Ironing out a few points
Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 15, 2007 at 01:04
Michel, we do agree on many things, we just need to iron out a few wrinkles. :-D
"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."
Yes, it has been refreshing. And certainly a lot more interesting than debating people like Avenger or Mo, who know nothing outside of the propaganda they've been indoctrinated into.
"You do mostly abstain of that, Noah but many posts contain borderline insulting adjectives, not prone to leading to constructive dialogue of any kind."
The thing is, I simply don't see how to avoid adjectives like "demented" and "depraved", because the teachings of Islam and the practice thereof are just that...demented and depraved by any civilized standard.
"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 don't agree that it would take 50-100 years. I'd say more like 15-20 tops. They come over in droves and breed like hamsters. And there is a powerful and aggressive pro-Islam movement in America, funded by the Saudis and their oil company sycophants here in America, and the (supposedly) American politicians who answer to them. That's why we have Bush proclaiming Islam is a religion of peace when every day reality proves him wrong.
And 15-20 years (perhaps as little as 10 years) is the blink of an eye. There is no time to counter that slowly.
"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."
No, I'd say the migratory attack is by far the greater threat. Here's why.
First, once embedded it is much more difficult to remove them. Imagine if I were the President and I called for the immediate forced exportation of Muslims and banning of Islam. The scumbags at the ACLU would we overdosing on No-Doze and coffee trying to stay awake for their 24hr/day legal complaints. And imagine how much fighting there would be to forcibly remove them. Better not to let the enemy infiltrate than to have to dislodge him after he's done infiltrating.
Second, this subversive migratory attack is being coupled with proprganda fueled by Saudi petrodollars. They are funding classes and books in grammar schools where our Western children are being "taught" to be Muslims (and which has prompted court battles). So our society is slowly being brainwashed with lies about Islam (being peaceful), which makes it much more difficult for people to deal with reality when the time comes. Why? Because by then they've been indoctrinated to believe that it's "just a few radicals" and will not back a broader retaliatory response to Islam. They're less likely to even believe it is justified to be monitoring mosques.
Violent terrorist acts, in comparison, generally work against them. It causes an increase in public disapproval, it causes attention to their mosques, it generates unsympathetic feelings towards Muslims, and in the end it makes reaching their goals harder. I'm convinced, given the poor security we still have at our borders and on our airlines, malls, nuclear plants, and ports, that the main reason we have not been hit again is more due to a change in tactics by the enemy than any increased security on our end.
"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'
There is a distinction between them, but not one of utter relevance, from where I'm standing. Saudi Arabia for example may seem positively benign compared to Iran, but in reality they are doing as much as or perhaps more then even Iran when it comes to supporting and spreading terror. We claim Jordan is our "ally", but all that means is that Jordan's somewhat secular government is cooperating with us to some small degree. Polls taken there show that the people in the street hate us, they hate Israel, and 88% of them believe in committing violence against civilians. It's a matter of degrees, but evil is evil!
"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?"
Using your analogy, I'd say because Japan prides itself on honor and upholding its word, whereas the Muslims are mandated by their religion to lie to us, and they have proven to be totally without honor and actually proud of breaking their word and lying. They simply cannot be trusted.
"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?"
Actually, I wouldn't agree. I think that before we can even pretend to trust those sneaky, compulsive liars, we need to wait for them to reform their religion, denounce and eliminate Islamic terror, and prove their worth first. Only after they transform their society to a highly significant degree should we work with them or trust them.
"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."
They're already pressing for a sub-system of Sharia law in Canada, Britain, and America from what I've seen so far. Here is just one example:
When they reach a majority, we can expect Sharia to become the law of the land.
"Noah - consider for a moment the truly horrific assumption, that ISLAM pursues its goals on both fronts. I would in their position."
Indeed. I think there's no question, that's what they're up to.
"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."
That's my point. It is starting already. Has been for at least 6 years now. We have schoolbooks paid for by Saudi Arabia and kids in our public schools are forced...yes, forced...to fast, dress up like Muslims, and say Muslim prayer in school for Ramadan, in order to "learn about Islam". We all know they're not teaching the bloody truth about Islam, or about how Mohammed raped a 6 or 8 year old child, or any of the verses about killing Jews. No, Islam is being portrayed as some pacifistic Buddhist style religion. And while our children are being brainwashed into believing those lies, the Muslims are preaching hatred against us in their homes, mosques, and madrassahs.
"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."
Occam's razor, though, fails when there is a huge amount of evidence pointing to the more complicated explanation. In other words, the evidence for an Islamic connection to the OKC bombing is staggering. It's harder for me to believe that there wasn't, given the evidence and the circumstances around the suppression of evidence, than to believe there wasn't some connection.
"I do not deny that. As with the Germans, there is a fundamental duty of responsibility. Silence in this case makes them co-conspirators."
Indeed. And the only way to get them off their backsides is to make the punishment, or rather the consequences, powerful enough to motivate them.
"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."
True, but we all did come from oppressive cultures, and many were sounding off even before they came to America. The Muslims enjoy plenty of emotional, political, and executive support. They have no legitimate reason not to stand up. I mean, President Bush himself is a Saudi-owned cheerleader, for heaven's sake! And it boggles the imagination to believe that out of a community of 50,000 Muslims, less than 500 showed up (for that rally). Estimates were around 250, and those were mainly non-Muslims. So less than 1/2 of 1% (0.5%) in the community (I 'm talking about that Arizona rally I mentioned previously) bothered to speak up. If there are, as estimated, between 2 million and 6 million Muslims in America and just 0.5% (half of one percent) bothered to stage a rally, that would amount to between 10,000 and 30,000 gathered to denounce terror. We don't see anything anywhere near that ballpark. It's asking too much to believe that out of all those Muslims, not even one-half of one percent feel free to speak out. That defies common sense. They simply don't want to speak out. Even if 95% of them were cowards, they could amass between 100,000 and 300,000 in a rally to denounce terror and claim the religion for themselves. And yet we can't even get a couple hundred to show up.
Something doesn't add up here.
"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."
I do, for several reasons. First, it has become the battle cry of terrorists. They scream "Allahu Akbar" every time they fly an airplane into a skyscraper, every time they behead an innocent civilian, every time they arson a church, every time they rape a nun, every time they commit genocide against a village, etc. What it means is not as significant as how it is used. And that phrase has become the militant battle cry of Islam. Second, why not chant the guy's name, ie the candidate who won? That's who they're voting for. That's who should be celebrating. By chanting their death cult call to arms, they are cheering not because the best candidate won, but because the Islamic candidate won. Their allegiance is to Islam, not America. There's the problem.
"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."
True. I have dealt with so many of them in so many states, and in so many online forums, that it would take a miracle to convince me otherwise. They would literally have to change reality (ie reform their religion) for me to ever give them any trust. I couldn't give an exact number, but I would estimate that I have known perhaps as many as 1,000 Muslims in my life (many of them in person, slightly less online). Out of that number, I would honestly have to say that perhaps 5 of them were not hateful and violent. That comes to...[does quick math]...about 0.5% of the. So 99.5% of them were violent.
"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."
The problem here is that in no way do we have the resources to bug the homes of 2 to 6 MILLION Muslims, all the various restaurants..., all the mosques and madrassahs, and the parks where their kids hang out, etc. It's just too much. It would be more effective to simply force them to leave. Where the enemy is not, he cannot hurt you.
"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."
But that's not good enough. These Muslims would simply gather in their basements or sit in their frontrooms and around their dinner tables and plot their terror from there. It's not enough to simply "outlaw" terrorist plotting and discussion. We cannot control that in the private sector to any workable degree. So the better method is to get rid of them.
"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."
Those double income families with 10 hour school days are a major part of the problem! Our kids are literallybeing brainwashed into believing that Islam is peaceful. And the amount of indocrtrination the Muslim kids get at home is tremendous. Three hours a day is more than enough to create a terrorist, trust me!
Without removing them, the other solutions are merely putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Not very effective.
"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."
I agree that it should be mandatory. My point is, you cannot force an immigrant to love America and to be faithful to her. They can say the words, but it's how they feel that counts. I know more than enough Muslims who act like they really love being American and who pretend to be American, but who say they would refuse to fight for America if we went to war against Iran or Saudi Arabia, or who call America a "terrorist state" or who say they hope Islam wins.
"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."
Amen on that!
"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."
It's not hard at all to know which came first. The chicken. :-)
The history of that region and how those countries came to be leaves no doubt whatsoever. The problem is that the anti-Semitic, pro-islam propaganda is pushed constantly and it interferes with the truth. It's literally the Goebbel's Big Lie in action, which the so-called Palestinians learned from their association with the Nazis. You'd be surprised how many people buy the Big Lie of the Middle East.
Truth is a rare commodity in our world these days.
"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."
I disagree on each point. They can easily be denied access. Closing our borders is within our power, if we had people in charge willing to do what's needed. Removing them can also work. We rounded up the Japanese in WWII. We can easily round up the Muslims and the illegal Mexicans. Would some insist on remaining and resist? Yes. Would some have to be killed in the process? Absolutely. Tough. It's called "personal responsibility". You take responsibility for your actions. We give them 30 days to get their things and get out, or they will be arrested and forced out. If any of them choose to stay and fight, they chose their own fate. Freedom of choice.
Look, we split the atom, we put a man on the moon, we've re-routed giant rivers and terra-formed entire areas of land. We've sent probes to the far reaches of the universe. We defeated the greatest military machine in modern history (Hitler's Nazis). We can surely round up a group of people and get rid of them.
As for forcing them to change, that's up to them too. If they have the guts and the brains, they can fix their religion once they arrive back in their homelands. If they reform and civilize their death cult into a normal religion, they are welcome back. If they don't, then let them all live in Islamic countries and kill one another. Like Susan said, pass the popcorn! ;-)
"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."
They're definitely workable and effective. Best solution we have. The problem is of course, having the will to do so. That's why no solution will work...we do not acknowledge reality and we do not have the guts or the will to do what needs doing.
"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."
Look at the pogroms in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere. Look at what a group of motivated people could do in the late 30's/early 40's (Nazi Germany). Almost wiped the Jews off the face of the earth. Scary, isn't it? We can definitely get rid of Islam and remove it from the USA. All it takes is for people to have two descended testicles and an intact backbone. Which of course is why it isn't happening.
"See above - even, if you are 100% right, how do you want to "reform" 40 % of the World Population?
I'm not concerned with reforming them though. I'm only concerned with removing them. I don't care whether or not they reform their religion once we get rid of them. For all I care, they can have a Sunni/Shia war of annihilation and blow each other off the map. As long as they do it in their own backyard. However, forcing them out of our society, forcing them into a cage (so to speak) in the Middle East would force them to do something. Either they would reform themselves or they would extinct themselves. Either one is fine with me.
"The segment of a moderate majority amongst domestic Muslims is my diagnosis by exclusion. While I indeed have not seen or heard much from them (including here) I have yet to see proof to the contrary with much more racially founded higher level riots and such. I feel, I think and I hope that I am right – but I can not prove you wrong."
That's because all proof and all reality backs my claims. :-)
"You got it – I toast to your health."
Right back at you! :-)
"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?"
Yes, because win/win in Islamic culture always means Islam dominates and gets the lion's share.
"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."
It makes a lot of sense, actually!
"If you feel the need to slam me directly, e-mail me at email@example.com. I'd appreciate any links to moderate muslim websites and blogs so I could inform myself first hand."
No slamming at all. It's been nice talking with you. I hope you keep an eye on these forums, and if I get any information, I'll be sure to send it your way. :-)
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 (2098) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes