For Noah - once again with respect
Submitted by Michel C. Zala (United States), Jan 14, 2007 at 00:16
By now I have a drink next to the keyboard, haha.
sounds almost apologetic for them. Look...if the evils of Islam have been laid bare with no reservation and no sugar-coating, and the so-called "moderate" Muslims turn away for that reason, then that makes them part of the problem. Their inaction is precisely what paints them in the same picture as the radicals. If any so-called "moderate" Muslims are reading this forum, then it is their duty...if they hope to achieve equal acceptance and reform their religion...to confront these unpleasant facts and speak out. "Turning away in resignation" is a cowardly cop-out that does nothing to improve their image.
And I have indeed come forward with solutions to the problem. My solutions are workable, though tougher than many have the will for. But I don't see another solution.
For the record – I do not deem you as a hatemonger or one of the people who see nothing but problems but do not have ideas or offer solutions. It is why I have enjoyed this debate with you and not so much others, where some qualifications were borderline insulting on a personal level. You and I differ in general on the extent of measures with a fruitful and refreshing exchange.
As far as being emotional, we should be highly emotional about this. We are, after all, talking about the future of our country and the type of lives our children and grandchildren will be living.
Once again, we fundamentally agree and both are looking for ways to preserve our way of life in the long run. I offer a slightly different viewpoint, as far as emotion is concerned, inasmuch as I make a difference between emotionally and passionately arguing. I resent the use of absolute statements, universal character assassinations and so on. They do not serve any objective other than across the board generate resentment. You do mostly abstain of that, Noah but many posts contain borderline insulting adjectives, not prone to leading to constructive dialogue of any kind.
Gotta correct your wording there. Israel did not "turn on" the Muslims. They give Muslims far more freedoms than they have in any Muslim country. You misunderstood me, as I used your exact words " turn on them" to demonstrate, how an experienced force is not able to prevent terrorism.
I usually try to abstain from who did what first. Too dicey.
They are sleeper cells. They are waiting for a "big bang" like 9/11. Their strategy is not what you think it is.
Okay – fair enough – according to you they pursue the "migratory attack" sleeper cell approach. I accept your viewpoint, while I disagree with it, as also outlined several times. But we do agree that this will take many more generations (you mention 50- to 100 years). That is a lot of time for us as civilized world to take countermeasures to use an expression from the military/strategy vocabulary.
I deem however, as opposed to you ( if I understand you correctly) the current militant, radical Islam as clear and present danger much more than the non militant migratory and subversive movement you describe.
And once again I ask you to point out a country where Islam is dominant or where Muslims are in large numbers, where Islamic terrorism, suppression of freedom, sexism, and all sorts of barbarity exists. Can you name me one?
No – but that does not preclude me from trying to see a distinction between Countries like Jordan or Turkey and Yemen or Syria or most of all IRAN. I have never tried to deny the aspects of the culture you describe, Noah. But I do feel that - see my post to Susan - as in Japan for instance, democracy can be exported, installed and grown. Turkey has made some undeniable progress since their barbaric times. Why not try to foster that development and an integration with western Europe? It will not hurt us, but has the potential for some success on one of the many fronts of this war, don't you agree?
Muslims are Muslims. Muslims all practice Islam. Islam is a depraved death cult. It's that simple. …So a "good Muslim" (ie one faithful to his religion) is by definition an enemy of freedom and certainly an enemy to the USA.
You have mounted a lot of evidence to that fact. Nothing I personally could deny or confirm. All I personally would have wanted is to hear from an American Muslim to that fact. How he resolves that obvious dilemma. Non factual, personal and individual feeling of mine, that there is a silent segment of modern Muslims out there, otherwise we would see much more tension here domestically than just isolated incidents.
In other words, no suicide bombings, etc. Slowly they will subvert our will and our culture, until they reach a critical mass, which is when they will resort to force. Show me the exception to this pattern, anywhere in the world. Can you do that?
Of course not, as we are not there yet. As mentioned before, I deem the Netherlands to be the first real test within the next 20 years. I still refuse to believe that they will see mass uprising or the Sharia as state law, even, if they have a majority or the so called critical mass.
"Well, if ISLAM could be seen as one integrated movement containing all three categories, they'd be ready now, as we speak, to commence large scale terrorist activities and thus destabilize the western world."See, here you are in fact the one thinking one-dimensionally. You think that just because they have the ability to exercise force, that they will. Not so. They think on multiple levels and they think far ahead. What did 9/11 result it? It resulted in the USA invading Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban and killing tons of terorrists, invading Iraq and killing tons of terrorists.
Noah - consider for a moment the truly horrific assumption, that ISLAM pursues its goals on both fronts. I would in their position.
If the militants migrate from their gigantomanismus to a low tech assault, they can have the objective of Western destabilization right now, while the non-militants pursue the silent migratory attack and officially distance themselves from the radicals with "plausible deniability". If I was them, that's exactly what I would do, integrate a short term with a long term strategy. Where our difference of opinion lays is that the evil movement as described by you to my opinion already could have started, if there was in fact so much support by domestic Muslims.
The mainstream media is so biased and so corrupt that you cannot believe anything that say these days.
I agree, inasmuch as I do not trust A N Y media at face value. I ve seen compelling and interesting conspiracy theories, incredibly well made up to that Airplane Crash back east, where they said it may have been a US Army stinger to inflame against terrorists. Nothing anyone can possibly say or write, which will make me believe that McVeigh was anything but a stupid, narcistic white supremacist with a grudge. Further believe in Occam's Razor: Some times the most plausible explanation is indeed the right one to put it into a simplistic manner.
Which simply damns them with the rest. Look, if they are so weak, so cowardly, that they cannot take control of their religion from the supposedly "minority" of 10-15% radicals, then they don't deserve to be treated any better than the radicals. They are part of the problem.
I do not deny that. As with the Germans, there is a fundamental duty of responsibility. Silence in this case makes them co-conspirators.
Or perhaps they simply don't care. Perhaps they simpy do hate America and prefer Islamic rule. Occam's razor...the simplest answer is usually the right one. Perhaps because they are Muslim, they side with Islam.
Absolutely accepted as possibility. ( I just always try to apply Habeas Corpus) And, responding to you by going paragraph by paragraph, it is ironic that I above used the very same Razor in a different context to argue one of your perspectives – I let it stand as is. A nice bit of evidence how the same methode can be applied to debate different perspectives.
Americans needed no generations to speak out...we rose from oppression to freedom from day one.
I feel, Noah, that this is comparing apples with potatoes. Mixed culture, revolutionary war, and many blacks have until only few generations not been able to "speak up". I simply see it a bit different.
Second, these supposedly intimidated, culturally programmed silent ones seem to have no problem speaking out, protesting, crying on the mainstream media news shows, and demonstrating in large numbers when we throw suspisicously acting Muslims off the plane. They had no compunction about loudly speaking out to support their Muslim candidate when he was sworn in on the Koran (while loudly chanting their death cry of "Allahu Akbar"). The only time they seem to remain silent is when it comes time to condemn terrorism.
Can you explain that paradox for us?
First of all, if memory serves me right, Allahu Akhbar means God is great. As inappropriate as any such religious yelling touches me during any inauguration, I do not see the content as inflaming. Unfortunate however that the same cry hovered over so many battlefields including my own Hungary. Secondly, behavioral patterns in masses are always different, no matter the culture.
Thirdly – condemnation of Islamic Terrorism by representatives of ISLAM is still marginal – A tragedy indeed and leads to many paranoid anti –islamists to feel confirmed in their Bias. I deplore the silence myself.
While that is indeed a small sampling, it does constitute a pretty significant number of Muslims in a rather large metropolitan area,Who can blame you, if your experiences were that bad. How can I possibly argue for a silent segment of moderate Muslims? Any personal references I make or experiences I had to the contrary will never change your mind.
To the topic of revision of freedom of speech.We fundamentally agree here too. The weight must be on enforcement and yes, that would also mean overcoming of some legal hurdles to apply – to use a nasty word - censorship. As opposed to you, I feel that it can be done and vigorously applied to any doctrine.
" You cannot "enforce" assimilation. Either a person wants to assimilate into a new host country or they do not. Forcing them to assimilate does nothing more than paint over the inherent hatred they have, and what you're left with is a seemingly normal citizen who is boiling over inside with resentment. We need to keep out those who do not willingly wish to be true Americans and remain loyal to America first and only.
Sorry, my example proves me right. Whoever comes to the host country must abide by its laws and culture. No special privileges or treatment, no ghettos, no enclaves. CH is evidence of a country where that is in place already and proves feasibility each day. What anyone thinks behind the closed doors of their homes, is not my problem and their granted liberty. But right there the buck stops.
"The school where Islamic kids work side by side with the rest or our melting pot, can so become the balancing force to any potential indoctrination at home."
It won't matter, when those Islamic kids are fed the psychotic hatred that their parents drum into them daily at the dinner table. Believe me, I've seen this in action.In today" s Double Income world and full day schools, we are looking at 10h/School vs. 3 h potential indoctrination at home – over time the liberalism as experienced at school will dominate any private hatred – Is my individual conclusion. May take a couple of generations.
They choose to do so. It's up to them to act otherwise. Instead of setting up Islamic stores catering to Muslims only, why not shop at American stores. Instead of dressing up like someone living in the deserts of Iraq, why not dress like an American? It's entirely their own fault when they choose not to assimilate.
Again not much in terms of differing of opinions. My slant is only that I believe we could enforce assimilation and do not have to leave it to the immigrant to choose to assimilate. By choosing to come to this country, that privilege is no more. Such enclaves are a socio-demographic powder keg and it should be outlawed to have stores with merchandise not labeled in English, street signs in Vietnamese or city blocks which feel like a countryside in China. We could implement such legislature. We simply haven't been forced or compelled to do so yet.
And there is the root of most of America's problems. The problem is, how do we get back to that? We're allowing far too many subversive elements to infiltrate and subvert our culture like a human cancer...Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims...and they're all loyal to their motherland and their religion above their loyalty to America. They aren't Americans. They're squatters, parasites leeching off America's lifeblood and future.
We agree again - I just see it as a cross-cultural phenomenon, not just Islam related. As mentioned – that phenomenon could be worked on many different dimensions in order to regain a sense of overall, cross- cultural patriotism.
A fire started by the PLO for propaganda purposes, with the help of revisionist history (and a template from Goebbels himself), and through the complicity of other Muslims countries.
My sole point to even mention this controversial topic was that we (Western Civilized World) are responsible for the Israel mess of the 20th century and must help clean it up. Other than that I will not touch on any claims or legalities, as we can no longer determine, what came first, the egg or the chicken.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. First, by doing all the work for another, we deprive them of freedom of choice. We absolve them of any sense of responsibility for their actions. We feed into their victimology mentality. By making it a situation where we accept responsibility for changing their behavior, we take on their job. We feed into their propaganda and in turn end up playing their game, just like the so-called "Palestinians" play Israel like a harp.
Wrong! It is their duty, their responsibility, to reform themselves. Since they refuse to do so, they must be removed from our society and denied access, aid, or compassion unless and until they change. Tough love, international style.
I don't advocate any sort of passivity. I advocate strong, immediate, uncompromising force to deal with the threat.
Fact of current circumstances: They can not be removed, they can not be denied access, and they can not be demanded to change and there is no way for practical immediate force to deal with a global movement of that magnitude. Okay – now what? Back to divide and conquer, is my only response.
My contention is that we have to remove Islam and all Muslims from our society, force them back to the lands they came from, and let them know that we simply will not tolerate their barbarity, their treachery, their whining. Let Islam survive or die in its own land under its own people. If what you and others claim is true, if only 15% of them are violent, then this would force the moderates to detsroy the radicals, reform their religion, and become a civilzed people. If they cannot do that, they are not worthy to live among us. It's that simple. If they remain cowardly and silent, then the so-called radicals will continue to rule them, and there will be a Sunni-Shia genicide war, which is fine. Perhaps when they get tired of killing one another, they will eventually turn to reform and peace. But is it not our responsibility to do so. Let them go home and work it out.
If they try exporting their violence, we simply blow them off the face of the earth. Tough love. Reform Islam or we will simply eradicate Islam.
While I appreciate, where you come from – I really understand it, Noah, non of the above solutions are even closely feasible or have any chance of being ever entertained in the world we live in. It is in light of that, that I try to find more practical ways to achieve civilized world objectives. Even the combined power of all western defense forces including China and Russia would never manage to implement such a radical MO – not with 40 % of the World population disseminated across the globe.
If that's what you believe, then you simply choose to ignore both the history and the actual teachings of Islam. And that is precisely the problem. Too few people are willing to look at history, current events, and the realities of that death cult, and tell it like it is.
I never denied their violent past nor the letter of that book.( Nor ours for that matter or some enigmatic , cryptic and easily as aggressive or at least exclusive interpretable passuses in the Bible). I advocate to clamp down hard on any violent teachings everywhere and from anyone. No exceptions!
We need to acknowledge in no uncertain terms that Islam at its very core is a violent death cult created by a violent man in order to unite a violent tribal people. We need to acknowledge that their culture is uncivilized and in drastic need of reform. We need to speak out, openly and loudly, and show how rancid and depraved all Islamic societies and countries are. We need to remove the mass psychosis called "multiculturalism" and admit that Islamic society is far inferior to American society, we need to denounce it, we need to declare it barbaric, we need to point out how corrupt and violent it is at its very core, and we need to insist on total reform. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
A bit strong tobacco for my taste. Let me rephrase one key sentence: We need to help the willing to overcome centuries of indoctrination and understand democracy as the most superior of all societies. Successful reform always came from within. In the context of an overall networked global society, what's so bad about supporting even tiny efforts to that fact?
We know the root cause. Islam. There is no question about that. The problem is that few if any are willing to face reality and admit that. You need look no further than the Koran. The religion was founded by a barbaric rapist, murderer, pedophile who founded the religion in violent terms in order to unite a violent tribal people. They spread it in a violent manner. Their holy book and auxilliary writings all endorse terror. The very name "Islam" means "submission".
See above - even, if you are 100% right, how do you want to "reform" 40 % of the World Population?
Again, you still have not explained their actions nor have you answered any of my challenges to explain them as yet. I'm still waiting.
Michel, pour me a drink too! All this writing has me parched! :-)
Actually, my point was that the Muslims would see it as weak and begging. They really don't understand peaceful resolution and win/win situations. Compromises to them are weakness. They are a tribal people, and so we must "speak their language". We must communicate to them as tribal people. Tribal mentality worships force, strength, non-compromising, and hardness. That's how we must act towards them if we ever expect meaningful communication. More on this in a moment.
You guys so often tell me, how sneaky and smart they are and now, all of a sudden, win/win is a non-starter with a culture famous for its bazaar dealing and wheeling?
An unemotional response from their culture? That's like asking for hardcore raunch from an episode of Leave It To Beaver! :-DL O L - good one, I needed it. Hey – I may be naïve, and the lack of response certainly does not help either.
Certainly! It would indeed be refreshing for a Muslim scholar who is willing to speak the truth about Islam to come and give us his thoughts on how Islam might reform itself and what he thinks we can do to force them to do so. But there are so few such people that we might as well play the lottery and expect to win, literally.I agree – but rephrase according to my multi culti philo: .. and what he thinks we can do to support such efforts…
Just don't expect a cavalry of moderate Muslims to come rallying to defend Islam. If you notice, virtually all the responses by Muslims here are either inflammatory nonsense, lies and propaganda, obfuscation and evasion, or simply non-answers.
Well, I blew the horn, yet the cavalry hasn't come to my rescue. I have indeed seen a few muslijm comments and dismissed those as classic cliché responses. inasmuch the majority of submissions from the Anti-Islamic front were not very non-inflammatory either… but much better evidenced.
Lastly - time for another nightcap to avoid nightmares – You and I do not absolutely disagree. I found a lot of common ground. I disagree with you on the amplitude of the various measures, not so much on the wavelength. If that makes any sense.
Unless anything of significance or a new fresh (muslim) perspective materializes, I feel that it has been said, what can be said from the various viewpoints. I salute you all and otherwise disappear to my mumbo-jumbo planet, before I lose any remaining self-confidence ;)
If you feel the need to slam me directly, e-mail me at [email protected]. I'd appreciate any links to moderate muslim websites and blogs so I could inform myself first hand.
Otherwise, Elvis and I have left the building.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (2099) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes