interrupted) Snakes on a Plane, the Dixie Twits "documentary", and Borat. But, that's just me.
Posted by: BA ||
02/20/2007 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Murtha has changed over the past 5 years. He used to be a standard issue pork barrel politician interested only in keeping Johnstown green. If you look at pictures of him then and now and you will see that he now looks confused, as if he had had a stroke or is in the early stages of Alzheimers. Although he was never a war hero and it is hard to consider a Congressman as honorable, but now I think Murtha has become a senile old man being exploited by the antiwar folks. He is to be pitied, like a faithful hunting dog that has become rabid and must be put down.
#15
I am definitely on board with the idea new media allows what used to be called "the silent majority" an opportunity to stand up to the narcissists and apologists...
I always loved how we were referred to as the silent majority. I now know that we should have been called the silenced majority.
Perfidious bastards in the media have a judgment day coming their way. I don't think they are going to like it either. Same for the Donks.
#17
Actually, it's more important than just not giving the other side bad ideas. Some of our lurkers, supposedly, are members of certain multi-letter organizations and other organizations. They ought to see what we come up with, both the articles and the analysis... and also the evolution of the general attitude over time. But they won't if they think we're just a right wing version of the Kos Kiddies. *shrug* Most of you do important and meaningful things every day. But adding my mite to Rantburg is the only way I can contribute to the effort, so perhaps I over value that aspect.
#18
BA: If you're gonna go that route, keep Borat and Vichy Chicks off the schedule 'cause that'll just make 'em wistful and nostalgic. For sheer infliction-of-pain, it's hard to beat the deadly one-two-three-four combo of Gigli, Ishtar, Hudson Hawk, and Leonard Part 6.
TW: Right you are. All of us together are smarter than any one of us, and while some (e.g., Fred, Old Spook) are undoubtedly better trained and informed than others (e.g., Mike) on certain key subjects, we all have our part to contribute. Don't sell yourself short.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/20/2007 17:34 Comments ||
Top||
#19
This is extremely encouraging. I agree with NS that it is the change in ROE's that will generate the bulk of the change.
The dems are betting a whole bunch on defeat. If they are wrong and there is significant progress, then they are going to look like idiots. Murtha is the lead dog in this group, but I too tend to see him as someone who has had a screw go loose. There is a weird look in his eye that implies all is not well inside his head. Of course the bile coming out of his pie hole could also be a good indicator of same.
Our comments need to stay on the more thoughtful and adult side of things. I am consistently impressed by the caliber of posters at this site. It is a waste of bandwidth to just throw out the "kill em all" comments as it doesn't add anything to the analysis.
#20
"Had somebody stood up as a group to support what the soldiers were doing, it might have changed the outcome."
Anonymoose, I don't think so. If we had an all volunteer army in Vietnam I would agree with you but relying on draftees who don't want to be there and are just doing the bare minimum to get by fueled a lot of outright hatred of the Government and the Military. There was too much distrust of Nixon, although he inherited a mess from Johnson that Johnson accelerated through lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the micro-managing the war to the extent he had to approve of every bombing mission. The Nation wanted out of Vietnam.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/20/2007 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#21
As a senior reserve officer with 27+ years active and reserve, mobilized once, ready to go again...with a son to deploy to Iraq in the Fall... Go To H*ll, pelosimurthakennedyhagel.
It is maddening to contemplate the denizens of Washington sipping white wine and debating the final triumph of liberal democracy and free markets in the vaunted "end of history". Russia's tragedy is beyond their comprehension. For three generations, the communist system rooted out and extirpated any soul intrepid enough to show thought or initiative. By the early 1990s, Russia's European population was a passive, sullen rabble incapable of asserting its rights; the cleverest and most adventurous emigrated. Demoralization manifested itself in high rates of alcoholism, drug use and venereal disease. Life expectancy fell from 70 years in 1990 to 65 years today. It will take two or three generations before Russians acquire the courage and the sense of civil society to determine their own destiny after the fashion of the Anglo-Saxon countries.
The only leadership left in Russia by the terrible adverse selection process of the communist system was the former secret guardians of the state, men whose unique position required them to live by their wits. The former secret-police official Vladimir Putin is the only sort of man who could rule Russia in the wake of its 20th-century tragedy. There is nothing to like about the man, but there is something to respect. Russia is fighting for its life against the odds, and there is no one left to fight for Russia but the bloody-handed fighters of the old regime.
Safe in their own continent, with a Muslim population of no more than 2 million to 3 million, composed to a great extent of educated immigrants, the Americans are incapable of understanding what Russia now faces. Yet Russia is a natural ally of the United States for the remainder of the 21st century, perhaps the only natural ally the US will have. Europe does not have the stomach to resist its gradual assimilation in the Islamic world. But Russia will resist, and it will do so ruthlessly. America's cookie-cutter approach to nation-building has been a disaster; Washington stands to learn a great deal from the tragic history of the Russian Empire.
The demographic catastrophe facing Russia is about as brutal as the current regime, but I think Spengler may be on to something. I'm currently re-reading Barbara Tuchmans's A Distant Mirror and the parallels between Russia's civil disintegration and the effects of the 14th century's Black Death outbreaks are startling.
#1
Spengler is worth the reading & sometimes is a lot of fun. All his columns can be accessed here.
One of his key points I have adopted is this one: "No one today cares if Sunnis kill Shi'ites in Iraq or Lebanon, or Hamas and Fatah fight to the bitter end in Gaza - provided, of course, that US aircraft carriers keep the oil flowing through the Persian Gulf."
His starkest view:
The present conflict in the Middle East is not between Arab and Jew, but between Arabs and Jews who seek their way in the modern world on the one hand, and Arabs and Persians who reject the modern world on the other. The latter have nothing to lose and are prepared to fight to the death; how else do we explain the unlimited supply of Muslims who are prepared to die to murder Muslim civilians?
If individuals or indeed entire peoples are determined to destroy themselves, it is extremely difficult to prevent them from doing so at length. The tragedy, I expect, will continue in Iraq, as it did in Spain 1936-39, or the United States 1861-65, until there no longer are sufficient young men to put into the line. The world will little notice or care.
#2
Spengler is wrong that there are no entrepreneurial, independent Russians left. Those that were capable of it have gone to work for the foreign companies that set up in Russia starting in the 1990s, and have done quite well for themselves, as have those who did the same throughout the former Soviet empire. So there is a core capable of making things happen, as soon as the corrupt system is cleaned up just a little. in the meantime, it's still very much like Prohibition Chicago, and Mr. Wife won't take me with him because he doesn't trust me to not get kidnapped or something by the Mafiasky.
In 2006, the headlines from North Korea were depressing. Pyongyang was headed down the path of escalation: missile tests in July, testing a nuclear weapon in October. Now, 2007 has opened with encouraging news -- a breakthrough in Beijing. In effect, the agreement announced last week was answering the bomb test with a successful test of diplomacy. But this deal makes more sense if we understand the broader strategy, set in motion some time ago, that is starting to play out.
In 2005, the United States energized its flagging North Korea efforts on two tracks. One was diplomatic, the other defensive. The diplomatic strategy was never just about North Korea. The Korean Peninsula has repeatedly been a battleground for the great powers in Northeast Asia. The United States, particularly Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Robert Zoellick, saw a way to break this mold: China, Japan and Russia were flexing new diplomatic muscle. The North Korean problem could be an opportunity to unite potential rivals in common effort, an enterprise without precedent in Northeast Asia.
The defensive approach responded to North Korea's outlaw strategy for economic survival. Protecting the integrity of the international financial system was just one of the ways to show the North's leaders that trafficking in contraband was not a sustainable solution to their problems.
By late 2005, both policies had been set in motion. In September, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and his counterparts from South Korea, North Korea, China, Japan and Russia had negotiated a joint framework for comprehensive diplomatic action. Meanwhile, enforcement actions that had been pending against North Korea's partners in money laundering, such as Macau's Banco Delta Asia, were rolled out.
Then the Bush administration paused. It had been preparing to follow up with new diplomatic initiatives, but the administration was uncertain and divided about how much further to go until North Korea moved. As for the North Koreans, they were indeed hit hard as members of the international financial community became increasingly reluctant to handle their suspect transactions. Furious, they boycotted the six-party talks and tried to advertise their own strength, a course that culminated in the nuclear test last October.
After that test, Rice leaned hard on the regional diplomatic relationships she had nurtured. First -- and fast -- came U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718, the most potent action against North Korea that the United Nations had taken since 1953, when the Korean War was suspended.
Having shown the North that it had underestimated regional solidarity, the United States next moved to change the dynamic, to break the cycle of escalation. That month, Chinese President Hu Jintao and President Bush came to a strategic understanding about North Korea. They agreed that diplomacy needed to be given another chance. But the diplomacy couldn't just be a gloss, busywork that only gave the appearance of action.
To turn this strategic understanding into policy, Rice developed a two-stage strategy. First the six parties would move quickly to offset the nuclear test with unprecedented commitments from the North Koreans to stop and reverse their nuclear development and to bring back the system of monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Some called this an "early harvest" -- testing whether the ground could yield anything fruitful.
If it did, then in the second stage the six parties would follow up. But rather than returning to the old, painful pattern of piecemeal nuclear bribery, the diplomacy would have to move simultaneously on multiple fronts: scrapping the nuclear program, building normal economic cooperation, tackling the normalization of relations and -- perhaps most engaging -- getting at the unresolved issues of the Korean War.
Thus, later in October, Rice shuttled across Northeast Asia to reassure allies and win support for this diplomatic design, especially in Beijing.
Pressure had its place. So did diplomatic ingenuity. One Chinese official said to Rice, "It is better to play with two hands." And talking with the North Koreans would not be a problem, Rice concluded, if doing so did not undermine the vital regional foundation and if the North Koreans actually had something to say.
Last week's deal, skillfully negotiated by Rice and Hill with their counterparts, delivers a plan for the "early harvest." A "good, initial step" was Rice's careful phrase. The broader context in which the agreement was reached helps explain what she meant. The United States and its negotiating partners have successfully carried out a diplomatic test.
The next two months will show whether the design remains valid. Rice has agreed to a six-party meeting of foreign ministers, including the North Koreans. We will see whether the Bush administration and its counterparts can launch the second stage, when the desired outcomes to be produced from this diplomacy may finally come into view.
The writer is a history professor at the University of Virginia. From 2005 until 2007 he was counselor of the State Department.
#1
Hmmmmm. Not buying this, for now. And by that I don't mean I'm in the waiting mode that Zelikow alleges is the current US position, either. My understanding of the "deal" is that it does not include the rather aggressive design required for success against the Norks - i.e., an UP-FRONT, witnessed and completely verified root-and-branch dismantlement of all their nukyler work and infrastructure and even supervision of their personnel by a very very very intrusive ongoing and open-ended monitoring program.
But they'd never agree to this, you say? Well, OK - the point is to achieve our objective, not to put "diplomatic" points on the board.
Even prior to their little test back in October, I'd say that the extreme conditions laid out above were the only acceptable basis for a "deal". A security guarantee would even be acceptable in trade for the ultr-intrusive monitored dismantlement/demobilization regime.
I believe Bolton has criticized the deal as trading near-term benefits for longer-term Nork obligations. I'd stick with my assertion that the real and only issue is whether a complete and essentially inescapable dismantlement regime is in place - anything less may well not be worth the trouble (i.e., will leave us in no better condition - recall that we're not particularly concerned about some sort of diversified, flexible, "conventional" Nork militarized nuclear capability as we are about WMD transfer to non-state actors - so anything short of a complete and verified dissolution of the Nork nuke program will not address our central problem).
#2
The North Koreans will break their word, as always. This is just the high point in the cycle. Evidently, Banco Delta really put a crimp in their plans.
#3
This stuff is just wishful thinking. The NORKS are being backed into a corner. They are becoming a liability, even to the ChiComs, who are in there for the natural resources and to keep Korea from unifying. Chicoms have been playing both ends against the middle with their little dawg.
The quicker the Nork regime ends, the quicker the North Korean people can be rescued from their plight.
The NORKS are on the ropes and we give them a hand, thus enabling this inhuman dictatorship to survive. Give them millions of barrels of oil and we cannot have the authority to shut down and dismantle their reactors and missile installations. What a friggin deal.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/20/2007 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
On the record, Europe claims to be as concerned as America about a nuclear-armed Iran. The record also shows, however, that Europe's biggest countries do a booming business with the Islamic Republic. And so far for the Continentals, manna trumps security.
The European Union--led by Germany, France and Italy--has long been Iran's largest trading partner. Its share of Iran's total imports is about 35%. Even more notable: Its trade with Tehran has expanded since Iran's secret nuclear program was exposed. Between 2003 and 2005, Europe's exports rose 29% to 12.9 billion; machinery, transport equipment and chemicals make up the bulk of the sales. Imports from Iran, predominantly oil, increased 62% to 11.4 billion in that period.
In the absence of an official embargo against Tehran, private EU companies have sought commercial opportunities in Iran. But the real story here is that these businesses are subsidized by European taxpayers. Government-backed export guarantees have fueled the expansion in trade. That, in turn, has boosted Iran's economy and--indirectly by filling government coffers with revenues--its nuclear program. The German record stands out. In its 2004 annual report on export guarantees, Berlin's Economics Ministry dedicated a special section to Iran that captures its giddy excitement about business with Tehran.
"Federal Government export credit guarantees played a crucial role for German exports to Iran; the volume of coverage of Iranian buyers rose by a factor of almost 3.5 to some 2.3 billion compared to the previous year," the report said. "The Federal Government thus insured something like 65% of total German exports to the country. Iran lies second in the league of countries with the highest coverage in 2004, hot on the heels of China."
Iran tops Germany's list of countries with the largest outstanding export guarantees, totaling 5.5 billion. France's export guarantees to Iran amount to about 1 billion. Italy's come to 4.5 billion, accounting for 20% of Rome's overall guarantee portfolio. Little Austria had, at the end of 2005, 800 million of its exports to Iran covered by guarantees.
The Europeans aren't simply facilitating business between private companies. The vast majority of Iranian industry is state-controlled, while even private companies have been known to act as fronts for the country's nuclear program. EU taxpayers underwrite trade and investment that would otherwise be deterred by the risks of doing business with a rogue regime.
It's also hard not to see a connection between Europe's commercial interests and its lenient diplomacy. The U.N.'s December sanctions resolution orders countries to freeze the assets of only 10 specific companies and 12 individuals with ties to Iran's nuclear program. Europe's governments continue to resist U.S. calls for financial sanctions, and the German Chamber of Commerce recently estimated that tougher economic sanctions would cost 10,000 German jobs.
As if on cue, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier last week detected in Tehran a "new ambition" to resume talks. The last time the Europeans promoted such diplomatic negotiations, Iran won two more years to get closer to its goal of becoming a nuclear power. In 2004, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily, then-Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told Iranians to consider Europe a "protective shield" against U.S. pressure. The EU continues to provide a shield for its business interests in Iran, and thus a lifeline to a regime that is unpopular at home and sponsors terror abroad.
#1
Given their propensity to sell Fuhrer-bunkers, chemical weapons, nuclear "power" and cattle-prods to any maniac with cash it is no surprise Europe - and I include the UK in this - should continue to do business with Iran. What is impossible to stomach is the EU whining like Grima Wormtongue; accusing the United States of being in it for money or oil.
#1
Doris Lessing led the way on this topic, a couple of quotes from her:
Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don't seem to see this.
Why were the Europeans bothered about the Soviet Union at all? It was nothing to do with us. China had nothing to do with us. Why were we not building, without reference to the Soviet Union, a good society in our own countries? But no, we were all -- in one way or another -- obsessed with the bloody Soviet Union, which was a disaster. What people were supporting was failure. And continually justifying it.
#3
Rep. JACKSON-LEE (D-TX) has introduced the HR 254- the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act aka The federal anti-hate bill. The bill would allow for prison terms for verbal violence." Think about that!
#5
Can't sign (civilian), but is there a corresponding citation for civies? Maybe exJAG or someone can enlighten us.
Posted by: BA ||
02/20/2007 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
BA - ditto. Check out the support page on the site.
I figured posting it here would be a better contribution than posting it on my own blog. (Posting it there is more along the lines of "tell two friends" LOL)
#7
I am retired and have expressed my view to the RNC in their recent letter requesting this quarters distrbution. I responded that my checkbook would remain closed to the RNC for as long as the current House and Senate leadership refuse to grow a set. I did send a contribution to my Congressman Wally Herger who voted against this assnine resolution and called it such when asked by a local radio station.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, whose presidential campaign has been overshadowed in recent weeks by charismatic rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, today walked into a K-Street beauty salon in Washington, D.C., commandeered the clippers and shaved her head down to the bare skin.
If Britney Spears can milk a weeks worth of top headlines from this trivial act, so can I, said a visibly-agitated Mrs. Clinton, who, as it turns out, has magnificent head shape, according to the stylist on duty.
The candidate said she has not ruled out visits to tattoo and piercing parlors, and will do whatever it takes.
Im in, and Im in to win, she said. The American voters can now see that I have much a larger cranium than Sen. Obama, and I think theyll draw their own conclusions.
#2
Could the mods please make a rule that links to Scrappleface (and other satire sites) be identified in the headline? Too many times I've seen these headlines and thought "WHAT THE F*CK!!", only to see that it is just a Scrappleface article.
#3
The suggestion that Hillary may be baring skin, and more skin, and more skin in the next 2 years is the kind of thing that will bring on heavy drinking and nightmares. I must call my doctor and reorder may antidepressants, Now!
#2
The author of this filth is that ultimate horror of our age, an unholy hybrid of cultural marxism and post-modernism.
It may not be a very charitable or humane thing to say, but I'm afraid his like will need to be torn from our midst, root and all, by whatever means is necessary before too much longer.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/20/2007 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#1
The job in Iraq would be easier if Iran had something else to occupy its time and energy. Their efforts to promote civil war in Iraq would have to to be shared with protecting its arse.
It seems that Emory University's newspaper recently ran a version of this ad sponsored by David Horowitz's Terrorism Awareness Project. Naturally, the ad (actually rejected by some university's publications, including New York University and Georgia Tech) sparked an ongoing controversy. With this letter, Robert Spencer jumps into the fray:
In "Jihad Means Much More Than Violence" (Feb. 16), Will Caldwell objects to the David Horowitz Freedom Center's ad, "What Americans Need to Know About Jihad," as "propaganda," and calls for it to be censored. He asserts that "most in our community are educated enough to understand that statements like 'The goal of jihad is world domination' are completely ignorant and intentionally provocative."
Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute "Sharia" worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists. Instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. It is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi'i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools.
These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: "Jihad is a precept of Divine institution .[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."
Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, taught: "Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes: "If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them " (Hidayah) The Shafi'i scholar Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) agrees, saying that if unbelievers "refuse to accept [Islam] after this, war is waged against them " All this is not merely of historical interest. A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law was certified in 1991 by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo's Al-Azhar University, as conforming "to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community." This manual, Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveler), after defining the "greater jihad" as "spiritual warfare against the lower self," devotes eleven pages to the "lesser jihad." It defines this jihad as "war against non-Muslims," and spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: "the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians... until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax."
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations." Extremists? Propaganda? No, this is the Islamic mainstream.
Will Caldwell calls upon the Wheel "to provide the community with reliable and useful information." Reliable and useful information about jihad was in the ad and is in this letter. I'd be happy to discuss or debate this, and what can be done about it, with Will Caldwell or anyone else.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a blog devoted to bringing public notice to the role jihad theology plays in the modern world. He is also the author of The Truth About Muhammad, a New York Times bestselller.
#1
I like the third option, but it will never happen since it offends western sensibilities. To dirty, not honorable, and you just murder people in cold blood!
I would modify option 1 and three. Work with resistance groups in Iran and between them and clandestine air strikes, take out refineries, oil loading ports, pipelines and headquarters for oil companies. Create havoc in the only money making area they have.
#2
We have to go beyond this "step 1" thinking to "step 2".
That is, Iran is right that if we devastate their nuclear infrastructure, they can eventually rebuild it. That is, unless we take actions *with* the destruction to insure that they *can't* rebuild it.
And this is why I always add the partitioning of Iran to whatever battle scheme we use. Only by taking away their minority regions, and joining them to their adjacent national brothers, to be under their protection, will Iran be denied.
For such partitions to last, the Iranian military and IRG must be reduced, so they cannot take those lands back.
#3
The major problem of dealing with Iran is its location right over the main choke point of the world oil trade, the Persian Gulf. The economy of the world hinges on that trade continuing until mideast oil production gives out. Only a few nukes flying in that area will bring that day much earlier than otherwise.
Links in the original article.
From the desk of Fjordman
According to Heather MacDonald, the feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent. The university is about to name as its new president radical feminist Drew Gilpin Faust, following Lawrence Summerss all-too-brief reign. Summerss recklessly honest speculations about women in science strengthened the feminist hold on faculty hiring and promotions. The Task Force won a $50 million commitment to increase faculty diversity efforts at Harvard.
As University President, Lawrence Summers in 2005 gave a speech where he dared to suggest that innate differences between men and women could explain why men hold more seats as top scientists than women. This is a plausible thesis. According to Dr Paul Irwing at Manchester University, there are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, and 30 times as many with an IQ of 170-plus. There are other studies that indicate similar, disproportionate numbers of men among those with extremely high intelligence.
Besides, even though Summers may have been wrong, it is dangerous to embark on a road where important issues are not debated at all. One of the hallmarks of Western civilization has been our thirst for asking questions about everything. Political Correctness is thus anti-Western both in its form and in its intent. It should be noted that in this case, feminists formed the vanguard of PC, the same ideology that has blinded our universities to the Islamic threat.
It makes it even worse when we know that other feminists in academia assert that the veil, or even the burka, represents an alternative feminism. Dr. Wairimu Njambi is an Assistant Professor of Womens Studies at the Florida Atlantic University. Much of her scholarship is dedicated to advancing the notion that the cruel practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is actually a triumph for Feminism and that it is hateful to suggest otherwise. According to Njambi anti-FGM discourse perpetuates a colonialist assumption by universalizing a particular western image of a normal body and sexuality.
Harvard university recently received a $20 million donation from Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, to finance Islamic studies. This will no doubt be used to influence the curriculum to make it friendlier and less Islamophobic. Senior Western institutions for higher education such as Harvard are thus simultaneously serving as outlets for Saudi Islamic propaganda and for left-wing radical feminists. This may on the surface look like quite a paradox, but in different ways both groups discredit traditional Western culture by highlighting its history of oppression and injustice, and they both stifle ideological dissent and suppress criticism of their holy doctrines. Perhaps feminists failed to listen to fellow Harvard Professor Charles Fried, who has warned that The greatest enemy of liberty has always been some vision of the good.
Feminism has hurt us by encouraging public accept for intellectual hypocrisy, which later paved the way for Islamic infiltration. The official mantra is that men and women are not just equal but identical, but at the same time that women are also somehow superior. Both of these claims cannot, logically speaking, be true at the same time, yet both are being made simultaneously. This gross double standard closely mirrors that of Multiculturalism, where all cultures are equal but Western culture is inferior and evil.
This is a technique labelled Repressive Tolerance by the cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse in 1965. Briefly speaking, those who are deemed to belong to dominant groups of society should have their freedom of speech suppressed by progressives and radicals, and simply be denied access to discussion forums, in order to rectify the institutional oppression in society. Marcuses ideas had a huge impact in the 1960s and 70s. He also advocated free sex without any constraints as a method of freeing people from religious morality.
Prof. Bernard Lewis warned in The Jerusalem Post that Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe Europeans are losing their own self-confidence, he said. They have no respect for their own culture and have surrendered on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of self-abasement and political correctness. Although Mr. Lewis did not say so, this is to a significant extent the result of decades of demonization by left-wing academics, including radical feminists. The goal of radical feminism was never about equality between the sexes, it was about the destruction of the nuclear family and of the power structures of society in general.
As Ellen Willis, self-proclaimed democratic socialist and founder of Redstockings, a radical feminist group from 1969, stated to left-wing The Nation in 1981: Feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues, it is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. [...] The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion [...] to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values. Feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir stated that no woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children [ ] because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.
Well, after two generations of Second Wave Feminism, Ms. Willis and Ms. Beauvoir have had their way: The West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and demographic vacuum that makes us vulnerable to a take-over by Islam. And feminists still aren't satisfied.
Toy researcher Anders Nelson at Swedens Royal Institute of Technology has warned that toys have become increasingly gender-segregated over the past fifteen years: People often explain [their toy purchases] by saying that boys and girls want different things. But in order for children to be able to reflect on [the toys] they receive, adults have to open their eyes to [inherent gender] structures. To children, these [gender] roles are more unquestioned and instinctual. Mr. Nelson encouraged parents to give more gender neutral Christmas presents. In other words, no Barbie dolls for girls and no cars for boys. This is the result of a culture destroyed by Political Correctness.
Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill that would collectively tax Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited that Swedish men were just like the Islamic Taliban regime in Afghanistan. A male columnist in national newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right: All men are like the Taliban.
Misandry, the hatred of men, isnt necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.
When young politician Kjetil Vevle showed up for a meeting planning the demonstrations at that years protests at the International Womens Day on 8 March in the city of Bergen, Norway, he was told that men didnt have voting rights at the meeting even though they were passionate feminists. The leaders didnt think there was any cause for complaints, as the men had generously been awarded the right to voice their opinion, just not the right to make decisions.
Although countries such as Norway and Sweden like to portray themselves as havens of gender equality, I have heard visitors comment that the sexes are probably further apart here than anywhere else in the world. Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country to find it, which is now easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend is unmistakable. Scandinavians celebrate gender equality and travel to the other side of the world to find somebody actually worth marrying.
Norway and Sweden are countries with extremely high divorce rates. Boys grow up in an atmosphere where masculinity is demonized, attend a school system where they are viewed as deficient girls and are told by the media that men are obsolete and will soon be rendered extinct anyway.
A feminist culture will eventually end up being squashed, because the men have either become too demoralized and weakened to protect their women, or because they have become so fed-up with incessant ridicule that they just don't care anymore. If Western men are pigs and just like the Taliban no matter what we do, why bother? Western women will then be squashed by more aggressive men from other cultures, which is exactly what is happening in Western Europe now. The irony is that when women launched the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 70s, they were reasonably safe and, in my view, not very oppressed. When the long-term effects of feminism finally set in, Western women may very well end up being genuinely oppressed under the boot of Islam. Radical feminism thus leads to oppression of women.
I wonder whether Virginia Wolf saw this coming. Maybe if she were alive today, she would hail the Islamic veil as an alternative road to feminism and write a book called A Burka of Ones Own. With some luck, it might even have earned her a Diversity Scholarship at Harvard.
#1
Just when I edge towards a belief that the lunatics have taken over, an article appears that convinces me that the lunatics have, indeed, taken over. It appears that Harvard may go from a great institution of learning to live a worthwhile life to an institution teaching students how to spot a male's faults. Our faults are as well known as the faults of eating chocolates or ice cream, and the question is, "does adding a male, chocolates, or ice cream enhance a feminist's life?" Learning to spot a male's faults seems, well, stupid. Learning how to lead a great life, achieve great things, lead us out of the mess we are in, and just, finally, taking over, seems great.
#2
There are other studies that indicate similar, disproportionate numbers of men among those with extremely high intelligence.
But Mr. Fjordman forgot that there are also similar and disproportionate numbers of males amongst those with below normal and extremely low intelligence. As a group females cluster around the mean for intelligence, with males disproportionately taking up both tails of the bell curve. This doesn't address the main thrust of his argument, with which I quite agree, but is an important point nonetheless.
#3
"Boys grow up in an atmosphere where masculinity is demonized, attend a school system where they are viewed as deficient girls and are told by the media that men are obsolete and will soon be rendered extinct anyway."
And this differs from the education industry in every western country (including much of the U.S.) how, exactly?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/20/2007 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
