Article

2006-03-12 Home Front: Politix

Can Islam live with the rest of the World?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-12 14:02|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [336101 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 No. One of them simply has to go.

Posted by Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 15:36|| 2006-03-12 15:36|| Front Page Top

#2 The rest of the World can't.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-03-12 16:19|| 2006-03-12 16:19|| Front Page Top

#3 No

Posted by 3dc 2006-03-12 16:36|| 2006-03-12 16:36|| Front Page Top

#4 interesting it's from David Warren, he's been a weathervane lately...finally showing some spine?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-03-12 16:40|| 2006-03-12 16:40|| Front Page Top

#5 It's pretty clear that The Rest of the World should pack up and leave Mo's Planet - Mo doesn't have the tech to do it.

Posted by Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 16:42|| 2006-03-12 16:42|| Front Page Top

#6 I mean, Geez, they haven't even figured out the lunar cycle, yet...

"To howl or not to howl, that is the question."

Posted by Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 16:48|| 2006-03-12 16:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Interesting fellow.

This is an opinion journalist; a committed Catholic who is honestly trying to reconcile his religion and his humanity with the fact that a sister religion is, (or has become) a force for evil and oppression.

Good luck.

Posted by mhw 2006-03-12 17:20|| 2006-03-12 17:20|| Front Page Top

#8 Can Islam live with the rest of the World?

Of course it can; it just has to want to.

But so far, we've ~~not done a very good job~~ done a disgustingly pathetic job at planting the notion, in the Islamic world, that getting along peaceably with the West is something they are simply going to have to do, or perish.

Au contraire: the ummah seem to have the idea firmly in mind that it is we who will have to get along with them, on their terms exclusively; witness the Danish Cartoon Debacle, and the headlong, neurotic rush of Western governments to prevent-- even at the cost of our most fundamental freedoms-- any action which might give offense to Muslims.

Somehow, if we are to prevail, this issue is simply going to have to be forced; it will not go away. Somehow, the Islamic world is going to have to be told, "Back off!", in a way it just can't ignore; in a way that will force it to accept, with utter finality, that for us, "submission to the will of God" will NEVER mean "submission to the will of Mullah."

But do we have the balls to force the issue? Warren isn't too sure we do:

"...the idea that Islam imagines itself in a fundamental, physical conflict with everything outside of itself, is an idea with which people in the contemporary West are morally and intellectually incapable of coming to terms."

Maybe we are. Maybe we aren't.

But THAT, not the one Warren poses in the title to this piece, is the real question: have postmodernism, multiculturalism, cultural relativism, nonjudgementalism, and political correctness so rotted the West that we can no longer summon the will to prevail against an ideological force like Islam? Or do we still have what it takes to turn back the tide?

THAT is the real question.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-03-12 17:33|| 2006-03-12 17:33|| Front Page Top

#9 Well said, Dave D.

It's smart to take a moment and re-summarize every so often... a fresh compass reading.

They've already placed their bets on "No, the West hasn't the stomach to oppose us." The "moderates" are happy to wait around on the sideline to see who's winning - and since the info stream says it's the bad guys, they're continuing to offer support on the QT and occasionally join in the fun to prove how pious they are.

The unholy alliance between Islam, a who's who of our sworn enemies - a modern collection of failed ideologies, and our internal cadre of self-haters and power junkies makes this a seminal moment.

Since saying more, graphically describing the choices, gets the "sinktrap" here, I'll leave it at that.

Thank you for your excellent comment. :}

Posted by Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 18:17|| 2006-03-12 18:17|| Front Page Top

#10 Question: what is the common element:

Muslims murdering Jews in Israel
Muslims murdering Christians in Africa and Europe
Muslims murdering Hindus in India
Muslims murdering Muslims in Iraq
Muslims murdering Ba'hai in Iran
Muslims murdering Budhists in Thailand and Bali

Answer(MSM): I don't know!!

Posted by DMFD 2006-03-12 18:36|| 2006-03-12 18:36|| Front Page Top

#11 "Since saying more, graphically describing the choices, gets the "sinktrap" here, I'll leave it at that."

Yes, I noticed; the recent epidemic of "acute redactivitis" is why I haven't been around here much lately. :-(

We need to discuss unpleasant things, one of which is the question, "Do we have any hope whatsoever of mounting a successful defense against the aggression of imperialistic, radical Islam, without first dealing forcibly-- brutally, even-- with the forces of moral disarmament in our own culture?"

Increasingly, I have been suspecting the answer is "No."

If so, that has dire implications-- like civil war.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-03-12 18:41|| 2006-03-12 18:41|| Front Page Top

#12 Can't speak for the other mods, but I have no problem with listing the choices we face in clear-eyed language. At some point tho, IMO, the way in which some have phrased those choices degrades the conversation a whole lot. It's one thing to write that we need to confront Islam face on, no hold barred. It's another to revel in the idea of 1.5 billion muslims dying.

It's because we've seen the erosion of discussion threads here, often due to trolls, but sometimes just due to accelerating rhetoric, that Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity

At least redacted comments can be viewed in the sinktrap, for those so inclined. It wasn't too long ago that some RB regulars were demanding the outright ban of several commenters.

It's a balancing act.

You guys ought to see some of the stuff that never makes it to the Rantburg pages - submissions from neo-Nazis and/or Islamofascist supporters, for instance. The mods occasionally have to wade through all sorts of ... effluvia.

Of which Dave D.'s comments have never to my memory been a part. Wish you were here more, Dave. The choices we faced ARE stark - and it's gonna be hard enough to sift through them with (relatively) sober language, plus the obligatory RB snark and creative pics.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-12 19:15|| 2006-03-12 19:15|| Front Page Top

#13 Indeed.

"With all due respect, we already knew that the morlocks live underground."

Yes, terrible. Untrue, unwarranted, unPC, unacceptable. I see your point.

The other two (as of this moment) are even more outrageous and evil. Effluent, indeed! Wish we could see him so we could dis his wardrobe and really hurt him.

Lol, I think I smell warm apple pie!

Posted by Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 19:37|| 2006-03-12 19:37|| Front Page Top

#14 This is a superb essay - that hits the nail right on the thumb.

I have this nightmarish image of how this can all distill down to "crunch time".

The bad guys - somehow - manage to get two small nuclear weapons into the USA. One "safely" positioned in a big metro area (my guess - Los Angeles, or maybe San Francisco/ San Jose), plus another one located in a more sparsely settled area - my guess: Las Vegas.

Then, a shawdowy annoucement from Islamacist spokesman XXX comes out saying "we will strike a blow against you on Monday morning, Date DDD" - and on that date, Las Vegas goes up in a big fireball.

Then - arch bad guy XXX again makse an announcement - "there is another bomb, and it is in a hugely populated area, and unless the US government follows our demands, we will set that one off as well."

In this scenario, what does the US Government do? There is no clearly defined actor to strike back against. We have sustained a nuclear attack, with an almost assured second attack imminent - and there is no nation-state to bargain with. It is a situation where a US President must - literally - bargain with the Devil - with the Devil holding all the cards. And - the leverage of such nuclear blackmail bestows virtually unending power upon the Devil. The only way for the US to extract itself is to LET the Devil blow off bomb #2- reducing the population of the US by 1% or more.

If my feared scenario is not technically feasible in 2006, then how about 2016 - or 2026? The Devil has all the time in the world. Every day, radical Islam is doing everything possible to amass as much raw power as it can. Islam IS in total war with non-Islam.

It is unrealistic to believe that radical Islam will - for some reason - decline to go after the ultimate power weapon. And - it is naiive to think that the technology to do so can be kept out of the hands of the Islamacists forever. What Pakistan and Iran can do, well-funded Islamic zealots can do - eventually.

State-controlled nukes are one thing - their use on the world stage would amount to national "suicide by cop." But such weapons in the hands of a non nation-state actor is probably the ultimate danger - the worst possible threat to America.

As is alreday recognized at top levels - "the bad guys only have to get lucky once".

How do you defang a 1.2 billion headed serpent? I honestly don't know - but I suspect that it is going to take lopping off a LOT of those heads. 'Not a very attractive approach, on the world stage - but a neccesary one.

As long as radical Islamic nut cases can SEE the ring of power, just beyond their grasp, they will be inspired to stretch, to reach that ring. Only when they have been bludgeoned back across the tracks, to the far side of town - to where they can only make out the location of the ring, way off in the distance - only then will they maybe focus on improving their local habitation, instead of focusing on tearing down the rich neighbor's house.

If I am one of the bad guys, and I have control of the nuclear 'Djinn', what I want is FOUR bombs. One to get the attention of the infidels, a second to punish them SEVERELY if they do not bow down to me, and the other two to take out Washington and New York, if they continue to defy me.

Connecting all the dots, the ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iran - overseen by maniacal super-zealots - is the biggest threat to modern western civilization in over 300 years. It is not because it will make the nation-state of Iran particularly dangerous - but because it is almost certain to bring closer the day when non-state-actor Islam becomes a rogue nuclear power.

I sure hope that I am wrong about the "doomsday" scenario.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2006-03-12 20:28|| 2006-03-12 20:28|| Front Page Top

#15 Oh you are soooo asking for it, LR!

Excellent... Your scenario is perfectly plausible. Many have said that it would take another big hit, or three, to get us to accept the hard reality that we must shed the state-oriented view of the conflict - to think asymmetrically to match the threat. Some have been so bold as to suggest we would actually have to change our shorts a few times along the way. Seems likely to me - and you've given a sterling example of how that could come to pass. This is a deathmatch between ideologies.

Thanks, LR. An eye-opener of the first order.

Posted by Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 21:02|| 2006-03-12 21:02|| Front Page Top

#16 "At least redacted comments can be viewed in the sinktrap, for those so inclined."

I viewed today's haul. None-- and I mean **ABSOLUTELY** none-- of those comments deserved to be put there. The two people who wrote those three comments have both been around here for months. They have both contributed comments in past threads which **ARE** worth reading, and therefore deserve to be treated better than that. They do **NOT** deserve to be insulted, like some damn whacko intruder barging in here from the DU fever swamps, by having their comments deleted and replaced by a supercilious, finger-wagging message just because you find those comments too extreme for your liking.

I often wonder: do you have any idea how damned insulting it is, to treat someone that way??? I don't think you do. Because you're not just insulting the person whose comments you've redacted-- you're insulting everyone who's ever had similar thoughts, too. Which is probably most of us.

"The mods occasionally have to wade through all sorts of ... effluvia. Of which Dave D.'s comments have never to my memory been a part."

Lately, MANY of the comments I've seen in the Sinktrap are comments I might very well have made myself in a moment of spluttering rage or frustration. In fact, some of them are a lot like comments I actually have made here from time to time in the past, in less guarded moments.

But now, I often see such comments arbitrarily deleted; apparently, they cross some "line" into some vague and fluid realm of "incorrectness" which I cannot fathom. Certainly, none of the comments redacted today "reveled in the idea of 1.5 billion muslims dying."

"Wish you were here more, Dave."

You've got exactly **ZERO** chance of seeing very much of me here so long as you continue trying to take all the "Rant" out of Rantburg.

Want more thoughtful, articulate people participating here? Then lose this nannyish "Thought Police" act and concentrate instead on doing a **MUCH** better job at keeping the 'Burg free of people who behave in a disruptive manner (left-wing moonbat trollery, obsessive "Death Match" off-topic debating, etc.).

And stop with the explanations, please; I'm not interested anymore. It's not my web site, I have no right to demand that it be run any particular way, so I do the only thing I can do: vote with my feet.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-03-12 21:06|| 2006-03-12 21:06|| Front Page Top

#17 Uh oh. I said deathmatch.

I'm toast.

Posted by Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 21:18|| 2006-03-12 21:18|| Front Page Top

#18 Connecting all the dots, the ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iran - overseen by maniacal super-zealots - is the biggest threat to modern western civilization in over 300 years. It is not because it will make the nation-state of Iran particularly dangerous - but because it is almost certain to bring closer the day when non-state-actor Islam becomes a rogue nuclear power.

For my part, I'm not quite ready to say 'Islam' above. Substitute 'Islamacists', though, and I agree fully.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-12 21:26|| 2006-03-12 21:26|| Front Page Top

#19 Uh oh. I said deathmatch. I'm toast.

And that's before we even wheel out the wiretaps / data mining / Evil NeoCon Plots / Gitmo-3-square-meals-a-day-with-exercise-period torture sessions ...

oh, wait - wrong group. Fred hasn't implemented that software module yet ... LOL

Posted by lotp 2006-03-12 21:31|| 2006-03-12 21:31|| Front Page Top

#20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

Posted by Cloth Snatch4013 2006-03-12 21:36|| 2006-03-12 21:36|| Front Page Top

#21 "For my part, I'm not quite ready to say 'Islam' above. Substitute 'Islamacists', though, and I agree fully."

"For my part, I'm not quite ready to say 'Nazi' above. Substitute 'Nazi fanatics', though, and I agree fully."

So, where did all the Nazis go after 1945? Argentina?

Posted by Darrell 2006-03-12 21:37|| 2006-03-12 21:37|| Front Page Top

#22 Distinction_without_a_difference

yes, that's the crux isn't it? Whether that distinction is a real one? And if it is real right now, is that something that will persist?

A lot of people are becoming convinced there is no distinction, or that it won't hold up. And that may in fact be true.

I guess for my part I'm not quite that certain. What I am sure of is that we need to push back HARD against the visible Islamacists, against the encroachment of sharia, against the honor rapes and beheadings and other barbaric atrocities being done in the name of Islam.

And then we'll see whether Islam = Islamacist by the reaction we get.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-12 21:43|| 2006-03-12 21:43|| Front Page Top

#23 And I'm not too thrilled about nukes in the hands of Iran's leaders, either. I doubt that we will pursue the "glassy surface" option there, though, short of a massive attack that overtly comes from them. Strategic nuclear attack carries with it some pretty heavy downsides, only some of which would directly affect our troops in Iraq.

But that's certainly one reason Iran wants to keep Iraq destabilized. Our troops there are at least a partial security blanket for the MMs.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-12 21:47|| 2006-03-12 21:47|| Front Page Top

#24 HHHHHHHHHHHmmmmmmmmmm, so iff I understand the Muslim arguments and propositions correctly, as example France = Denmark, etal will have State(s)-within-a-State where either local Muslim councils govern/rule; or else the national Govt does not interfere wid local Council regs and decisions. The national Govt however, does continue to $$$ each Muslim canton-SubState - SWITZERLAND,as e.g., in addition to its offic recognized five organz Cantons. also has soverign independent Muslim cantons within each one national Canton, which the main Govt must $$$ suppor. For the sake of cost(s)-efficiency, the main Govt. will have to centralize and bureacratize everything and anything. i.e. "socialize" and engage in wilful universal deficit budgeting. ERGO THE RADICAL-ACTIVIST MUSLIM DEMANDS > RADDIES ARE NOT GOD/FAITH-BASED LEFTIES/MARXISTS/BOLSHEVIKS???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-03-12 23:13|| 2006-03-12 23:13|| Front Page Top

14:36 Icerigger
14:28 Poitiers-Lepanto
14:31 Icerigger
00:00 Edward Yee
23:56 Edward Yee
23:52 Rafael
23:51 Edward Yee
23:50 Edward Yee
23:47 Edward Yee
23:46 Edward Yee
23:39 Edward Yee
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:34 Edward Yee
23:33 Edward Yee
23:28 Edward Yee
23:20 Edward Yee
23:17 USN Ret.
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:09 DMFD
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:41 doc
22:41 phil_b
22:32 VRWconspiracy
22:30 Desert Blondie