The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Naming the Enemy

It is sometimes hard to name the real enemy.  For World War II we picked the Nazis and not the Germany People who supported them.  It made the post-war effort easier.  We did some de-Nazification and then everything was OK.  Well, we did all get together and agree that Euthanasia was bad and forced sterilization of the mentally deficient was bad and killing of the handicapped was bad, but that was a long time ago.  And we never called the Nazis by the name of their party, the National Socialists.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer talks about the Obama Administrations "naming problem" in a column in Friday's Washington Post.

Mr Krauthammer starts with Attorney General Eric Holder responding to Rep Lamar Smith (R-Tx) asking about our enemy in the war on terrorism like he (Holder) was a nominee for the US Supreme Court.  In the end, General Holder said:
There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based.
As Mr Krauthammer notes, that is in stark contrast to Mr Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square attacker, who proclaims that he was acting as a Muslim soldier.  Says Mr Krauthammer:
Holder's avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms jihadist, Islamist and Islamic terrorism.
Mr Krauthammer then follows up by saying:
Instead, President Obama's National Security Strategy insists on calling the enemy—how else do you define those seeking your destruction?—"a loose network of violent extremists." But this is utterly meaningless. This is not an anger-management therapy group gone rogue. These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize and kill.

Why is this important? Because the first rule of war is to know your enemy. If you don't, you wander into intellectual cul-de-sacs and ignore the real causes that might allow you to prevent recurrences.
The key point I took away from the article was that we are dealing with people who have a very specific "jihadist vision in whose name they acted."  It is not a nominal view of jihad, but a very specific vision and that vision has consequences.  Until we have a fundamental understanding of that vision we will be dealing with the Long War from a position of intellectual weakness.  What we are doing now is like fighting Nazi Germany but saying that the German People are just suffering from the problems of a bad peace treaty after World War I and the results of hyperinflation in the early 20s.  They don't really mean us harm.  They are just not seeing clearly.

The fact is that our enemies in the long war see very clearly.  It is time we look through their eyes.  This will do two things.  First, it will allow us to distinguish between Islam the religion, on the one hand, and, on the other, this very small and specific group, with a jihadist mentality based upon a very specific, heterodox, understanding of Islam. Secondly, we will then be able to fix our own approach to resisting this specific group and then defeating them, or at least driving them to irrelevance.

The current approach just leads to Americans thinking it is all of Islam, when it is not.

Regards  —  Cliff

7 comments:

ncrossland said...

The argument seems to be in the same philosophical bent as the continuing NATO policy in Afghanistan of "Courageous restraint." This is a policy that essentially holds that the enemy isn't the enemy until you have incontrovertable proof. This proof would of course be at a minimum some indication that he is trying to kill you. If he fails after his initial offering of proof, you may then, and only then, use deadly force against him. Otherwise, the philosophy of the tenet holds that the person is only an innocent bystander.

when does the bystander become the activist?
No religious toleration is extended. The only choice given is death or the acceptance of Islam. Similarly, no tolerance is shown to atheists and unbelievers. The Koran is full of lurid descriptions of the punishments awaiting them. Surah XXII.9 states: "As for the unbelievers for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods."

The Koran also enjoins all Muslims to fight and kill nonbelievers: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" (Surah XLVII.4).

The totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true religion, to the law of Allah. Islam has always claimed for itself universal and exclusive truth--the possibility of salvation outside it is inconceivable. Indeed it is the sacred duty--an incumbent religious duty established in the Koran and in the Traditions--of all Muslims to bring it to all humanity. Jihad is a divine institution and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam. It is the religious duty of all Muslims to fight and kill in the name of Allah:

Kill those who join other gods with God (i.e. idolators) wherever you may find them. (Surah IX.5-6)

Those who believe fight in the cause of God.... (Surah IV.76)

I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels. Strike off their heads, then, and strike off from them every fingertip. (Surah VIII.12)

It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers; those who do, will roast in Hell:

Believers, when you meet the unbelievers preparing for battle do not turn your backs to them. Anyone who does - shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil dwelling indeed! (Surah VIII.15-16)

If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place. (Surah IX.39)

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, that is, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come.

Let those fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward. (Surah IV.74)

It is abundantly clear from many of the above verses that the Koran is not talking of metaphorical battles or of moral crusades; it is talking of the battlefield. Mankind is divided into two groups--Muslims and non-Muslims.


So, it would appear that the term "jihad" is not a term reserved stricly for "extremists" but rather, it is a basic behavioral requirement for all Muslims.

Jack Mitchell said...

Afraid of Islam. Check!

C R Krieger said...

The Boston Globe editorializes on this today.  They end by pointing out that "Americans and the Muslim world have the same enemy."  The Globe mentions "Wahhabi fundamentalists" and talks about "violent Islamists of Al Qaeda and like-minded groups [which] comprise a tiny, deviant minority."

If the Globe sees it, it is likely visible to most.  Not Islam, but a very small segment thereof.

Regards  —  Cliff

ncrossland said...

So, the take away I get from this thread is, aside from Jack's usual sarcasm, even though the Koran says the things I mentioned....and much more.....only a small, radical minority actually practice the requirements of their religion?

Well....I suppose that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. I'm sure that all but a small radical minority of Christians, Budhists, Sihks, etc. don't practice their religious tenets either.

Maybe we are mostly atheistic at worst or agnostic at best, and therefore relativeless harmless as a result.

Maybe there are periodic warps in the time/space continuum that allows an intrustion from the mirror dimension, evil......seeps in and temporarily tries to overcome good.

Hey.....it works in the Captain Marvel comics and seems as plausible as "most" of Muslims really don't practice the Koran in a literal sense.

Anyone been following the evolution of Londonstan?

Jack Mitchell said...

The enemy is nativism, xenophobia, bigotry, racism, et al.

Let's not pussyfoot around trying to comprehend the "frustration" of the NH author, below. This, as W. would say, is an "either your with us or against us" moment. And by us, I means U.S.

We must preserve our racial identity
Ryan J. Murdough, Ashland

July 4, 2010
I am running as a candidate for state representative in Grafton County District 8. I am running as a Republican, but I have been endorsed by the American Third Position. I am also the American Third Position state chairman of New Hampshire. The American Third Position is a political party that stands for the interests of white Americans.

For far too long white Americans have been told that diversity is something beneficial to their existence. Statistics prove that the opposite is true. New Hampshire residents must seek to preserve their racial identity if we want future generations to have to possibility to live in such a great state. Affirmative action, illegal and legal non-white immigration, anti-white public school systems, and an anti-white media have done much damage to the United States of America and especially New Hampshire. It is time for white people in New Hampshire and across the country to take a stand. We are only 8 percent of the world's population and we need our own homeland, just like any other non-white group of people deserve their own homeland.

What will happen to New Hampshire once it is only 60, 50 or 40 percent white? Statistics show that areas with high non-white populations have higher rates of violent crime. New Hampshire has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the country, but that will change as the white population percentage declines and the non-white population percentage increases. I urge New Hampshire residents to go to the American Third Position website and read for yourself what it is all about.

RYAN J. MURDOUGH

Ashland

C R Krieger said...

Regarding Jack's comment about Mr Ryan J. Murdough, of Ashland, NH, I can only say that down that path is genocide.

For me the United States has always been about freedom and has never been about race or national origin.  We have been imperfect in extending that freedom, but extend it we have.

On the other hand, that does not mean that I am open to unrestricted immigration.

Unless something has happened that I don't know about, Neal is NOT in the same boat as Mr Murdough, who seems to be in a class of his own.  I thought we veered off the path of eugenics in the 1920s and 30s and away from open racism in the 1904s, 50s, and 60s.

Stand by for my upcoming book review on the German path to the death camps—as one author has it, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz.

Regards  —  Cliff

Jack Mitchell said...

I do not assume that anyone prescribes to or shares with the animal's views.

That said, I also don't accept a "freedom of speech" veneer to be used to scantily clad the animal's foul words. When such things are spoken in the public square, there must be a bellowing of boos following their utterance.

When no boo comes forth, I take note.

On immigration, we can cite the Founder's grievences:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, ...