We’re so protective of people’s so-called rights and feelings, we’re liable to “diversify” ourselves into a million pieces…
Addendum: Diana West:
Notice I didn’t say “Islamists.” Or “Islamofascists.” Or “fundamentalist extremists.” I’ve tried out such terms in the past, but I’ve come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam — the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it “moderately” enables or “extremistly” advances jihad — with the West. Am I right? Who’s to say? The very topic of Islamization — for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe — is verboten. A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last year warned even against “expressions of concern about Islamic fundamentalism” (another one of those amorphous terms) because “many perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith.” Much better to watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence. As the London Times’ Simon Jenkins wrote, “The sane response to urban terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident.”
I pray that more Americans like Diana West begin to throw off the dead weight of complacency (and cowardice?) and speak out against any ideology or creed that’s incompatible with our culture. This is a lonely, frustrating, and thankless job, people.
By the way, View from the Right is a must-read.
A Czech speaks truth.
{ 23 comments }
The Dallas Morning News editorial board has decided to stop the use of the word “insurgent” in relation to the combatants, uh, I mean terrorists that are killing civillians in Iraq.
We never worried about respecting the Bushido code when we fought the Japanese. Our goal was victory, not multicultural diversion.
Go Lashawn go! Sistuh girl is EN FUEGO!!!!
Sorry about the caps, but had to provide the emphasis. You are on a patriotic roll.
Keep it up.
As we’re shedding all politically correct statemetns i guess blacks shouldnt be in the police force since they account for the overwhelming majority of crimes in the US?
Hi LaShawn,
I was talking to my mom last night, and she told me about a rather scathing editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette about the Brits backing off using the term “terrorist.” I told her it was the BBC that did that “whitewashing” and not (to my knowledge) the sensible Brits.
Good to see ya back!
Wow… maybe I’ve been wrong about Bush…
he seems downright flaming liberal compared to the likes of
Ms. West, who apparently wants us to escalate this into a world-wide religious war. Bring on the crusades!
For a different perspective on Islam, maybe you should check out: “The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith” by Irshad Manji. And as an added bonus, she’s a lesbian to boot! She is very critical of Islam fundamentalists, she is pro-Israel, pro-West, and knows that the institutions of her faith need a modern reformation…
There ARE liberal and moderate Muslim voices out there.
LaShawn,
“So-called rights”? Yeah, we’re protective of civil rights, that is what makes America the greatest country on the planet… As one of the few liberals who frequent your site have said in the past, we MUST find a way to fight the global war on terror without
jettisoning what makes this country worth protecting.
As Ben Franklin said:
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
Amen La Shawn – and if anyone wants to get a running start on understanding and rightfully *condemning* the enemy we face, a good place to start would be reading Paul Sperry’s book “Infiltration” – which discusses that enemy in startling detail (the enemy being so-called “moderate Islam” of course). I’m beyond being PC about this anymore.
–ST
KimH & Jab, check out the article that I linked to on today’s other post on Illegals and You.
But, all things being relative, I take it from your comments that you wouldn’t have a problem with “christian” fundamentalism as practiced by the crusaders? Surely you know that the crusades was rooted in fending off the original Islamic invasion of Europe? You should also check out “The Clash Of Civilizations And The Great Caliphate”
http://www.insiderreport.net/clash_1-2.html
Plus I don’t see the issue as you frame it. What’s wrong with calling a spade a spade?. We are talking about the virulent denomination of Isalm, as practiced by Wahhabiis. There are plenty of moderate muslims that believe in Islam as an article of personal faith, but they need to get to steppin’ to counter their ‘brethren’. Because right now the Islamofascist noise/blood machine is overwhelming the “religion of peace” meme.
If you want a westernized equivalent, look to the KKK/Aryan Nation as a distortion of Christian beliefs in that only whites are deserving of salvation, all other races need to be subjected to them. In addition to once being the militant arm of the democratic party, they also considered themselves the religion of peace — peace for them & none for you.
Andy,
I was just countering the meme in the conservative blogosphere that there is no such thing as moderate Islam… that it is violent and evil to it’s core… that all Muslims are latent violent jihadists.
If you believe there is a distinction between fundamentalist/extremist Islamic fascists, and moderate/liberal Muslims… then we are in agreement. As I said, check out Manji’s book… a very different perspective. And she is “steppin’ to counter her brethren.” But many of La Shawn’s guests apparently are coming to the conclusion that there is no distinction… and that we should “call a spade a spade” and have an all out war with Islam.
But this brings up a paradox: If Islam is evil to its core and fundamentally incompatible with democracy (funny how a year ago, conservatives, including Dr. Rice, were scolding the left for saying such things), then what the heck are we still doing in Iraq? If democracy and Islam are inherently in opposition, then why are the neo-cons trying to create a democracy there?
Good question, jab. I say we get the heck out of Iraq and put all that manpower to better use on the borders.
Jab wrote, “If Islam is evil to its core and fundamentally incompatible with democracy (funny how a year ago, conservatives, including Dr. Rice, were scolding the left for saying such things), then what the heck are we still doing in Iraq?”
Putting aside the neo-con name and the characterizations of conservative arguments, it’s a good question (that could’ve been stated without the names and characterizations)….., and here is my answer:
There are psuedo-democracies including Jordan with majority Islamic people. They may not evolve into a democracy with the “freedom of religion” like our country but a democracy becomes more interested in peace by default because people don’t want thier nation’s resources squandered for anything but self-preservation (defense). This is generally speaking. Dictatorships can often times have a mad man keeping the people poor and propogandized so that the dictator can act on whims while wasting resources and dictating who gets what resources (communism and socialism).
Capitalism by definition is the people deciding who gets what resources and is compatible with a democracy or representative republic.
Once that direction is taken and neighboring countries see the progress democratic reforms are inevitable.
This is why it is important. Very important.
“Pseudo-democracies”?
Let me get this straight…
So we are spending of order a billion a week, and taking on thousands of U.S. casualties to create a “pseudo-democracy”?
Ummm… O.K.
“Once that direction is taken and neighboring countries see the progress democratic reforms are inevitable.”
That easy, huh? Inevitable? INEVITABLE? And your evidence for this assertion is…?
Let me turn it back to you Jab as I’m not interested in playing defense today.
What is your position? That we pull out? What will that lead to? Will it lead to a democracy or a power vacuum that is filled by a dictator with physical power of the people of Iraq? Which is better to strive for? ((Answer that one first))
Yes. I wouldn’t put Jordan on par with our democracy so I called it a name like psuedo-democracy. You can quibble or let us know what you think a) should be done and b) what you think the outcome of your policy would be.
Will it require putting our head in the sand and not caring about people over there? Let us know. Thanks.
Quite frankly, I’m sick to death of arguing the virtues of the battle in Iraq. Fine, the left thinks Iraq was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. So what do they advocate? Their politics sure won’t let the west call this war what it really is: The Islamic War Against All Idealogies Not Islamic. Just one more flair up in a war that has been going on for at least 1,500 years. News Flash: These people do not want to kill us because of any foreign policy. They want to kill us because we are nonbelievers. That is it. It is that simple. While Bush wants to build nations in a more PC way to deal with the threat, the left wants us to say sorry and leave the Islamic people in “peace” to do as they see fit. Well, both ideas are completely inadequate to the threat. We could completely leave the ME in total isolation. The first thing they would do is slaughter every man, woman and child in Isreal. And every other nonbeliever in Allah would also systematically be murdered. The muslims in the west would still carry out their “holy war” on the infidel. They would just as soon kill a lefty as a righty. Blue state or red state – it’s open season for your local Islamic “feedom fighter.” For those that think the Iraq plan was wrong, well I’m beginning to have my doubts too. But until folks wake up and take off their rose colored, multi-cultural, excusing, appeassing, It’s all our fault anyway glasses; we are stuck playing PC pussyfoot with people that want desperately to convert or kill us. No, not all Muslims are terrorist, but most terrorists are Muslim. They have declared war and we are in retreat because we don’t want to acknowledge the enemy. To refuse to fight because not all Muslims openly advocate the war is to surrender. I’m personally not willing to that.
I agree with you 90%
We can’t disengage.
We are being too lenient and not making it clear to parties involved that the “kill the infidel” mentality won’t be tolerated. We won’t convert to Islam and so we’ll always be infidels and they need to stop.
Baklava,
I understand we can’t disengage and I still have hope for the people of Iraq. However, I’m afraid we have backed ourselves into a corner. Jab brings up a paradox that has been bothering me more and more. Can you export Democracy to a people whose very religion is incompatible with Democratic ideals. I just am not sure if freedom and Islam can coexist without a major Islamic reformation. I think it might take a civil war for the muslim world to heal itself. Perhaps instead of discouraging civil war we should be encouraging it. Maybe I’m just tired and disgusted and this sense of forboding will pass.
Actually, Baklava…
It may surprise you that I don’t advocate pulling out.
I opposed the war in Iraq initially (I supported the war in Afghanistan, and thought we should have focused our energies on there)… but now we are there, we have to succeed.
The power vacuum left behind if we just pulled out would be devastating to the region and could lead to a horrible backlash on the U.S…. ultimately resulting in MORE terrorism.
No… we must stay and finish the job. But it’s clear that this administration has royally screwed it up… everyone knew the initial overthrow was going to be a cake-walk… but that the reconstruction and aftermath were going to be a nightmare.
What I don’t understand is why there is not more conservative backlash against this administration for the poor execution of this war.
La Shawn,
I’m sure this is a thankless job, so thanks. I’ve been reading a while now and you and a few other sites have opened my eyes to what is really happening here. Just wanted to let you know I think your doing God’s work and it is appreciated.
Jab, put it this way. We’re talking on two planes Christaian vs Conservative that overlap yet are distinct:
1) as Christians, we’re told to beware of false prophets appearing as truth that there are other ways to heaven aside from the blood of Christ. According to the Gospel, Islam is the spawn of Satan. Therefore, anything that teaches otherwise is evil to the core and as our forefathers noted incompatible with democracy. At the same time, we will reach out to the lost sheep in the hopes that the Spirit will lead them to repentance and redemption.
Don’t like it? Find another choir to preach to, but we’re not buying it — faithwise.
2)As conservatives, it is as Bak laid out that we’re tolerant of all comers as long as they accept our founding tenets:
Want to come in and impose Sharia? Forget it.
Want to put women back under a veil? Forget it.
Want to talk about tolerance? Sure, as long as you say what you like/don’t like and we do the same, frankly, honestly and without PC nuance.
Don’t like this? Tear your blood-sucking cacass back to your God-forsaken homeland, but we’re not buying it — politics-wise.
Now with regards to spreading democracy, we’re doing it for selfish reasons, mainly to help keep the peace world-wide. As Christians, we know it’s ultimately futile, but we’re commanded to keep toiling for that which is good and seemly. It also doesn’t hurt to till the ground, with our blood, sweat & tears to help soften up Islamic republics to be receptive to the Gospel.
This is going on now, even as we speak, there are missionaries working where they can to fish out men from the sea of death.
As La Shawn’s statement of purpose shows, if you want to talk pure politics, then you’re in the wrong place. If you want to talk about the intersection of faith & politics, then have at it. Just keep in mind where we’re coming from — Christians first, all else last.
Jab: “So we are spending of order a billion a week, and taking on thousands of U.S. casualties to create a “pseudo-democracyâ€?
You have a problem with spending $4~$5/week to make us safer, not to mention making the world a little better place than we found?
Seems to me JFK was saying something about bearing any price, burden etc to promote liberty around the world.
Hasn’t making the world better been a traditional core tenet of liberals? Isn’t that who sKerry was trying to emulate when he reported for duty?
Oh, I get it…sKerry can do everything Bush has done and it’ll be ok because he’s a liberal, but ‘no way, Hosea’, if a conservative adopts liberal principles. Now that’s either hypocritical or a flip-flop. Before you answer this point, I invite you to check out this 5-year old recording which was retrieved from the memory hole:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram
Today I heard an ad from a British organization that was urging Americans to wake up to the danger of allowing people who want to kill us to use our free system to spew their venom. The ad was essentially saying that it’s too late–England has been poisoned by them, which was result of “tolerance.” I just pray every day that we will not be victims, and I hope God hears us in the midst of all the junk that’s out there.
Jab wrote, “But it’s clear that this administration has royally screwed it up”
Jab. This is where the left gets messed up. The statement above is pure opinion (not fact). It’s like saying because of Bush we got attacked on 9/11. No. My opinion is that the deaths and characterization of being “screwed up” can be rested squarely on the so-called insurgents (I call them low life terrorists) that are doing the dastardly acts of terror.
There is SO much information about what we’ve built, the help we’ve given, the quality of life of the average Iraqi now, the woman’s rights today as compared to yesterday and all the left can do is say how much Bush screwed up.
You gave a prime example of how someone can admit that they were against the Iraq war but rationalized that we are there now and can’t pull out because of the devastation that would occur. Conservatives like myself would like a less tolerant attitude towards the terrorists in the region. Maybe arrests of entire families of those who put IED’s on the roads. That’ll stop them. No family would ever want one person in their family to commit such acts anymore. We have to find the wherewithall to finish the job with more force and persistence and the left needs to get on board and STOP giving aid and comfort to the enemy with their persistent opinion based attacks on the Bush administration. If anything we should be all climbing on board for a more FORCEFUL attack on terrorists not a squabble about is it screwed up or not giving the enemy the belief that we are this close “” to pulling out.
Jab wrote, “What I don’t understand is why there is not more conservative backlash against this administration for the poor execution of this war.”
A: Because we are spending half our time setting the record straight from the leftists. If the leftists shut up for 3 months we could all start criticizing how lenient and soft he’s been fighting the war on terror. Shoot how can we criticize Bush for not fighting hard enough sometimes when we see his hands are tied by the left? Answer that question please..
La Shawn,
Glad to see you back. Call them whatever you would like but they are evil. This is a cult that values death more than life. They are no different than other cults we are familiar with in our own culture e.g. Dave Koresch, the Kool-Aid bunch and Jim Jones, the KKK and numerous of our supremacy groups of any color you prefer.
In the bomber case though there is evidence to suggests this predates the Religion of Islam to the nomadic tribes that roamed the deserts of Arabia and Northern African. These tribes have traits at least in modern times we would term pathologic. These practices were then blender into their own sect of Islam when Islam came around.
In the time preceding Islam it may have made some sense re a survival factor in the harsh deserts. No apologist needed here.
The only difference is that the Saudis made a deal with the Wahhabis to fund their radical madrasses all over the world with billions of dollars of our oil money.
These terrorists producing factories suck in the disaffected youth of all our cultures and turn them into robotic weapons deliver agents. The programing is very strong considering these converts will willing blow themselves up because they have been guaranteed by Allah they will be greeted in Paradise by 72 dark-eyed virgins. Then throw in a little drugs and partying before you leave this life. Too bad it’s all a con game.
Quick solution is a missionary meeting is imeediately needed with the House of Saud by Secretary Rice with her sexy black boots to deliver the message to stop all funding for radical mosques and madrasses. The House of Saud needs our protection now more than ever. Good time for real political reform and women’s sufferage, equality and treatment.
You see the The House of Saud and their extended family are they biggest hypocrites in the World of Islam. The Saudi princes can party and womanize with the best of the jet set in the haunts of Europe. This is the only thing that their prodigal son, OBL has right, and has comes back tto haunt them.
The only danger is that we have to keep the Chinese at bay who are the real enemy in all this. The Jihadists are convenient surrogets right now to take us down several notches in the economic world market that they hope to move graciously into the power vaccum. Who do you suppose gave the carzy leaders of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia nuke tech and to some missile tech. Now you see the strategic importance with our “improving relations”with India. The PM just got the red carpter treatment.
Try running running the follow key words in a google search:
EMP weapons +iran +missiles +ships
E-Bombs plus Iran plus ship launched scuds and ghost navy of AQ. Then throw in the Northeast Power Grid of the US. Folks I not dreaming this up. There has been some serious study on EMP weapons tech using low yield nuke devices launched say 100 kilo above the earth.
For a further “learned” dialog on this see Dean’s way at:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/102838.php
If you want to take the long route start here at Roger L. Simon and scroll back through the threads and links. Some interesting reading here and how various discussions throughout the political blog sites are beginning to come to the same consensus on what the issues are and what we can do instead of waiting around for the next kid to detontate.
Also don’t miss the photos of what the Mullahs of Iran do to the Iranian women under the guise of their “religion” of peace. All I want to know is where are the feminists groups? They should be screeming their heads off already by now over this. Gee the banning of women from the Augusta golf course is quite tame in comparison.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/07/the_mood_of_how.php
For those not having the time definitely go here and read this peitition and sign if you agree. It’s time someone drew the line in the sand:
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/07/unite_against_t.php
OK I’m done – I prefer the term Islomfascism because it describes most clearly the cults ideology, behaviors and identity.
The term Islamofascism is only amorphous because it scares the “politically correct.”
Here’s an easy definition(also found here
1. An Islamic movement whose origins result from Wahhabism and whose members follow the fatwa’s of conservative clerics.
2. An extreme form of Islam that advocates homicide in order to accomplish political objectives including ethnic and religious cleansing and Islamic manifest destiny. (see Muslim Brotherhood)
3. An Islamic movement, resurgent in the 20th and 21st centuries, that is similar to conventional fascism
Comments on this entry are closed.