| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| A tipping point on Islam? |
| 2006-02-27 |
| Jim Geraghty, blogging from Turkey, wonders if we're seeing a tipping point in Western attitudes toward Islam. Geraghty collects a lot of quotes, and writes of "my sense that in recent weeks, a large chunk of Americans just decided that they no longer have any faith in the good sense or non-hostile nature of the Muslim world." What's interesting -- and what supports Geraghty's point -- is that Democratic politicians who have generally opposed "racial profiling" are nonetheless opposing the ports deal because, basically, the company involved is an Arab company. It's funny that it's the Bush Administration that has -- not least because it's traditionally been too friendly to the Saudis -- been very careful not to cast the current war as a war against Muslims or Arabs. (It was forever before Bush even admitted that his war against terror was actually a war against fundamentalist Islamic terror.) Obviously, however, the Democrats, and judging by the polls, a lot of other people, feel otherwise. I think that's unfortunate. Osama and the Islamists want to see an all-out war between Islam and the West. If this happens, Islam will rapidly become a tiny remnant of its current self. You can worry about port security if you want (I did, though I feel better about the port deal now -- though in part because it appears that port security in general is so very bad that this deal can't make much of a difference) but casting this in terms that suggest that we're at war with all Arabs, or all Muslims, just buys into the Islamists' apocalyptic scenario. I don't like to see people in America, by pandering to stereotypes, doing that. Folks at Rantburg are a lot more informed than the average Joe, so much of this isn't news to us. But I also sense a change here as reflected in the, shall we say, more kinetic nature of comments and the mods increased use of the sink trap indicate. The cartoons episode has shaken a lot of Americans confidence that our current strategy of fighting terrorism while avoiding outright confrontation with Islam can prevail. Comments by the Vatican over the weekend indicate that Benedict has limits on the number of cheeks to be turned also. Perhaps this is a tipping point of sorts on the way to the confrontation the Muslim world sure seems to be asking for. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #10 For some reason I thought about what would happen if the West used Moabs on selected Mosques during Friday prayers. Better than hitting Mecca or using nukes. Yeah its still a tremendous death toll and would hit innocents as well but when you get down to it, if we could sort out which Mosques were spreading the bile, and the cost of compromise exceeded the cost of extermination. Well its a bit like Mike Corleoni taking out his enemies at one time. Do we have enough planes though? |
| Posted by: Ulaish Glereth8259 2006-02-27 17:34 |
| #9 TopMac, Thanks for the "boots on the ground" intel. Sounds promising and is consistent with some other things I've read. We still need to deal with the exporters of terror and unrest. These are Iran, Pakistan (territories) and Saudi Arabia (Wahhabism). KSA is key because Wahhabism is at the root of Islamist terror cycle. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2006-02-27 16:57 |
| #8 No. They want to continue with the current asymmetric warfare. An all out war, benefits the West. More precisely, they want all of Islam fighting while the West continues to sleep. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-27 14:33 |
| #7 I think that's unfortunate. Osama and the Islamists want to see an all-out war between Islam and the West. No. They want to continue with the current asymmetric warfare. An all out war, benefits the West. If this happens, Islam will rapidly become a tiny remnant of its current self. I can live with that. In fact, I could live with that ever since I did some reading on the history of Islam after my first month of reserve service in Intifada-I. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-02-27 13:13 |
| #6 I've noticed this as well. I said the same the other day. A corner has indeed been turned. It has real potential to turn ugly and I respect George Bush for doing a good job to keep the tensions down as low as possible, while still fighting the war. As for this port deal - I think too much is being made of the "racist" aspect of this. I think in general, many Americans, like me, just don't think it's a great idea to grant control of our running our ports to foreign countries with a potentially hostile interest; be it Russia, China or an Islamic country. I don't really care if its a good idea or a bad one. I would just feel better if our ports were run by American companies instead. Telling me I'm racist because of it is just a way to stop the discussion without having to really examine what this may or may not mean to our security. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-27 13:01 |
| #5 the "insurgents" can't do jack to protect them from the Shiites. Good point, ed. I think Zarq's gang just lost a bunch of street cred. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-27 12:50 |
| #4 I agree the bombing was a defeat for the terrorists and rejectionist Sunnis. The Shiite riots and destruction of Sunni mosques clearly showed to the Sunnis that they are at the mercy/forbearance of the Shiites, that Sunnis are not the majority and that the "insurgents" can't do jack to protect them from the Shiites. The Sunnis were left naked and they know it. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-02-27 12:49 |
| #3 Since I am living and fighting with these guys...this is my opinion. Nobody here is happy with the bombing and I believe this may in the long run be a strategic victory for our side. None of those I work with give a civil war breaking out a chance of happening and if the government can remain committed to being firm and follow the rule of law we may have broken the back of Islamofascism as the President has said. If my folks are any indication of the future we have indeed tipped in our favor |
| Posted by: TopMac 2006-02-27 12:36 |
| #2 I tend to place a lot of weight on the things they actually say and do, so I was ready to write off the whole stinkin' lot of them right from the git-go. Once you get past thinking that "they can't really mean those hateful things", the logical course of action is pretty clear. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-02-27 12:19 |
| #1 Comments by the Vatican over the weekend indicate that Benedict has limits on the number of cheeks to be turned also. Each of us is only born with four apiece and Muslims are amongst the most slap-happy breed on earth. Go figure. As has been said here before, by myself and others, if the cost of coexisting with Muslims outweighs the cost of exterminating them, guess what happens? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-27 12:04 |