This being The Wall Street Journal, we went straight to the bottom line. How much, we asked our visitor at a recent editorial board meeting, does it cost to free one North Korean refugee hiding in China?
The Rev. Phillip Buck pauses a moment before replying, apparently making the yuan-to-dollar conversions on the abacus in his mind. "If I do it myself," he says, "the cost is $800 per person. If I hire a broker to do it, it's $1,500."
Pastor Buck is a rescuer. It's a job title that applies to a courageous few--mostly Americans and South Koreans and predominantly Christians--who operate the underground railroad that ferries North Korean refugees out of China to South Korea, and now, thanks to 2004 legislation, to the U.S. Mr. Buck, an American from Seattle, says he has rescued more than 100 refugees and helped support another 1,000 who are still on the run. For this "crime"--China's policy is to hunt down and repatriate North Koreans--he spent 15 months in a Chinese prison. He was released in August. . . .
. . . The refugees, Pastor Buck argues, are the key to regime change in North Korea and, by inference, the key to halting the North's nuclear and missile programs. Help one man or woman escape, he says, and that person will get word to his family back home about the freedom that awaits them on the outside. Others will follow, and the regime will implode. This is what happened in 1989, when Hungary refused to turn back East Germans fleeing to the West, thereby hastening the collapse of the Berlin Wall. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
12/18/2006 06:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't see it. While commendable, the refugees are already out of Kimmie's clutches; it is the ones still inside that we need to convince. Until we can hijack the radio and TV frequencies and start broadcasting our own stuff, this is not the way to do it.
kind of reminds me of rebuilding the discarded engine after i have swapped it out and have no intention of reinstalling it....
Excerpt: If you had vaguely assumed that the now routine comparisons of Israelis to Nazis derived from an antipathy to Ariel Sharon or the post-1967 transformation of the Zionist Entity from plucky embattled underdog to all-conquering military behemoth, it's sobering to be reminded that the French were doing the Israelis-are-the-new-Nazis shtick within 10 minutes of the end of the Second World War. Jews, wrote the consul general René Neuville in a lengthy cable from Jerusalem in 1947, are "racist through and through . . . quite as much as their German persecutors."
#2
My dad was in WWII in Europe. He said he'd rather have two Brits behind him than a division of French. He knew the Brits would at least try to keep up.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/18/2006 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
The Region: US primacy lives
By Barry Rubin
Suddenly, there's a new fad in discussing international affairs today, and it may be summarized as the "America is dead" school. Echoing Iran, Western - including US - analysts are claiming that recent events prove the United States is a pitiful, helpless giant.
What the heck is this based on? The only two pieces of evidence seem to be the fact that the US has been unable to transform Iraq and Afghanistan into stable democracies in a brief span of time. And, one might add at the extreme limit, that it has not ended the Arab-Israeli conflict, defeated the forces of radical Islamism, or stopped Iran from developing nuclear weapons either.
This is going to be a very short-lived myth, based on an extremely near-sighted view of the international situation. Regarding Iraq, the Baker-Hamilton report - which basically proposes that America throw itself on the mercy of its worst adversaries to save itself - is already the thing that is dead. The Bush administration has already clearly rejected the report and is working on its own plan, to be issued in January.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S rhetoric has also changed quite noticeably. Instead of speaking of "victory" in Iraq, it talks of "success," which is explicitly defined as a regime in Iraq which can defend and sustain itself while being an ally in the war against terror. This is no petty verbal shift. It is a long-needed lowering of goals and expectations.
No longer will the US seek a perfect Iraq, but rather a realistic scenario of a country which can fight its own civil war. The US will help, but cannot deliver, victory in Baghdad. The style and methods used to carry on the battle will be Iraqi, not American.
And this fits into a wider picture. Even at the wildest extremes of mainstream unilateralism no one in US policymaking circles accepted the notion that America could do everything itself.
As far as the Middle East is concerned, other countries could largely be divided into three categories: those determined to sabotage US efforts (notably Iran and Syria, along with their clients); those unwilling to help at all (basically the rest of the Arab world), and those ready to play at cooperating without actually doing much (most of Europe).
Then, when problems aren't solved, all three groups can conveniently blame the US. And if the US does not deliver pain-free, rapid solutions against all these odds, they can proclaim that America has failed. I am not referring here mainly, or purely, to the invasion of Iraq, which other countries had every right to think a mistake.
STILL, IT should never be forgotten that the perceived failure of will at pursuing sanctions led US policymakers - mistakenly or otherwise - to conclude that an attack was the only solution. Nor is it fitting for those who have so consistently criticized US efforts, failed to help, and often tried to subvert those efforts to speak of an American failure of will simply because Americans are persuaded by their arguments.
In addition, what should also not be missed here is the fact that the US can sustain governments in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely. It is not abandoning that effort, it is just switching to another, more reasonable, strategy. Willingness to reevaluate mistakes is a sign of strength; it was the rigidity previously demonstrated by President George W. Bush before accepting the real situation in Iraq that was the weakness.
But, after all, the same charge could be brought against European countries which demanded the US pursue the diplomatic route in combating Iran's nuclear weapons campaign and now will not recognize the failure of their strategy. The same applies to those who have put forward a peace-process-above-all strategy on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and refuse to see that it failed completely because the Palestinian leadership (which is far worse today than in 2000) rejected peace.
ANYONE underestimating continued US primacy is going to be making a big mistake. Of course there are limits to that power, first and foremost the ability to transform the political culture of other countries. Moreover, terrorism as a strategy tries to wear down a stronger power through attrition, persistence, and propaganda. In essence, the perpetrators show their willingness to destroy everything in order to blackmail their adversary. This is what we have seen among the Palestinians, with al-Qaida, and in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.
In none of these cases, however, has this approach brought victory to the insurgents, only the ability to sustain bloodshed and crisis. If the US has not achieved victory, it is also far from being defeated and still holds the upper hand. If US policymakers realize that putting all their resources in the Iraq basket limits the ability to employ them elsewhere, that is a necessary preface to sustaining that ability to apply power.
Still another point that should not be neglected is that past predictions of American decline rested largely on the belief that one or more substitutes would be found. A very fine speculative fiction writer brought out a novel around 1990 about the Soviet Union emerging as victor in the Cold War. Needless to say, sales suffered. Japan, one candidate, has undergone a severe economic downturn; a united Europe, another, has stalled in its forward progress. The last of the potential candidates is still at an early stage of development and it remains to be seen if there will ever be an Age of China in humanity's future.
Prospects for the US, then, remain quite good on the international scene. If you believe that Bush has done a dreadful job, all the more reason to attribute setbacks temporarily to him and assume that his successor will return the US to its position of primacy and leadership.
If, however, anything brings about the decline of America, it will be the kind of policies of appeasement and deliberate weakness advocated by so many of its critics and false friends.
#1
The problem is not US thinking it can do things by itself; it is the realization that certain things have to get done - and no one else is willing to do the tough chores that guarantee success.
When the Clinton administration let Europe call the shots we got Bosnia (250,000 dead). When we let Kofi call the shots we got Rwanda (400,000 dead).
The real problem in the world is the unwillingness of other countries to step up against armed thugs.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
12/18/2006 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
FA: When the Clinton administration let Europe call the shots we got Bosnia (250,000 dead). When we let Kofi call the shots we got Rwanda (400,000 dead).
The real problem in the world is the unwillingness of other countries to step up against armed thugs.
I think Americans get this idea - via journalists - that every time something bad happens around the world, it's our job to fix it. The solution is to start curbing this reflex response that every international problem is somehow our problem.
#3
Good article, but PRIMACY thru STRENGTH = PEACE THRU STRENGTH, etc. still needs to be preserved and maintained. SOVIET UNION > now called EURASIA; or RUSSIA-CHINA + SCO nations, espec after Adolf's defeat during WW2. Russia is engaging in resource-centric, econ aymmetric warfare whle aligned US DemoLefties work to empower anti-Amer American Socialism + OWG-Globalism inside the USA while weakening Amer's power/influence/credibility overseas > YOU KNOW, "USSA, NOT USSR, ERGO AMERIKA IS THE ONE AND oNLY Only ONLY O-N-L-Y OOOOONNNNNNLLLLYYYY
ONE, D ***ng it, THAT HAS TO VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY, UNILATERALLY = MULTILATERALLY/POLARLY, SURRENDER". * All together, boyz, wid feeling, OOOOOOOPPPPPPPSIES!
#4
THE ADMINISTRATION'S rhetoric has also changed quite noticeably. Instead of speaking of "victory" in Iraq, it talks of "success," which is explicitly defined as a regime in Iraq which can defend and sustain itself while being an ally in the war against terror. This is no petty verbal shift. It is a long-needed lowering of goals and expectations.
No longer will the US seek a perfect Iraq, but rather a realistic scenario of a country which can fight its own civil war. The US will help, but cannot deliver, victory in Baghdad. The style and methods used to carry on the battle will be Iraqi, not American.
I see this as an incremental shift towards a much more effective American role in world affairs. We need to migrate away from this nation-building nonsense and simply begin "breaking things". It's what a military does best and about all that our foes deserve beyond a swift and timely death.
As far as the Middle East is concerned, other countries could largely be divided into three categories: those determined to sabotage US efforts (notably Iran and Syria, along with their clients); those unwilling to help at all (basically the rest of the Arab world), and those ready to play at cooperating without actually doing much (most of Europe).
So long as this does not change, America needs to focus on making life as hard as possible for our enemies and not give a rat's ass about any more "hearts & minds" bullshit.
The real problem in the world is the unwillingness of other countries to step up against armed thugs.
Robert Mugabe's continuing existence, along with Europe's support of the Palestinians, are proof of this nonsense. While some of this is due to triangulation by the likes of China, Russia and France, far too much of this crap is a direct result of some wierd deep-seated fear by most nations to assume any moral authority whatsoever. Screw that shit. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
The solution is to start curbing this reflex response that every international problem is somehow our problem.
Somehow America has been given a reinvented whiteman's burden in the form of being the world's policeman. We need to change that over to "breaker of bad boys' toys".
#5
SPACEWAR.com > Brit Officio/WALKERS WORLD > CHINA will be Mega-Power [alongstside USA?] in 13 years [Year 2019-2020]. OTHER [paraphrased] > US DEBT at $4.0Trillion [WND.com] + USA IS INSOLVENT + AT RISK OF BANANA REPUBLIC-STYLE HYPER-INFLATION + CHINA WARNS USA MAY DUMP $1.0 Trilyuuuhn IN DOLLAR RESERVES + IRAN SWITCHES FROM DOLLARS TO EURO + US DOLLAR/CURRENCY IS WORTHLESS.
* The USA is, once again, doomed Doomed DOOMED D-O-O-M-E-D DDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMEEEEDDDDDD, they tells ya - have I said the USA is doomed.
1. The Most Dangerous Game
LURKING BENEATH OUR INTERNAL ARGUMENT concerning the relentless demographic expansion of Islam into the West without assimilation, is the persistent background question, "Oh, my, whatever shall WE do with THEM?" Shortly after 9-11, I predicted that waging unwinnable containment-war would only generate total destruction thinking. We have seen it in the blogs for quite some time; now it is in the open. My thinking is: Islam is programed mind control; Muslims can, and should, be de-programed. A Persian co-worker informed me that 300,000 Iranian immigrants to the US have abandoned the Arab hate cult. Only our hate laws prevent Persian converts from pro-active work against the Arabists. Who needs mass slaughter? I do advocate summary execution of anyone who finances, incites, participates in or serves as an accessory after the fact to terror.
WE are, you see, like muddlers and fiddlers since Nero, worried about THEM. Our doltish conservative muddlers and fiddlers worry about what "THEY will do to US" if we aren't very, very careful and selective about which of THEM we capture or kill while WE seek to give THEM the "gifts" of freedom and democracy. Our brave new fiddlers on the Left fiddle about worrying if THEY have enough to eat, enough to wear, enough respect, enough, in short, of the love THEY deserve for not killing US today. Before we exclude Muslims from freedom of religion protections, we must cease denial of their domination plans. They are thinking of an Islamic world. No? Check this link: http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html
Both bumbling groups may differ in the focus of their fretting, but fret they do. For the problem, as they have defined it, has to do with what is commonly stated as 'a statistically small group of Muslims around the world' who need to be dealt with in some manner so that greater Islam can get on with the historic task of being "a religion of peace and understanding." The majority of both camps of muddlers and fiddlers agree on this one thing: It isn't Islam that's the problem, just a few heretics that have gotten out of hand in their zeal to obey the will of God, and, hey, who hasn't done that from time to time?
One solution, commonly referenced as "the Left/Liberal" position is essentially "leave them alone and they'll come home. They know its for their own good." The other solution, "the Right/Conservative" position, is to force assimilation, modernization, reformation and democratic mechanisms upon Islam "for its own good."
The two positions agree that "something must be done." They differ only in their specifications for "a New!, Improved! Islam" that can play well with other religions and nations in the post-modern world where "business as usual" is worshipped more than any other state of affairs. Both positions, whether they focus on "giving" the benefits of the modern world to the West's Islamic populations spread out in its cities and nations, or "bringing" the same benefits to the center of Islamic mass in the Middle East, share the belief that Islam can be "fixed."
Once you understand that the question posed by both enclaves of political "thinkers" boils down to "How can WE best fix THEM?" the subtext of the whole Big Argument starts to echo Richard II:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills....
People think this way when they abridge consideration of the fact that Muslims can be de-programed. One thing is true for all Rantburgers: every freedom you enjoy, most possessions you cherish, your familial relations, etc, would be negated in a Muslim world. Start the de-programing.
#1
All Moslems? Including the Kurds? And the Iranians who oppose the mullahs? And Hamed Karzai? And Steven Vincent's translator, Nour Weidi? And Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, the guy who helped free Jessica Lynch? And the Afghans who helped that wounded SEAL escape and evade? And Major Showali? And the Iraqi police and military who are standing up to the insurgents? And the families of the people in Saddam's mass graves? And the judges who are sending him to the noose? And the women of Saudi Arabia, who are essentially chattel slaves?
The devil sends his lies into the world in pairs so that, fleeing one, we might embrace its counterpart.
The Jimmy Carter approach (embrace the terrorists and kill of the Israelis) is evil. The James Baker approach (make deals with the devil) is evil. The Michael Moore-Andrew Sullivan moonbat approach (pay no attention to those bomb-toting jihadis over there--the real enemy are the eeeevil Christianist breeder capitalists!) is evil. We all see that quite clearly. In fleeing these lies, let us not embrace their counterpart.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/18/2006 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Muslims cannot and will not peacefully coexist with their fellow men. As long as the central tenet of their religion is world domination, they are the blood enemies of the West. If they are willing to let us live unmolested then fine. If not, better they die than us. There must be consequences for actions. If they continue to wage war on the US, the US must wage war fully and completely against them
Posted by: Random Thoughts ||
12/18/2006 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Bravo, Mike, my thoughts as well.
Kurds seem like an honorable people. And there are plenty of Iranians who would like to see the Mad Mullahs swinging from a rope. Plenty of moderate Indonesians (who need to step on their crazy cousins but that's another post). And look at the Afghans who are working with us against the Taliban -- they know the score, they've been there.
Genocide is unacceptable. Always. Completely. We're going to win the war against the jihadis, and we're not going to sell our souls as we do so.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/18/2006 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Before going ballistic over this article, I suggest reading it first. Vanderleun is NOT advocating genocide against Muslims; far from it. In fact, he says,
"This is why I still deeply believe that the current effort in Iraq and the Middle East to counter and expunge Islamic terrorism and turn Islam from the road it is on towards one of reformation and assimilation is the best path that can be taken at this time. Indeed, for all the ineptitude of the current administration, for all the expense in treasure and lives, this shoot-the-moon, Hail Mary of a foreign policy in Iraq is not just a policy to make America safer at home. It is the only thing that stands between Islam and its own destruction."
He's not arguing for genocide; he's warning that given the history of the West, de facto genocide may well be the outcome if our present efforts fail, and Islamic extremists eventually succeed in pulling off another mass-casualty terrorist attack here (or in Europe).
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/18/2006 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"The devil sends his lies into the world in pairs so that, fleeing one, we might embrace its counterpart."
Much the way I see it - Islam is merely a "cab off the rank" of those waiting to take us to global domination. Still at the rank, but with engines running, are those heading for "Dominionist / Reconstructionist" forms of legalism, seeking to place the world under Old Testament law; or those "enlightened" ones who would subject us to "Natural Law / Universal Law" (New Age) who would wipe us out if we resist.
Islam is doomed (Gog - Magog / Yajuj wa Majuj) - al Qiyamah - no need to wage genocide against it, no matter how tempting it is, in response to the RoP's constant, multi-pronged attacks on the West.
#11
Excalibur is right: It isn't genocide if the determinant is not one's race, but one's religion.
Reaching for the race/genocide argument where it is not warranted shows a poverty of argument: rather than build a case from verifiable facts and being careful with one's terminology, the accuser gropes for some sort of hook or angle to spin the issue as a race issue. Everyone is opposed to true racism, just as people back in the 50's were opposed to communism, but the liberal slant on McCarthyism is that he was using accusations of people being communist as a cover for a private vendetta. Do not let the fact that McCarthy was partly right to obscure the fact that lefties project their behavior on others, and thus launching a baseless accusation of Racism to ignite a thoughtless lynch mob in order to get their way is already within their character to do.
"Genocide" is a deliberately misleading term. I believe "culticide" is the more appropriate one.
#12
Why are so many people keen to somehow save a "reformed" version of Islam?
Seriously. Would they propose to save a "reformed" version of Aztec human sacrifices? or save "reformed" Nazism?
I am convinced that Islam is a death cult -- based on Moslem scripture, their own interpretation, their millennial actions, and their modern thirst for WMD. There is no room for both Western civilization and Islam in a modern world. They know it and proclaim it.
#14
In the conquests of the Americas, most locals were programed in the Roman Catholic dogma. In New England, Protestantism was adopted. Muslims convert from the disgruntled - non-assimilating African Americans, prisoners, bored middle class Caucasians - and by murder coercion: believe it or else.
Islam must be treated like Aztec Cannibalism, as beyond freedom of religion protections.
#15
I'm not pro genocide, however I want to caution people on being too pro-Kurd.
The Kurds have established a relatively decent society in their portion of Iraq. However, they still discriminate against non Kurdish peoples (including some minority Christian groups) and have so skeletons in the historic closet.
#16
If and when we get our own left wing to work with us, the BEST outcome we can possible hope for, and achieve a true peace over, is the end of the growth of Islam. That's the BEST outcome.
Now, what happened to the Christians of North Africa ? What happened to all the Jooos of the Arabian Peninsula ? Those peoples disappeared centuries ago. They were summarily dispatched by jihad.
So, some of you want to play for a tie.
I don't. I don't want to pass the struggle down to future generations.
Islam must go. The human race must shed cavemanism and move forward. Progress works, and slavery and population control do not work, under any dogma, under any name.
And, those 'moderate muslims' you speak of, are, to some degree, captured by Islam. We can accept defectors who denounce Islam and spit on the Snackbar floor. We can kidnap their young and de-program them. Complete genocide is not necessary to rid the world of Islam, but violence is necessary. Get used to it. Stop being a PC whimp.
Actually a lot of people believe that if Islam gives up executing apostates the religion would be defanged in one generation; and once defanged it would wither quickly. This belief is based on the writings of moslem secularists, apostates and believers.
Of course its easy to say and difficult to do but its not impossible.
#19
The point of the article, as pointed out by others, is that we are headed inevitably toward a bifurcation point with Islam. And that includes the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly among its adherents.
Once the tipping point is reached the world of the "infidel" will either roll over and be slowly inviscerated. Or, Islam and its adherents will suffer a beat down that will make the Holocaust look like walk in the park.
Thats gonna slow down of its own accord. Total Fertility Rates have dropped in Tunisia, in Egypt, and even in Iran. Only place in the arab world where TFRs are staying stubbornly high is the Palestinian Territories, which is an annoyance for Israel, but not a demographic threat to the West as a whole. The main area where Muslims TFRs are staying is is Muslim Africa - a phenomenon that is similar to what is happening in most of non-Muslim Africa as well.
As for not assimilating, some of course are - look at the French muslim women who SUPPORT a ban on the veil, for example.
Of course some unfortunately are assimilating to the WORST aspects of Western culture, like Rap-gangsta culture, which seems to be alot of what is happening in the Banlieus of Paris.
#22
Only place in the arab world where TFRs are staying stubbornly high is the Palestinian Territories
Not so high as all that even there, liberalhawk. There's been a good deal of fiddling with the birth statistics on the part of the Palestinian Authority. Remember the "missing million Palestinians" thingy a while back? If I recall correctly, Palestinian mamas are having five or six offspring a piece these days, not the historical 7-9 per.
#23
Why are so many people keen to somehow save a "reformed" version of Islam?
Seriously. Would they propose to save a "reformed" version of Aztec human sacrifices? or save "reformed" Nazism?
Look the question and answer is rather simple. Islam is in fact a desert cult built up around a terrorist teaching. It demands world enslavement at the penalty of death. In other words our genocide. The Dhimmis can lay down and die, the rest of us will do what we can.
Answer, close every single mosque on the planet. Hang every mullah that does not leave islam. Burn every copy of the quran.
It work in wiping out Thugism in India. Taking a clue from history is our only chance. And two such dates in history would be the Battle of Tours and 9-11.
#24
Japan during WWII was a supremacist, Emperor-worshiping, militaristic violent cult. They launched an unprovoked attack on us. They treated POW's and local populations with cruel barbarism. In China they committed acts of unspeakable brutality.
Today modern Japan is a powerful ally, as well as an economic and cultural superpower. They've been at peace for 60 years. People change.
#25
"Excalibur is right: It isn't genocide if the determinant is not one's race, but one's religion."
Genocide has an expanded definition of nation as well as race. Islam portrays itself as one "ummah", which should qualify as a nation for the purpose of genocide (which I don't advocate anyway). It certainly needs to be defanged, however, and all "infidel" support for Islam & its agenda must cease. No more "uncovered meat" Imams, "leb-style" gang rapes, all-halal public schools or any of the cultural baggage that Islam brings.
However, Islam contains the seeds of its own destruction, if it does not deal with its own hotheads - it must accept that Islam is the cause of Islam's troubles, not the west or Israel, and Ahmadinejad's chosen course of destroying Israel is doomed to fail.
#26
Japan during WWII was a supremacist, Emperor-worshiping, militaristic violent cult. They launched an unprovoked attack on us. They treated POW's and local populations with cruel barbarism. In China they committed acts of unspeakable brutality.
Today modern Japan is a powerful ally, as well as an economic and cultural superpower. They've been at peace for 60 years. People change.
The Japanese changed after a beat-down of Biblical proportions convinced the Emperor that to continue would mean no more Japanese.
There is no one in the Muslim world now to give such an order. The cult demands conversion or death of the whole world. The Jihadis represent the Reformation of Islam. Hard times are coming.
#27
We are on the path of half measures, appeasement and marking time until the attrocities perpetrated by the muslamifascists back the West up to a wall. At this point, vast numbers of muslims will die a horrible death.
Pacification will then ensue and a remarkable retreat of Islam will result.
What will be left of the West is the question? Fjordman, Steyn and others have expounded on the demographic decline of the Continent coupled with the migration of muslims promise huge changes in European society.
Ironically, Chirac's EU superstate may be the only thing that prevents many English, Swedes, French and Dutch from real dhimmitude. I predict Anglo-Saxons will be begging for the superstate in 20 years.
The great culling may occur any time from now to 2030 depending on how smart the islamofascists play it. If they're smart they'll stick to demographic conquest, but we all know they are incapable of playing nice so they will probably overstep sometime well before Europe falls (ap)peasefully.
#28
Another thing, if and when the time comes that every last muzzie is under a rock somewhere, we cannot step forward and demand that hostilities cease. We should demand an unconditional surrender from the muzzies, not a PC unilateral ceasefire.
No more PC, no more feeling good about yourself.
Feel secure knowing that the job is done.
#29
My comments from when this was posted yesterday:
Both bumbling groups may differ in the focus of their fretting, but fret they do. For the problem, as they have defined it, has to do with what is commonly stated as 'a statistically small group of Muslims around the world' who need to be dealt with in some manner so that greater Islam can get on with the historic task of being "a religion of peace and understanding."
Better known as the less desirable form of that proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.
Both positions, whether they focus on "giving" the benefits of the modern world to the West's Islamic populations spread out in its cities and nations, or "bringing" the same benefits to the center of Islamic mass in the Middle East, share the belief that Islam can be "fixed."
Theres that pesky light again. And it's still moving ...
It strikes me that a religion that doesn't view itself as broken is unlikely to take kindly to the notion that it needs fixing.
Maybe that explains the complete and total absence of any reformation.
What if, as has been repeatedly stated by Islamic spokesmen in their media and their capitols and their mosques, Islam has neither the interest in nor the capacity for assimilation?
Good question.
What if Islam continues, as it has for many centuries, to be implacably hostile to the West?
What if, in a series of increasingly violent incidents coming quickly over a relatively short number of years, what we so tenderly term "Islamic radicals" continue to attack the cities and nations in which large numbers of Muslims live in relative isolation from the body politic, and it is known that those attacking come from and fade back into these unassimilated populations?
This has already been happening for the past five years.
This society can even ride out the killing by weapons of mass destruction of any kind of a number of cities. America, Europe, and Western Civilization can survive anything the radical Islamists can throw at us.
Optimistic, but I'll roll with it.
The society that will have much more difficulty surviving with its cherished "values" intact will be what happens to the global society of Islam should it continue to attack the West with increasing ferocity.
Which is why Islams very survival hinges upon radical reformation and not any sort of gradual evolution.
A common catch phrase of Marxism is that "The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him." I dread the coming catch phrase, "The Muslim will supply the West with the excuse to eradicate Islam," but that is clearly lurking in one of our possible futures; a future that although unthinkable is not inconceivable.
Unreformed Islam can no more reverse this than it can make rivers run uphill.
A second series of attacks on America at the level of 9/11 or greater will not bring out more B-52s. They are already out. A second series will bring out the one arm of America's war machine that has rarely been asked about, written about, or even mentioned in passing since September, 2001; the ballistic missile submarines.
With a barely audible hiss, the sword quietly slides from its scabbard.
But the cold fact is that should America or the West feel its way of life and the lives of its citizens are sufficiently threatened by Islam these weapons will, in the end, be used against the Muslim centers of mass; cities in the middle-east or elsewhere where Muslims are the majority of the population. This is not some "Strangelovian" fantasy, but a very real option on the table of realpolitik. If you think our ballistic missile submarines don't carry the targeting information for these cities, think again.
I wouldnt dream of thinking otherwise. Thank goodness our military doesnt either.
This is why I still deeply believe that the current effort in Iraq and the Middle East to counter and expunge Islamic terrorism and turn Islam from the road it is on towards one of reformation and assimilation is the best path that can be taken at this time. Indeed, for all the ineptitude of the current administration, for all the expense in treasure and lives, this shoot-the-moon, Hail Mary of a foreign policy in Iraq is not just a policy to make America safer at home. It is the only thing that stands between Islam and its own destruction.
I could not agree more.
Sometime shortly after 9/11 in an online forum I frequented then, an exasperated idealist proclaimed that "After all, you can't kill a billion Muslims." Like so many others he spoke from somewhere outside History. History, especially the world's most recent history, shows us all how wrong that statement is. The hard truth is rather that, "Yes, if you really want to, you can."
I could not agree more.
And that is the most terrible and terrorizing thought of the 21st century.
I could not disagree more. The most terrible and terrorizing thought of the 21st century is a half-dead world shackled and chained by the sharia law of a 7th century retrograde religion.
As to comments in today's thread:
Muslims cannot and will not peacefully coexist with their fellow men. As long as the central tenet of their religion is world domination, they are the blood enemies of the West. If they are willing to let us live unmolested then fine. If not, better they die than us. There must be consequences for actions. If they continue to wage war on the US, the US must wage war fully and completely against them.
Everything points towards Islam's steadfast refusal to reform. I feel it is a given that the only thing that can save Islam is radical reformation. Since that is even less likely, I give Islam incredibly poor odds.
He's not arguing for genocide; he's warning that given the history of the West, de facto genocide may well be the outcome if our present efforts fail, and Islamic extremists eventually succeed in pulling off another mass-casualty terrorist attack here (or in Europe).
Which is exactly what I also predict. Our current course of merely policing what requires total war will continue to give radical Islam enough bandwidth to pull off an atrocity of such dumbfounding magnitude that the only rational response will be a Muslim holocaust.
Unreformed Islam simply cannot and will not do anything to avoid this, as in how even the vast majority of supposedly moderate Muslims still continue to quietly cheer whenever the radicals slaughter more of the infidels. If that does not change, and change damn fast, Islam will bring about its own extermination.
De-program 1.5 Billion seething Mohammedans? Not likely. Why should we anyway? I'm for exterminating them.
We have ZERO obligation to deprogram Muslims. This is something that they had better see to themselves in short order. The time is rapidly approaching when the West will empty the tub of Islamist filth. If the moderate Muslim baby does not wish to be thrown out with the bathwater they had best start working on cleaning things up. Otherwise they'll be disposed of right along with their radical brethern.
"jihad" has gotta go.
Along with abject gender apartheid, capital punishment of apostasy, lack of religious freedom, female genital mutilation, amputation as a form of legal penalty and a host of other barbaric practices that constitutre so much of Islam's core that abandonment of such doctrine will happen when hell hosts the winter Olympics.
Why are so many people keen to somehow save a "reformed" version of Islam?
This is the actual question that most needs to be addressed. As .com so aptly put it in his "Absolute Moral Authority Code: Comanche" post a few days ago. What is Islam's saving grace? Someone tell me if they can. I see none and the continuous string of atrocities being committed by Muslims only cements that notion.
Islam must be treated like Aztec Cannibalism, as beyond freedom of religion protections.
Which is why I continue to agitate for elimination of Islam's status as a religion and the protections that go with it.
Complete genocide is not necessary to rid the world of Islam, but violence is necessary.
I still hold out hope that a few rounds of massively disproportionate retaliation might be able to turn Muslims against their terrorist masters. We need to implement this damn soon so that progress can be made beyond such intermediate steps. Time is wasting and I am not willing to wait around while Islam arms itself with nuclear weapons.
Actually a lot of people believe that if Islam gives up executing apostates the religion would be defanged in one generation
I'd like to think so but there are simply too many other unredeeming aspects (e.g., abject gender apartheid, amputation, FGM etc.), that militate against rejecting capital punishment of apostasy such a hot candidate as the prime mover in Islam's rescue. And, once again, what is there to "rescue" about Islamic doctrine?
Once the tipping point is reached the world of the "infidel" will either roll over and be slowly inviscerated. Or, Islam and its adherents will suffer a beat down that will make the Holocaust look like walk in the park.
Which is why I continue to predict a Muslim holocaust.
Why are so many people keen to somehow save a "reformed" version of Islam?
Face the question squarely.
People change.
The question remains whether Muslims will change quickly enough to preserve their own skins. I see far too great a fascination with killing infidels to ever avert an eventual extermination of Islam.
One last time. Islam must save itself.
We have ZERO obligation to save Islam from itself and every right to go about ridding this world of such a pestilential thing as terrorism. Whatever it takes to end terrorism, it needs to be done now. The atrocities must end.
The Japanese post war reform is a good example of conversion by force and persuasion. I would use force and Bismarckian Kultur-Kampf against the Muslim-Menace. The general public must be educated on the political essence of Islam, which is only a pseudo religion. It exists because parasitic elites need it to advance their power. Witness the so-called Mongol-Conversion. That didn't come out of faith; elites saw Islam as a controlling tool. It is a collosal error to respect freedom of Muslim worship.
#31
However, Islam contains the seeds of its own destruction, if it does not deal with its own hotheads - it must accept that Islam is the cause of Islam's troubles, not the west or Israel
Bingo! Nobody should ever think that the West is somehow responsible for being obliged to dismantle Islam with whatever tools it takes. Islam brings this upon itself and alone bears all responsibility for what is to come.
#32
There is no one in the Muslim world now to give such an order. The cult demands conversion or death of the whole world. The Jihadis represent the Reformation of Islam.
Brilliant point, SR-71! This is why I hold out so little hope for any radical reformation of Islam. It is currently undergoing its own reform towards a less tolerant and more violent morphology and nothing short of extermination will suffice to assuage it.
#33
So for now, we sit tight and watch the Hamas/Fatah intermural boinking, as we wait for the next 9/11, and the donks/trunks committee backbone. That should prove to be a creative design.
The macaca is still talking about global warming. The world's awareness is out to lunch.
The mongols enthusiastically embraced Islam and continued their invasion of the West. Not exactly the sort of recommendation I would have wanted for MY religion...
By Charles Krauthammer - December 18, 2006 (Real Clear Politics Note: The following is based on Charles Krauthammer's keynote address at the Foreign Policy Research Institute's November 14, 2006, annual dinner, at which Dr. Krauthammer was the second recipient of FPRI's Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Service.)
We are now in a period of confusion and disorientation, almost despair. I think it is worthwhile to look back historically to see how we got to where we are today.
#2
If converting the culture of one of the most backward and vicious parts of the world is the only answer, then we are truly doomed. There is so much else that could be done (& is not being done) to deal with the Islamic threat. Nuking all Muslim countries is not an answer either.
#3
Within a narrow, selective scope, Islamist Radicalism = where the Russian BOLSHEVIKS are post-October Revolution or post-storming the Winter Palace. SUNNI vs SHIA violence in Iraq > akin to RED vs WHITE RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR, STALIN vs TROTSKY = MENSHEVIK vs BOLSHEVIK? looming.
The USA-West may have to go thru another Hitler-Stalin non-Aggression Pact, Munich, World War + Cold War including Korea + "Prague Springs", etc before Fall of Berlin Wall and final IMPLOSION. DOUBT THE SPETZIES ARE GONNA WAIT ANOTHER 90 +/- YARNS.
As for defeat of the USA, CLINTONISM > HATED DESPICABLE RIGHTIST FASCIST-NAZIS = WELL-MEANING BUT ERROR-PRONE, IMPERFECT, LIMITED LEFTISTS-COMMUNISTS. IOW, where the DemoLeft is concerned, the WOT > zabout LIMITED COMMUNISM-TOTALITARIANISM-GOVT-ISM versus FULL COMMUNISM-TOTALITARIANISM-GOVT-ISM and related.
*XMAS 2006 - "I'm in the Mood for Love", VOLARE = THATS AMOURE = QUE CERA CERA, but D *** it Tina Turner said WHATS LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT??? "The G *** D *** GERMANS HAVE GOT NUTHIN' TO WITH ANYTHING".
Though plagued by corruption scandals, the outgoing secretary-general's focus on human rights and reform has left the United Nations a stronger institution.
Few things get conservatives more riled up than when foreigners talk smack about the U.S. of A. So they aren't exactly sending warm retirement wishes to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who leaves office at the end of the month after having the audacity to give a farewell speech last week in Independence, Mo. hometown of President Truman replete with veiled criticisms of this nation's human rights record and fondness for unilateralism.
Lost in the angry responses from U.N. haters who mostly questioned how Annan could dare criticize the U.S. when the U.N. has so many problems of its own was that much of what Annan said was true. Annan was simply fulfilling his role as secretary-general one that his successor, Ban Ki-moon, would do well to emulate.
#2
the new one, in principle at least, aims to prevent another Holocaust.
The blood of 800,000 Rwandans is on Kofi's hands, dipshit. I guess that genocide didn't count, nor is what's happening in Darfur under his watch. Let's not even get into the near-weekly condemnation of Israel through some stupid resolution passed in a "human rights" council starring such beacons of hope as Saudi Arabia and Libya.
If getting the blessing of that gang of idiots is what constitutes "legitimacy", we're better off without it.
#3
What an unregurgitated tub of rancid male bovine feces. Koffing Anus is the biggest disaster to hit the United Nations in its history. He has done nothing to help the world, only to help himself. He should be hanged, not lauded.
The Middle East is a disaster. The Israeli/Arab conflagration is one of the key ingredients, yet the UN has done nothing to achieve any kind of an easing of tensions. Today UNIFIL "peacekeepers" sit on their duffs while Hezbollah rearms for round II of their current intramural clash. This time, hundreds of UNIFIL useful idiots will be in the middle. I would care less if Israel massacred the entire lot of them.
Rwanda is definitely something to lay at Koffing's doorstep. The death of 800,000 people is not something to shrug off. The currend depredations in Darfur, the Congo, southern Sudan, and Somalia are brought to you courtesy of Koffing's "unique" style of diplomacy - grimace a lot, but do nothing.
The UN was almost the last guy on the block in Sumatra, responding to the earthquake and tsunami there. Aid that should have gone to many of the more deserving victims ended up in too many of Koffing's friends' pockets. The same was true of the earthquake in Kashmir/Pakistan.
Finally, Oil for Palaces and Guns was a crime against all the people of the world, but most especially the people of Iraq. Koffing should be tried as a war criminal, with the leadership of France, Germany, Russia, China, and 20 other nations should be tried as co-conspirators.
The writer is a typical liberal idiot without an education. The United Nations was the brainchild of FDR, not Truman. Truman only made it happen after his boss's death. The only thing it's gotten right in the past 50+ years was the Korean War, and that's only because the Russians boycotted a meeting. In the meantime, the UN has more than quadrupled in size, has spun off hundreds of sub-groups, and has become so ineffective it cannot even take care of its own people, much less those that it has chosen to "shepherd". It's a failed non-state, and needs to have the plug pulled once and for all - the plug that is the only thing that keeps it from swirling down the drain and into oblivion as it well deserves.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/18/2006 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"US of A" = GRANNY'S Undefeated Southerners of America, ala BEVERLY HILLBILLIES???
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.
Though plagued by corruption scandals, the outgoing secretary-general's focus on human rights and reform has left the United Nations a stronger institution.
