At Belmont Club, a description of the contents of a 23 minute tape by Ayman al-Zawahiri, pleading for more "sandals on the ground" ;
Zawahiri reminds his listeners of the establishment of the Caliphate-in-exile "which everybody applauded"; but bitterly notes that some of those who once clapped now opposed the Islamic State of Iraq "because it is not empowered", which I can only take to mean "in declining fortune". But never fear, he now claims, the "wind is blowing against Washington". Then he digresses and excoriates the Saudis, contrasting the way they sent the youth for Jihad into Afghanistan and but now have forbidden young men to go into Iraq; and who Zawahiri accuses of working tirelessly on behalf of the Americans to deliver Muslim lands into the hands of the Jew! He then switches to a audio clip from a commander who asks why he is getting no reinforcements, why Muslim scholars are hanging back from endorsing their struggle. At this point in watching the video, I realized that although the idea of the "moderate Muslim" may be laughed to scorn by conservatives, the concept was real to Zawahiri at least, as a bitter and galling reality. He seemed disappointed that the Ummah was not prepared to go as far as he.The degree of despair can be gathered from the video's choice of metaphor. The Al-Qaeda tape compared the Muslim debates over whether or to follow it's lead in the Jihad to the idle discussions within Constantinople over how many devils could stand on the tip of a pin as the Muslims were battering the walls with catapaults -- except this time the roles were reversed. It was the hated Americans were doing the battering and the bickering Muslims who were counting the devils upon the pins. Even allowing for hyperbole, the choice of metaphor does little to convey confidence.
[...]
Zawahiri then goes and declares how pure the al-Qaeda in Iraq is compared to Hamas, how unstained by innocent blood. He says this with a straight face, but his whiskers have me at a disadvantage. Then having denied any misdeeds, he makes the extraordinary offer to submit the Caliphate's leaders and men to Muslim judicial proceedings -- some kind of Islamic International Criminal Court -- strange that the Brussel's ICC's writ runs so short that Zawahiri doesn't even consider it from across the Mediterranean Sea. And my guess on hearing these words is that Zawahiri is feeling the heat, despite his disclaimers of innocence and heading off the complaints about al-Qaeda's bloody tactics in Iraq. He is saying "I promise to cooperate fully with any investigation". That would be the way it would be phrased in Washington. Then he claims is being wronged by the Mainstream Media, which reserves favorable coverage for those bozos Hamas when they are thugs, while his pure warriors are depicted as baby-killers by ignorant correspondents. (Snicker. - Ed)
Zawahiri's explains that al-Qaeda's counterattacked in Iraq was to save it from the defeat which overtook Afghanistan. He says so plainly. He saw it -- initially at least -- as fundamentally defensive in character; a blocking action to an imminent American threat. And in my opinion, his great fortune lay in that Iraq was so close, to the sources of his Arabian manpower pool that he was able generate a much greater force than has been possible in Afghanistan. And yet despite the advantage of fighting in the heart of the Arab World he was running out of recruits, which is the entire point of his whole video. Maybe the American strategy of turning the Sunnis against the al-Qaeda has had international repercussions on his recruiting. Word is filtering back to other Arab countries that al-Qaeda is the enemy; that it's not all it was cracked up to be when it could be viewed from the romantic distance of Afghanistan. Up close it was ugly. In an indirect way the battlefield has produced what diplomacy was supposed to and could not. It has alienated al-Qaeda from some of its Sunni base. If I am right, it's a thunderclap.
The tape can be viewed at Powerline.
At Memri, another summary of the tape's main themes.
fascinating - it's showing the emerging splintering of Al Qaeda into agendas that are no longer bonded to its original intention and are instead, local agendas.
Al Qaeda originally began after WWII (Qutb)as a reaction to the corrupt tribal political systems in the ME. The agenda was not to modernize the Arab states but to return them to a fundamentalist 'pure' Islam.
It was unable to achieve this goal and moved out against the West - viewed as the basic source of this 'impurity' of the Arab states.
Now - it is splintering; in the ME, it really isn't about installing a purist fundamentalist Islam because industrialism and democracy is becoming stronger in those regions. So, the fight has moved to non-Islamic issues in a way, to local fights for power between tribes - in Iraq and Afghanistan.
BUT - in both those areas, other forces have moved in, to take advantage of the dissolution of the original agenda of Islamic fundamentalism. In the ME, it's Iran with its imperialist ambitions.
It's behind the tribal fighting in Iraq, and has taken over the fight over land between Israel and Palestine - attempting to move in to control Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.
In Afghanistan, it's Pakistan's interests covering the local tribal fights.
That leaves fundamentalism afloat in the West, where it really doesn't have a political agenda, but an ideological and 'unrooted' agenda of Islamic fundamentalism.
The fight isn't over yet, but democracy in the ME is a key factor - and the West's rejection of Islamic fundamentalism, both in their demands for special privileges and their violence, is another factor.
Islam has to reform - and more and more, the voices are being heard insisting on that, both outside and inside the system.
Interesting analysis, ET. The resilience of ME regimes in the face of islamo fundamentalism is well illustrared by their experience in Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria-even Iran shows less singularity in power than their revolution would prdict (and of course is at war with sunni beligerancy anyway). Your take would indicate that the US leading the fight against islamo-fascism is winning in Iraq but the caveat must be the US citizens stomach for the struggle which by my reading is as problematic as zawahiri's hopes show.
no, pj johnson, I don't think that the onus rests only with the US anymore. It has moved to the ordinary citizen of the ME as well as those in Europe.
There comes a 'borderline tipping point' when a situation either goes in A or B direction. If we define A as 'fundamentalist Islam', I think we'd have to say that, like communism, it exists only in the abstract rather than actuality. It didn't succeed in Afghanistan - and not simply because of the US; it has a deep fault within its own structure and would eventually collapse on its own.
That is, it requires a great deal of force to repress another force. For the Taliban to have succeeded in repressing the Afghan people required force - psychological as well as physical force. That works well, for a while, but in the long run - the required force simply isn't enough. The system will collapse from within.
A fundamentalist ideology can never be actualized; that's basic logic as well as physical law (Godel), but for practical purposes, let's just say that a fundamentalist Islam won't work in a population in the multimillions and in an industrial world.
So, the collapse of fundamentalism Islam is beginning. It won't happen overnight; it will take time to reform the ME into democracy, and enable a middle class there - and reform Islam to actually permit a middle class.
And to deal with the fact that the real fundamentalism has moved to the peripheries - ie, to enclaves in the West, where it can thrive readily as an abstract ideology because it doesn't have to confront the realities of the economic and political market.
But, I don't think there is any going back..The leftists who support islamic fundamentalism - they are a problem and I wonder what they will move on to next.
The concomitant problem, I think, is Iran's imperialist ambitions. The Arab states have to confront Iran...At the moment, as is the norm with all of the world, they are leaving it up to the US to fight their battles.
ET: "So, the collapse of fundamentalism Islam is beginning."
Good analysis ET. But the collapse will only occur if the West keeps up the pressure. If we do, according to some ME experts, Islam will decide that this is not "The Time" (for the forming of the Caliphate) and they will go back into their "holes" and wait. But it is important for the West to realize that they only wait, they have not given up.
Another series of left liberal governments in the West and we will see the rise once again.
It's not over.
I agree that the West absolutely has to keep up the pressure, but I don't think that Islam will simpl 'crawl back into its hole'; it has to reform.
The reason it has to reform is that the world is now globally networked, economically and informationally. That means that it has to be politically networked as well.
And, the other reason - besides the global network - is population size. The Islamic states in the ME are too large in population to function any other way than via industrialism. And industrialism requires a middle class, ie, democracy.
But fundamentalism won't die down, ever. It will move to the peripheries within the ME states. It, as a utopian ideology, will always appeal to a small number.
What the West has to do, besides its work in the ME promoting democracy, is to reject Islamic fundamentalism in the international peripheries, ie, in the West - in the UK, Europe - and elsewhere. That's vital.
Iran's ambitions have nothing to do with Islam, except that it is using Islamic fundamentalism as a tool to instill fear, dissent and obedience, in its real agenda - which is imperialistic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118368904375158857.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Iran's Proxy War
By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
July 6, 2007; Page A9
Earlier this week, the U.S. military made public new and disturbing information about the proxy war that Iran is waging against American soldiers and our allies in Iraq.
According to Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, the Iranian government has been using the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah to train and organize Iraqi extremists, who are responsible in turn for the murder of American service members.
[...]
Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today. In addition to sponsoring insurgents in Iraq, Tehran is training, funding and equipping radical Islamist groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan -- where the Taliban now appear to be receiving Iranian help in their war against the government of President Hamid Karzai and its NATO defenders.
While some will no doubt claim that Iran is only attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq because they are deployed there -- and that the solution, therefore, is to withdraw them -- Iran's parallel proxy attacks against moderate Palestinians, Afghans and Lebanese directly rebut such claims.
[...]
I agree with ET and Gunney99 that the West must keep up the pressure on Islamofascism at this likely tipping point. Why then is the cut and run crowd so vociferous now. I heard the Liberal talking points on Thursday, directly from one of their MPs: (don't shoot messenger, just repeating points)
- mandate of Afghanistan was to remove AQ, not to eliminate Taliban. That task has been completed. IOW there are no/very few foreign fighters in Afghanistan, certainly not AQ.
- use of IEDs imported from Iraq, thus Liberals linking Afghan and Iraq conflicts.
- Taliban is diverse group, there are "good" and "bad" Taliban. Most Taliban are good and we should negotiate with them
- we must use opium crop for legal opiate market, in effect buy it from the farmers, and tell Americans to stop bombing poppy fields and adjoining villages
- of course, we are all aware, LPC position is we announce our withdrawal in 2009 now.
Yes, I heard all of this first hand. The video above shows AQ running out of steam, so it must further target West (for anyone wondering why AQ planned 9/11 during Clinton era, when US pulling back from ME, you have your answer).
Ten seconds of research show Afghan mission was to remove Taliban because they harboured AQ, not just remove Bin Laden, who had already left for Pakistan. Speaking of Pakistan, no mention was made of it or Iran. How anyone can come to conclusion AQ not in Afghanistan now is quite amazing.
To argue that IEDs are an Iraqi phenomenon is just plain silly. A cursory look at decades of attacks in and around Israel blows that argument away; in fact it shows Hamas, Hezbollah, AQ, and many other Islamist groups cooperate and share the same technologies and tactics.
Yes, we should negotiate with the "good" Taliban. Who are they again? Which part of the 20% of the Afghan population (Taliban only one-fifth of Afghan people) is he referring to? Is is the ones who seized power in Afghanistan with Pashtun Pakistani, Iranian and Chinese help? What should we negotiate with them? Maybe we could surrender first, then negotiate, as Dion would have us do. Unbelievable.
Ah yes, the opium crop. By all means let's buy it from the farmers. The warlords and Taliban won't mind, they would just step aside, right? Let's face reality, we would need way more military forces to achieve that worthwhile aim. Additional forces would also be required to seal off the Pakistani border, a necessary precondition to controlling the opium crop. How does announcing our departure 18 months out achieve that aim?
That is the ludicrous position of the LPC, unless this MP is simply speaking his own mind. He never said that, in fact, it was clear to the audience that he has agreement of Lib brass.
The audience was stone silent after this presentation, tagged onto the end of a discussion about local development. Three people challenged him right after, but I couldn't bring myself to talk to him, I was in shock, along with the military member, in uniform, sitting at my table. Outside I was approached by a couple of members who were equally incredulous.
Does this argument put forward seem either logical or doable. I think not and plan on writing a thoughtful, and polite, letter to him, my MP, and await his response. If I get one it should be interesting and I will share it with this blog.
Has anyone else had similar experience with Liberal(s) in their area?
Iran's stated goals are the same as fundamental Islam, they just plan on a slightly different path. I think we have to believe them and act accordingly; unless there is definite proof that their goals are only imperialistic (which isn't much consolation). They say they intend to bring back the 12th Imam by creating the cataclysm mentioned in the scriptures and not wait for it to happen by divine intervention. They plan national suicide.
One hope is that the Iranian people can rise up and prevent this.
Fundamental Islam will always be waiting. If the West proves weak they will rise again. The Western countries, will have to be quite ruthless in stamping fundamentalism out within. I somehow can't see this happening very soon. Not with the Laytons and Dions and that gaggle of loonies of the same stripe in the US primaries.
The backdrop behind al Zawahiri in that tape is quite distinctive with it's blue and yellow. Should be a good clue to his whereabouts.
The Taliban government fell in November, 2001. Mission accomplished. It's not in the West's interest to babysit these savages until the end of time, or until they quit killing each other and us, whichever comes sooner. The idea that we can democratize the Muslim world and "reform" Islam is a laughable neocon fantasy that fewer and fewer people are buying into now. The post- 9/11 Islamo-democracy projects in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine have all been abject failures. Islam, if anything, is getting more radical, as evidenced by the increasing body-count in dozens of countries around the world. Visit Thereligionofpeace.com for proof of this.
If we want to win this so-called War on Terror(tm), then let's first call it by it's real name: The War against Islam. "Moderate" Muslims, if they really exist, are not our allies, they are the good cop in the good cop/bad cop strategy that the Islamic world is deploying (successfully) against the West. Banning Muslim immigration and beginning Muslim deportations is our best strategy in this war. Maybe the banishment of Muslims from the civilized world will finally force them to confront the barbarism inherent in their religion and in the 50-odd nations that make up the Islamic world. Or maybe not. Either way our duty is to defend Canada and our Western allies, not Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Total separation from Muslims and the Islamic world is our only long-term chance for survival, much less victory. Anything less means defeat.
jp- I disagree with every statement you've made. Including your description of Muslims as 'savages'.
The Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda; AQ are still in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our mission (and it was the US that did it, not 'us') was not to 'take out the Taliban'; it was to take out AQ. Our NATO mission, right now, is to enable Afghanistan to function as a democracy and prevent the Taliban/AQ from messing up the place.
I also disagree with your suggestion of banning Muslim immigration and deporting Muslims. That's a simplistic answer and actually, would be a disaster, inciting the Islamic world to move even more deeply into a majority of fundamentalists - rather than enabling democracy to strengthen in the Islamic world.
By the way, how would you deport these Muslims who are living here? In cattle cars?
No, enabling democracy in the Islamic world isn't a 'neocon fantasy'; it's realism. More and more are acknowledging this - including Muslims. It's up to Muslims to reform their religion, just as it was up to Christians to reform Christianity - which they did over four centuries - from about 1200 to 1600. The Islamic religion will be reformed, it won't take four centuries but it won't take four days either. It's a traumatic tectonic change, to change ideologies but it has to be done.
Furthermore, in this modern age of a networked globe, it is practically and operationally impossible to 'separate' one nation from another. So, your suggestions are, if I may say so, simplistic and unworkable.
ET,
It wasn't the Afghan Air Force that attacked us (by which I mean the West as a whole) on September 11, it was Muslims we foolishly allowed into our countries. No Muslim nation has attacked us in decades, at least. Instead all the terror attacks we've faced up to and including last weekend's were the result of our foolish immigration policies. No Muslims, no terrorism, it's as simple as that.
Al Qaeda's leadership is now clearly in Pakistan. So what do we do about it, attack Pakistan, a nuclear armed state? Better to ban Pakistani immigration than go to war with them IMHO.
My calling the Afghans savages may be harsh, but take a look at the entire bloodsoaked history of that nation up to the present day. If they're not savages than there are no savages. Sorry.
Encouraging Muslim immigration increases radicalism in the Muslim world by giving the educated elite a way out. If these people cared about their countries and their religion, then they would stay at home and fight for reforms from the inside. Mass immigration entrenches despotic and corrupt regimes from Iran to Mexico.
As for deportations, there are surely many, many Islamic radical immigrants who should have never been allowed into our societies, and should have their citizenship stripped followed by deportation to their homelands. We owe this to the "moderates" who, if they are truly moderate, would want their communities thoroughly expunged of the radicals who are now tainting all Muslims.
And finally, it would be easy to separate ourselves from the Islamic world. Besides oil, can you think of the last product you purchased from a Muslim country? I can't. We've got to move away from Middle Eastern oil, as we're flooding despotic regimes with trillions of dollars that they use, at least partly, to fund anti-Semitic and anti-Christian hate-mosques throughout the Western world. Not to mention actual terrorism. Muslims have played no part in the historic building of our societies. Why we should let people who hate us enjoy the fruits of our ancestors labor? Let them stay at home and do the hard work of improving their own countries.
According to a Muslim business acquaintance of mine this is not about religion, this is simply about money and power. He laughs at me when I suggest it's about religion. He points out that one Muslim sect or another has been butchering the other since the 4th century in the name of Allah, for money and power. As an Iranian he says the clerics are the biggest bunch of thieves murderers and procurers of young women you could imagine. It's why we left. They control my Country through fear and intimidation, afraid of nothing, in the name of Allah. His biggest frustration with the US, and the West in general, is why they keep treating it as a religious issue and not what it is, a grab for money and power by a bunch of criminals simply using religion as the vehicle to attain their goals.
On an evening out a while back his wife made a comment that he was not too happy with. It was obliviously a touchy point between them but had to do with the amount of money he had sent back or was sending back to Iran to support those in opposition to the current regime. Would have been interesting to have been able to pursue that a little further. Every time we go out I get a little further insight into what is going on over there, I guess only time will tell if it’s right or not.
no, jp, what you are ignoring is causality. What is the cause of Muslims attacking the West?
Is it genetic? Of course not.
Is it cultural? Not really - because that doesn't explain why it's happening now and not 60 years ago?
As I've said a million times, the cause of Islamic fascism is the exponential increase of population in the ME after WWII, the transition of those countries into industrialism, but an industrialism only involving an elite upper class tribe, because of the retention of a tribal political system - rather than enabling an empowered middle class by moving into democracy. There - that's the basic cause. I've said it a zillion times.
Actually, fighting a military dictatorship, which is what the ME regimes are, can't be done internally. You end up very dead. That's why change has to come from the outside at first, to take out the military dictatorships.
Exactly, western canadian. It's not about religion; it's about money and power. The elite tribes in power in the ME have no intention of enabling the dev't of a middle class in power via democracy. So, they use religion, fundamentalist religion, to instill fear, to enslave the population. And - they ensure that this fundamentalism ensnares the 'expatriates' so that they don't attempt to attack the home nation from outside.
Islamic fascism is an attempt to change the society but it's a pathological attempt, focused on Original Purity. It can't work.
No, jp, I can see deporting radicals who preach hate, but you can't overturn the rule of law, so, that's about all who could be legally deported.
Shamrock: The poppy problem is really no problem at all. The last time Afghanistan had a bumper crop, during the Taliban era, the world market was so flooded with opium that the street price dropped out of sight. Poppies will likely be worthless after this year's crop ... farmers will have to go back to other things once they've flooded the world market. I say let them grow and sell the junk for all they're worth ... by next year it'll be worthless; as happened under the Taliban (that's why the Taliban later forbade poppy production ... to raise the world price)
Gunney99 says,
"Good analysis ET. But the collapse will only occur if the West keeps up the pressure. If we do, according to some ME experts, Islam will decide that this is not "The Time" (for the forming of the Caliphate) and they will go back into their "holes" and wait. But it is important for the West to realize that they only wait, they have not given up.
Another series of left liberal governments in the West and we will see the rise once again.
It's not over."
I agree I dont think it is over.
Here is a very machiavellian notion for you...we want them to try to form the caliphate now. Cant do it unless you have conventional forces, that is where the west is unchallengable.....All Western generals are begging for a battle liek that because they know they can win it decsively and in a cakewalk.
Fighting an insurency is fighting their battle. I really would like a state to state battle should one ever be able to be offered and accepted.
Dont getr me wrong, thats not what is happening. The iranians know they cannot win that either, they wont start it either. The wingnut brigrade of the Iranian leadership wants to goad the US into an attack so they can draw on others and sympathy of the world. The US needs to wait them out, and go 4th generation on them with sabotage and stoking the fires of rebeliion within Iran.
If the US EVER gets one of these countries in a conventional battle, especially one that doesnt result in occupation then the US wins hands down.
No consensus on the US leadership that this is should be the strategy, the left is saying withdraw and the far right is saying go pre-emptive, neither will work.
Petraeus' strategy of combatting 4th G warfare in Iraq is working, just wish they had done this 3 years ago.
ET,
You ask: What is the cause of Muslims attacking the West? Then you dismiss cultural causes saying: That doesn't explain why it's happening now and not 60 years ago. Ha! They're were no attacks 60 years ago because there were virtually no Muslims in the West 60 years ago. I'll bet you could count the Islamic population of 1947 Canada on one hand.
You make a good point about exponential population growth being at least part of the causation. I would add the young average age of these countries also leads to instability and violence. But what you call Islamic fascism may actually be Islam pure and simple, a violent, fighting religion from the days of the Prophet. In the Koran, the Muslims were more peaceful when they were weak. When they were stronger and sensed weakness in their enemies, like today, they attacked mercilessly.
Don't expect Middle Eastern tribalism to go away, ever. Such quaint tribalistic customs like honor killings and female genital mutilation predate Islam, and if Islam collapsed tomorrow, Arab tribalism would continue as it has for millenia.
No lasting political regime can be imposed on the Muslim world. It will never have any popular support or credibility. The Muslims have to fight for their freedom themselves, just like we Westerners did for many centuries. Yes it will be bloody, but think of how many of our ancestors had to die so we could enjoy peace, prosperity and freedom today. Unfortunately Muslims today seem to have no interest in building liberal, democratic, capitalist societies; they overwhelmingly prefer Sharia.
Yes, deportations will be tough. But if we can't even muster the courage to deport violence-preaching radicals, then our 2500 year-old Western civilization is finished. Cato the Elder used to conclude all his speeches with a call for Carthage to be destroyed. Although I would never claim the rhetorical greatness of a Cato, or call for the destruction of (or any war with) the Islamic world, let me conclude by saying: Stop Muslim immigration now (it can be done).
JP, I think deportations would be the tonic Islmofascism needs. Now your everyday Muslim would be oppressed, instead of the present situation, where a few nutbars think they are the proxy for Muslims who frankly, want the same things we do, peace and security.
When a million people are oppressed, but only a silver spoon in mouth type like Bin Laden acts on their "behalf," the illogicity of the root causes argument is obvious to any reasonable person. If we start deporting people simply because they are Muslim, then we prove the Islamist's argument for them.
Besides being an insult to liberty, a deportation plan is clearly illegal, so there's no point to debating it anyway.
Let's talk reality - we have to put more resources into Afghanistan to seal off the border and truly eliminate the Taliban, who have no legitimate right to govern Afghanistan, but, should we leave, will quickly be reinstalled by their brethen in the Pakistani Pashtun areas, and probably the Iranians, all armed by China and Russia.
I'm always amazed at the blame Bush crowd who think only the US is selling arms and causing instability in the world.
Instead, we have the Layton and Dion engineering our withdrawal today, or Iberia asserting we must accept nobody will help us so we have to go home, or even renege on our commitment.
No need to show leadership here, we only have 2500 troops; we're too busy showing leadership by mouthpiecing Kyoto.
Harper would be wise to put some pressure on NATO allies, publicly if necessary, to put proper resources into Afghanistan, to lift their weight militarily with assets and proper rules of engagement. Now is not the time to give up, unless of course you never believed we should have been there in the first place,
On QP today, Layton asserted that only 4 over a majority in the HofC voted to extend the Afghan mission. Just before that he properly pointed out that military goes where they are told to go as justification to bring them home now. Which is it Jack, parliament votes to extend their mission, but that's not good enough. I guess majority rule only applies when Jack agrees.
The Liberals and NDP haven't a clue about Afghanistan.
no, jp - I continue to disagree with you.
I've previously explained my view of how Islam appeared, as a reaction to the spread of settled agriculturalism in the ME - a settled agriculturalism made possible first by the networked rule of law, roads, irrigation etc of the Romans, and second, by the establishment of an ideology of collaboration with neighbours rather than fighting neighbours (Christianity). Islam, developed within a pastoral nomadic economy, and developed because the settlements were moving into pastoral lands of the nomadics.
I've explained the rise of Islamic fascism after WWII -
Tribalism, as a political and social ideology, is not, as you imply, a 'thing in itself'. It is directly, I repeat, directly linked to the economy. Change the economy and the ideology MUST change. So, I think you are completely wrong with your allegation that islamic tribalism will 'continue forever'. No, it won't. Change the economy - and the ideology must change.
What is happening now is that the 'old elite tribes' are refusing to change the political ideology of tribalism. They'll lose all their power to a free middle class! But- it will come. Industrialism can't function in a tribal political mode.
No, islamic fascism isn't islam 'pure and simple'. Fascism is a militant political ideology focused on a utopian purity of belief and behaviour.
I'm not talking about 'imposing' a political system on the ME; but of releasing the people from the military tribal dictatorships. They'll move into democracy on their own. There's actually no choice; with that size population, you have to be democratic.
I agree with shamrock - deportations would inflame the islamic world. However, if the individual is not a citizen and is preaching hatred, then, by all means, deport him. But, if he's a citizen - that's out of the question. You simply charge him, in a criminal court, with inciting hatred.
I find this post very interesting because it ties in with what I heard in church this morning. A man who has worked as a Christian missionary in Northern Africa for a good number of years spoke about the conversions taking place in the area in which he works. He mentioned how the Muslim on Muslim violence in the Middle East is causing people to question their Muslim faith and accept the Christian faith. He acknowledged that the number of conversions were still miniscule but the rate of increase in conversions was quite startling. I won't reveal the man's name or the country in which he works because to do so would put his life in danger.
The Bush Doctrine is all about the establishment of democracy in the ME; Iraq was the obvious starting point. I't's been all of 4 years... in other words, we're still in the preliminaries. If this is as bad as it gets, then why did the West wait so long?
I don't buy the argument that Muslims will always prostrate themselves before the tenets of their religion to the exclusion of democratic freedom, even if such freedom is "shoved down their throats", so I've heard it said. People are people; just give them a taste of freedom, and they'll never go back to the way things were.
I personally do not agree with JP's view that all Muslim immigration to the West must be curtailed, (that Canadian P.M.-beheading bunch were all home grown), but I can understand his frustration with Islam. The thing is, and Muslims in the West should realize this, JP's views will begin to hold more sway with people in future if events, i.e. terrorist incidents in the name of Islam, don't diminish. There simply has got to be more visible, strident Muslim participation in the global war against Islamic fundamentalism.
Irshad Manji had a good editorial in the G&M on July 4 entitled "Moderate Muslims must do more than preach moderation". It was an extension of her hour-long interview on Glenn Beck a few months ago that:
1) Moderates must take back Islam from the fascists.
2) Western apologists have to, frankly, grab some brains and distinguish between the 2 camps.
shamrock
i , a deportation plan is clearly illegal, so there's no point to debating it anyway.
not if we change the LAW
laws are only man made constrics, they are not carved in stone
In discussion with a neighbour yesterday about islamic terrorism she told me her dad was a muslim who no longer follows his religion and she never did. This is of course one of the major fears of islam and why they are paranoid about any contact with us kafirs.
Maybe we can't deport muslims as JP would like but but isn't one of the first rules of common sense is when you are in a hole, stop digging. We must severly curtail any further muslim immigration. As is evident in Europe there is growing unemployment in their muslim communities that already has high unemployment. Isn't this just creating a powderkeg of "youths" like is happening in France.
I sincerely hope, ET, that there is still time for economic conditions in the ME to force changes to the tribal elite and allow the rise of a flourishing middle class. As we all know the ME produces nothing and time is short as the oil will run out and money will cease to flow into the despots coffers and there will be a vastly increased population with few options.
Deportation of Canadian citizens is not on. Strict rules for landed immigrants and a longer residency requirement are not.
And we might want to implement a rule that there are rather higher vetting requirements for people wishing to come to Canada from non-democratic nations. It is rather sad to see our friends from the US or England or Holland or France having to go through the hoops as if they came from nations which do not share the same traditions and values we do.
"A fundamentalist ideology can never be actualized; that's basic logic as well as physical law (Godel)"
Will you quit smoking crack, ET?
Maybe your analysis has merit and I think it does... but what physical law did the mathematician Godel uncover that states a fundamentalist ideology cannot be actualized?
And where is this great far-right conservative majority that will vote to change this law both in the House of Commons and the Senate?
"A fundamentalist ideology can never be actualized; that's basic logic as well as physical law."
Since when has that "basic logic & physical law" stopped anyone from trying? Utopianists (intellectuals) of all stripes have been trying to actualize a fundamentalist ideology since the fall of man. The only question is when to the non utopianist step in and stop the slaughter and or clean up the mess.
alot of words from you all. but the problem that is islam still exists. it will get worse. it will become more violent. there is no such animal as a moderate muslim, a moderate muslim is an apostate and as such deserves to die. how the hell are you going to get around that. the koran will not let you.
If the Islamic countries have to build their own industrial economy to modernize, how exactly are we helping them to do it when we strip them of their allegedly best and brightest who emigrate to the West? Additionally, as we pour oil money into their economies where is their incentive to create that industrial economy?
We are practising cultural imperialism by taking the people these countries require to modernize and using them to prop up our own social programs.
We must take responsibility for ourselves. We must end the easy refugee claims of entry into Canada and put an end to the family re-unification route as well. We must end Muslim immigration into Canada. Then we must consider deporting Muslims, or people from selected countries, who are non citizens.
Finally we must decide what Canadian citizenship is, and put in place a revocation policy for those people from third countries who get Canadian citizenship and then fail to exercise it by living in a third country for some significant period of time.
joe - and that's exactly why a fundamentalist ideology can never be actualized; it's stopped before it can become lasting. Both actions will always continue - the attempt to develop a purist utopia and the practical reaction to such fantasies - which will stop the utopian march.
christoph- please don'r resort to ad hominem comments. Now, with regard to your question on Godel, the theory explains how basic axioms, which are deductive, non-empirical non-finite statements can never be fully expressed within the inductive, empirical 'imperfect' finite realities of the spatiotemporal world.
It's the difference between an abstract general model and the particular actuality. The two can never match. That's valid in any field - physics, biology - and the social world.
sub-urban - why is the fault within the ME defined by you as 'we', or 'the west'? We aren't stripping them of their 'best and brightest'; if people are leaving, it's not because we are kidnapping them. Furthermore, we aren't forcing their economic mode on them; if they haven't developed any other industry - that's their fault, not ours.
Or are you suggesting that we sit in their gov't houses and tell them what their economic activities should do? Should we order their gov't to develop different economic systems?
Rubbish- we aren't practicing 'cultural imperialism'. What sophistry! Oh - how exactly are we using these 'emigrants' to prop up our own social prgorams? Could you explain this allegation?
Could you also explain how we, legally, could end Muslim immigration into Canada without defining ourselves as deeply discriminatory?
Why is your suggestion that revocation could only take place if the dual citizen lived in a third world country? What if they lived in a 'first world country'? That doesn't count?
ET
It is you who suggest that the ME must develop a more industrial economy to handle their growing populations. You are correct, we are not kidnapping immigrants from these countries, but we are providing the best and brightest with an easy option. It is our policy that opens the door not their desire.
As our population ages and more people are collecting generous social benefits rather than working to pay the taxes that pay for these programs our Liberal governments have taken the view that we must import large numbers of working-aged people to cover this shortfall. Interestingly I just read a piece that suggested that the average age of an immigrant is higher than the average age of a citizen which indicates this immigration plan will not work.
While I agree with your contention that it would be deeply discriminatory to deny only Muslims citizenship, the pattern of violence by this particular group, which appears to discriminate against all others, requires a strong response.
And no I did not say 'third world country', I said third country, as in not their country of birth nor Canada where they were granted citizenship but a third place of residence.
Well, I see that Anjem Choudray (sp?) is on tape stating that Islam is declaring sovereignty over the UK and the US.
We could at least have immigrants sign detailed pledges of allegiance -- not just abstract happy talk -- geared against disloyalty and fascist totalitarianism without actually mentioning Islamism by name, and deport those who break those pledges in as streamlined a way as possible. After all if we can imprison people for essentially nutty but harmless holocaust denial, surely we can pass new laws that will have Choudray's sorry and arrogrant a** whupped all the way out of the country. Even if citizenship is already obtained, people making such disloyal and traitorous statements could be made to contract with the state to cease and desist.
But of course there's no point even making the argument yet. The time will come for this in its good time and after we've been nailed again on a scale of 9/11 or worse.
Gawd, these cats must be having an awfully good laugh at our silliness, eh, probably over a few points!
ET: after reading this ...
christoph- please don'r resort to ad hominem comments. Now, with regard to your question on Godel, the theory explains how basic axioms, which are deductive, non-empirical non-finite
statements can never be fully expressed within the inductive, empirical 'imperfect' finite realities of the spatiotemporal world. It's the difference between an abstract general model and the particular actuality. The two can never match. That's valid in any field - physics, biology - and the social world.
... I trust you're going to have a look at the new thread entitled Well Obviously!
Everyone, myself included, ask where are all the moderate muslims? They like everyone else are keeping their heads down and their mouths shut. Without a strong show of force against the radical muslims here at home WHAT THE HELL DO WE EXPECT THEM TO DO? Until our "leaders" find the guts, balls and tits to take a stand, don't expect things to get any better.
nonsense, sub urban; you imply that the fact that we are industrial is the 'cause' of emigration. Are you suggesting that our being industrial is a fault and that we should reduce or deconstruct our economic infrastructure? That's like saying that it's the fault of a scholar for working hard and winning a scholarship - causing others to have a 'low esteem'.
The fault lies in the ME refusal to both industrialize their economies and enable a robust middle class.
As for immigration, it's not simply that we 'require' immigrants to work, so that our aging population can receive social benefits. Our country is extremely large and we require a larger work force to develop its resources.
The 'strong response' is to insist that all immigrants must obey the laws of the land and must consider themselves first - Canadians. It requires that we dismantle the disastrous balkanization of multiculturalism and instead, promote collaborative 'Canadians'.
My apologies for mixing up 'third country' and third world'.
me no dhimmi - disloyalty and fascist totalitarianism - exactly how would you measure the immigrant's adherence to these two terms? What about the non-immigrant home-bred communist who promotes both in the halls of academia? We haven't imprisoned anyone for holocaust denial; that was Austria.
And moderate muslims have to have the courage to speak out. They are starting to do so- and most certainly have been threatened by extremists, but, if more and more of them do so - the rebuttal gathers strength.
Two interesting comments,
It's up to Muslims to reform their religion, just as it was up to Christians to reform Christianity" - ET
"They control my Country through fear and intimidation, afraid of nothing, in the name of Allah. His biggest frustration with the US, and the West in general, is why they keep treating it as a religious issue and not what it is, a grab for money and power by a bunch of criminals simply using religion as the vehicle to attain their goals." - Wimpy Canadian
The problem with comparing so-called Islamic reform to Christian reform is that Christian reform was not theological, or foundational, in that passages in the Bible were not edited out and Christ was not abandoned. It wasn't necessary, because so-called political 'Christan' violence, imperialism, hegemony etc. is not part of, or foundational to Christianity.
How do you expect Islam to be reformed based on violence towards others being foundational? Much of the Quran is overtly blood thirsty, misogenistic, bigoted, imperialist, supremist and racist. How do you deal with this? To edit these suras out would leave little left of their book.
Then there's the question of Mohammad, otherwise known as the perfect man and the one to emulate. Hmmm. Given his appetite for mass-murder, pedophilia, thievery and torture, how do you deal with this?
As you can see, comparing Christian reform to Islamic reform is not valid. Islamic reform may be impossible.
Based on Wimpy's point, I would agree, Islam has always been the perfect cover for murderous thugs, political or otherwise.
As far as the immigration issue is concerned - the only intelligent thing to do is place a moratorium on Muslim immigration. Sure, not all Muslims want to blow up everybody, but what about the ones that do? Even second generation (home grown) and educated Muslims can all of the sudden come down with instant jihad syndrome. It should not be our problem to sort this out. Neither should it be our burden to pay (in so many ways) for all this assinine security.
As an added bonus, if Muslims were no longer allowed to immigrate into the west, perhaps they wouldn't procreate as much. Islamic countries can't feed their own, so they push them out into western welfare systems. Let the infidels pay. Hey, and not a bad way to take over a country at the same time.
In the end, the only good Muslim is an apostate. And rather than reform, conversion out of Islam may be the only hope.
no, irwin daisy - I disagree. Christianity was functioning as a sociopolitical system in the middle ages - and it was that system that had to be reformed. Islam is a sociopolitical system, but, those aspects could be made peripheral to the religion.
I think you are moving into a type of thinking that has similarities to the perspective of Europeans and others about Jewish people in pre WWII days. Just switch your terms and you'll see what I mean.
Well said, ET.
"Christianity was functioning as a sociopolitical system in the middle ages - and it was that system that had to be reformed."
'Christianity' as a sociopolitical system did need to be reformed and it was. It was absolutely corrupt. But this manipulative, sociopolitical state was not foundational to Christianity. It was opposite the teachings in the NT and Christ's life example.
"Islam is a sociopolitical system, but, those aspects could be made peripheral to the religion."
'Those aspects" cannot be made peripheral to the religion without editing out most of the Quran and abandoning Mohammad as the perfect man - the one to emulate. The sociopolitical system (or Sharia) is built into the religion. It is foundational from the beginning of Islam.
The rest of your comment, regardless of how it is couched, is ad hominem, and frankly I'm surprised, as it is you who so often accuses others of the same. A little hypocritical don't you think?
Besides, unlike the Jewish people, Islam is not a race. As well, I am not demonizing Islam through fabricated lies. The things that I noted about the Quran, Mohammad and immigration are historical and true, not fabricated. The comment about procreation is based on China's one child solution for more or less the same problem.
Shut up belisarius, or whatever.
irwin daisy - the Jewish people are not a race. There's no such thing as race. We are all one species - homo sapiens.
My comment to you was not ad hominem. An ad hominem comment is a diversionary tactic, meant to divert attention from the real issue by focusing not on the issue being debated but on the personality of the speaker. I wasn't focusing on you but on your argument, which I maintain is 'racist' in that it is painting the entire community of a religion as almost genetically deformed.
Furthermore, an ideology that was made by human beings can be changed by human beings - and that includes ideology that one claims is direct 'from the mouth of god'.
Therefore, such issues as sharia law can be changed. You have the purists who reject it, and the Islamic modernists who argue that Sharia is based upon old cultural codes that are not adequate to a modern era. The debate is strong within the Islamic world. Of course, the purists are concluding that change is impossible because they are using the religion as a political tool of submission and fear. But - it can be changed.
Much like the Bible, it is possible to take portions of the Quran out of context and use them to justify pretty much anything. The struggle that moderate Muslims face is to prevent radicals from doing this.
The debate is indeed strong within the Islamic world. Radicals seem to have gained the upper hand through funding from Saudi Wahhabis. This is something we can help stop.
ad hom·i·nem (hŏm'ə-něm', -nəm) Pronunciation Key
adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
I won't comment on your 'race' remark. I'm confounded.
"which I maintain is 'racist' in that it is painting the entire community of a religion as almost genetically deformed."
Nowhere did I say or portray that. You are projecting. What I pointed out, and the only thing I pointed out, is that the ideological teachings of Islam in the Quran and the life example of Islams founder are at the centre and have historically been the cause of the Islamist/Islamic problem. Without both, there would be no Islam. Therefore, I do not believe Islamic reform is possible, without the outright rejection of much of the Quran and the so-called prophet. I don't believe this will happen. Thus, mass Islamic apostacy or conversion to something other is the only solution.
Furthermore, how can it be "racist', when, according to you "There's no such thing as race." Is this the same ET?
Belsarius,
The earlier verses in the Quran, such as 'there is no compulsion in religion' are moderate at a time when Mo needed to be humble. However, they are progressively replaced by later violent verses (ie, "Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! (Sura 9:5,29,41), as Mo became more successful, arrogant and blood thirsty. The process is called abrogation.
"I've been made victorious through terror." - Mo ('out of context' does not apply)
Again, quotes taken out of context. What or whom was he talking about? Could it have been during their struggle with the pagans of Mecca?
Context always applies in the reading of religious texts.
irwin - you said, and I quote 'Unlike the Jewish people, Islam is not a race'.
I said that there's no such thing as race; that includes the Jewish people; they are not a race. You say that they are. OK?
Again, I said nothing personal about you as a person; I don't know you. I said that your argument was racist, which means that it defines a population as a homogeneous 'bloc' in all their characteristics. This is invalid. Additionally, your solution to get rid of the beliefs and behaviour of this homogeneous population - is to deport them or stop them from coming to the country. I said, and I'll repeat it - that such a perspective is similar to the racist discriminatory views held by Nazism against the Jews.
That statement, which is a criticism of your opinion, is not ad hominem; it says nothing about you personally but about your argument. I don't think you understand the difference.
You conclude that Islam cannot be modernized; you conclude that it, as a belief system, is incurably violent and murderous. Therefore, you obviously conclude that its followers can't be permitted to continue in this world. I'm not sure of your 'ultimate solution' but you can't confine them all to the ME and build walls around them! After all, they aren't ALL living in the ME!
There is debate going on in the Islamic world about modernization; they know that they can't set up a utopian fundamentalist society. They know that they have to move towards a 'hermeneutic reading of the Koran'; there's quite a bit of scholarship in that area.
It will come, but the West has to reject extremism; and encourage moderates to speak out.
So, I absolutely disagree with your perspective.
ET - you are clearly intelligent and I love reading your posts
but that said, Your arguments (on this) are clearly academic, They are the same kind of arguments I see day in and day out among University professors, well reasoned for a perfect world, but in an imperfect world alot of those things don't hold up, obviously you see that or you'd be a lefty.
How many times through history have we seen what was good and should have happened according to reason upset and pushed down indefinitely by a ruling class or mob? I wouldn't even venture a guess.
You said that there was no such thing as race! and you say that by calling them a race, people using the term think taht they are homogeneous in every way. That is not what I mean when I use the term race or most anybody else I know, and I don't think thats what Irwin meant either.
Though many anthropoligists and sociologists say that race doesn't exist, I tend to disagree. IF it doesn't exist someone should have told the Hutus, maybe it would have made it easier for the tootsies (aka. Rawanda)
As for ad hominem attacks liking anyone no matter loosly to the idealogy the Nazis in this day and age is close to as bad as it gets.
As for hermaneutic readings of the koran. Um yah, people try that all the time with christianity, have you noticed the number of denominations and or sects now associated with it. That hemeneutic reading is practiced most extensively and creatively within the united church, to the point at which whole lot of christians do not consider the united church christian anymore.
From my last statement, there is something glaringly apparent, The lack of christians killing eachother for their different interpretations of the scripture!! , granted your argument pertains to christianity before the reformation, where the catholic church didn't blink at killing others who thought different from them. But therin lies the crux of this whole argument. What caused the reformation? It was not economics, it wasn't politics,though there were definitely political ramifications, it was the bible. Before the reformation, only a select few clergy even had access to the bible, let alone were able to read it. In the case of christianity their monopoly over the bible, the christian holy book, gave their line of thinking absolute power. When one honest clergy man Martin Luther, read the bible and without hemaneutics, knew that the behaviour of the catholic church at the time contravined the expressed teachings of the bible, with the invention of the printing press and education more people could have their own bible, which only accelerated the reformation. The religous wars and the current state of affairs within christianity were spawned by the honest desires of men to truly serve GOD and thats it. (I am not saying everyone was completely honest in their actions however)
Islam lacks that driving force for reformation, For islam the koran and Mohammed are their core, and every good muslim knows all about both of them. Reformation is not possible without religion being shaken to the core, Such forces cannot come from without but only from within. Economics, and all of the other reasons you state for change are outside forces! They might seem to gently rock the periphery of islam a bit but don't let it fool you. The true islamists will give up everything in their persuit of Allah and they are already doing exactly what their precious koran tells them to do. Unless your are able to change the words of the koran there will be no reformation!
Back to the nature of islam and denominations, they generally can't wait to kill eachother as witnessed in Iraq (though they may say otherwise there is no love lost between them) As for islam it is absolute if you don't agree with them your an infidel that needs to be killed.
And if we stopped muslim immigration to the West, and Stripped those already here of citizenship and sent them back wholesale, sure you bet it would get them riled up. Your putting a wrench in their plans. But why would you care that their angry? You say then we'd have alot more people willing to terrorize us. True, but as it stands we have a bunch already willing to do that and none of the others which we would alienate by such actions are currently going lift a finger to stop the others anyway. So really not such a big loss, Though I concede it would certainly get ugly for a while.
If our would be terrorizers are across the bond or some other heavily defended border they are no threat to us. And as you (ET) have pointed out in earlier post their current system doesn't allow them to make great the scientific progress necessary to ever challenge us with conventional military tactics.
As for Belisarious, You should read some bible and some koran, maybe look into Mohammed a bit. I agree context always applies. Though the context the koran speaks in is already well understood, especially by muslims. That context you speak of is already provided by history and customs and frankly from what I've seen they speak for themselves.
I know I've probably missed something, so I'm sure someone will point it out.
I've read both the Bible and the Quran, and studied the origins of both in University. To selectively pull quotes from either without context is manipulative and misleading. It's the technique the Jihadists use to justify their insane programme of mass murder.
The jury is still out on whether or not Islam will be able to reform itself or not. For a balanced prospective from a religious scholar and moderate Muslim seeking reform in his religion I highly recommend the book "No God But God" by Reza Aslan.
ET: "What is the cause of Muslims attacking the West?
Is it genetic? Of course not.
Is it cultural? Not really - because that doesn't explain why it's happening now and not 60 years ago?"
Oh for pity's sake: 60 years ago, most Muslims were dirt poor and living in their tribal homelands. Oil was $1.50 a barrel. They were poor, without modern communications, and faced with a united West that exuded power; no surprise to me that they didn't strike against us.
Today, they have billions upon billions of dollars - concentrated in the hands of the few, to be sure, but some of those few are more than willing to spend some of that money to fight the west. They have modern communications - satellite phones and the Internet. And they have allies in the West, like Taliban Jack and Citoyen Dion. Surely to God you realize that the combination of money and the collapse of the West into moral relativism - neither of which were present at the end of WWII - has emboldened the Islamofascists into believing they can defeat the West?
no, kevinb, surely to god, I don't accept your view that money and postmodernism has emboldened the Islamists. I've explained my view so many times I'm not repeating it again. It's called a dysfunctional tribal political system, and lack of an empowered middle class.
jared - no, the reformation was not caused by 'the bible'. It was caused by economics. The society had reached a critical threshold of 'carrying capacity' using the current technology supported by the current ideology. It absolutely required innovative technology to support the massive population increases of that era.
The medieval ideology that 'reasoning' was confined to the church and not the activity of the common man - meant that no innovations were possible. The reformation transformed this perspective, and focused on the need to question, to doubt (Abelard's famous 'dubitando), to explore the natural env't, etc. That was the basis of the reformation. Nothing to do with 'truly serving god'.
I disagree with your view of Islam; I maintain it can be reformed. I also disagree with your view of economics - the transformation is both external and internal in the Islamic countries. That's because an econmic system is networked rather than isolate.
On what basis would you strip a citizen of their citizenship and ship them back to..where? What rule of law would you use? And yes, it sounds exactly analagous to the Nazi regime that defined a particular religion as unacceptable within the nation.
Your isolationist tactic might work 2000 years ago, but not now. Now- they have our technology and equipment.
My statement that irwin daisy's description of Muslims was comparable to Nazi descriptions of jews is not ad hominem. Kindly check the meaning of 'ad hominem'. I said nothing about him and his person; I was focused on his argument. That's not ad hominem.
The fact that you use the term 'race' isn't relevant to the FACT that there is no such thing as 'race'. The Hutu and Tutsi wasn't about race, it was about tribe.
I disagree with your outline.
ET: "What is the cause of Muslims attacking the West?
Is it cultural? Not really - because that doesn't explain why it's happening now and not 60 years ago?"
But a few posts later, ET again: "It's called a dysfunctional tribal political system, and lack of an empowered middle class."
Um, if a dysfunctional political system and lack of an empowered middle class are NOT cultural, what exactly are they?
And, since I'm just a foolish engineer, when a situation changes, I ask myself "What's different?". Compared to 1947, Muslims have much more money, far more sophisticated communications, and a feedback mechanism through the media that, wittingly or not, reinforces terrorism by posting each isolated event as if it were a major blow to the West. To ignore any of those significant changes' contributions to Islamic terror is to stick one's head in the sand, IMHO.