Can the West defeat the Islamist threat?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BTW - This is what a genuine Liberal voice sounds like

Hmmm... that's quite an oxymoron.

I love you.

If you actually read the article - you might read the part where its suggested that part of the problem with this specific issue is that people are engaged in ideological point-scoring with each other to the detriment of the issues

In fact, to clarify - while I don't agree with the entirety of this article it is an example of traditional liberalism, something that is often completely mischaracterised as being synonymous with "leftism". In fact if you read the article, he actually criticises just about everyone.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought I ain't getting enough sleep these days but apparently I'm getting enough sleep to miss quite important events. Gotta ask: When did we declare war against Islam? Can someone quote something that would point me to when and where that happened?

The current administration has clarified the position that we are in a war against "islamic fascism" as opposed to strictly a "war against terrorism". The author is suggesting that such labels are part of a general mess of misunderstandings about what Islam is, and how it works.

The author of the original piece suggested that we are trying to defeat Islam: "2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated..."

Again, I wasn't aware that that's the goal.

I thought I ain't getting enough sleep these days but apparently I'm getting enough sleep to miss quite important events. Gotta ask: When did we declare war against Islam? Can someone quote something that would point me to when and where that happened?

You are correct. I mis stated my intent...Islamic terrorist. We are not at war with Islam and I appologize for implying that we are.

See above, it's not just you. Edited September 21, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Mirorgate 0]

I believe most EVERYONE in the world who has not been touched by the violence will be a force to reckon with when it comes to brass tacks. I'm not even sure Hugo Chavez will go for it and today he is there best friend!

Chavez is a #######. It's already happening there (extremism/culture clashes in Ven) but he turns a blind eye to that to "strike a blow against US Imperialism". He has no interest in his own ppl other than using oil as a battering ram to get what he wants.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought I ain't getting enough sleep these days but apparently I'm getting enough sleep to miss quite important events. Gotta ask: When did we declare war against Islam? Can someone quote something that would point me to when and where that happened?

The current administration has clarified the position that we are in a war against "islamic fascism" as opposed to strictly a "war against terrorism". The author is suggesting that such labels are part of a general mess of misunderstandings about what Islam is, and how it works.

The author of the original piece suggested that we are trying to defeat Islam: "2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated..."

Again, I wasn't aware that that's the goal.

You might well ask what is the goal, but Iraq's been done to death too many times

The author has a very unvarnished non-PC view of Islam, considering that in the same passage:

The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements;

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought I ain't getting enough sleep these days but apparently I'm getting enough sleep to miss quite important events. Gotta ask: When did we declare war against Islam? Can someone quote something that would point me to when and where that happened?

The current administration has clarified the position that we are in a war against "islamic fascism" as opposed to strictly a "war against terrorism". The author is suggesting that such labels are part of a general mess of misunderstandings about what Islam is, and how it works.

The author of the original piece suggested that we are trying to defeat Islam: "2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated..."

Again, I wasn't aware that that's the goal.

You might well ask what is the goal, but Iraq's been done to death too many times

The goal? Are you kidding me? CA$H.

The author has a very unvarnished non-PC view of Islam, considering that in the same passage:

The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements;

He does indeed. And I think he's onto something there...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He does indeed. And I think he's onto something there...

I don't know enough about Islam to agree or disagree with his assessment of it. I do agree that the issues are often misrepresented to support personal political ideologies - the "I must disagree with you, rather than the issue itself" kind of thing.

He doesn't actually really mention "war" in any conventional sense - except to suggest at the end that our reliance on sophisticated military technologies will not win an ideological battle. He's not wrong there.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He doesn't actually really mention "war" in any conventional sense - except to suggest at the end that our reliance on sophisticated military technologies will not win an ideological battle. He's not wrong there.

No he isn't. Religions have fought one another for millenia and they still all exist. Sadly, millions of people died for these idiotic "wars". And we don't seem to be able to learn from the past: It's a lose-lose all around.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He doesn't actually really mention "war" in any conventional sense - except to suggest at the end that our reliance on sophisticated military technologies will not win an ideological battle. He's not wrong there.

No he isn't. Religions have fought one another for millenia and they still all exist. Sadly, millions of people died for these idiotic "wars". And we don't seem to be able to learn from the past: It's a lose-lose all around.

True, but religion has far less power in Europe, politically speaking. When we got rid of monarchical systems of government, it pretty much emasculated the papacy, for example.

[kirk and Jenny 0]

Is this the purpose; I don't understand!!!

[Fischkoepfin 1]

This will probably cause an uproar, but there's some interesting points in this article.

BTW - This is what a genuine Liberal voice sounds like

Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not

David Selbourne

LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.

If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.

1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.

2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.

3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill together”. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.

4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name. On this battleground, with its personalised blogsites to assist self-promotion, many seem to think that their opinions are more important than the issues upon which they are passing judgment; and amid the babel of advisory voices, policy has become increasingly inconsistent.

5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the **-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.

7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not. Yet in the “battle for hearts and minds” the US First Cavalry Division saw fit to set up “Operation Adam Smith” in Iraq to teach marketing skills, among other things, to local entrepreneurs. There can be no victory here. Or, as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi told thousands of worshippers in Baghdad in May 2003: “The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah.”

The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen. It is also a political enterprise in which Muslims and non-Muslims can now be found acting together in furthering the reach of Islam’s world view; the help being given by Western producers and broadcasters to al-Jazeera is the most notable instance of it.

9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.

10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam. More than a century later, it is fondly believed that sophisticated hardware and Star Wars defences will ensure Western mastery in this war, if it is a war.

But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.” As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.

David Selbourne is the author of The Losing Battle with Islam, which was published in the United States in November last year

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2349195,00.html

Thanks for posting this. It contains some ugly truths, but I do like the fact that it is pointing out that the problem is much more complex than we're willing to admit.

[homesick_american 1]

Oh we can't defeat them, let's just give up and die then.

now you're sounding like a liberal

Oh please, I vote Democrat and I say CRUSH the fundamentalist bastards and those who support them.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Oh we can't defeat them, let's just give up and die then.

now you're sounding like a liberal

Oh please, I vote Democrat and I say CRUSH the fundamentalist bastards and those who support them.

And that -while not a partisan position per se- seems to be exactly the attitude critized in the article. If we don't understand the stakes of what is being propagated as a war against Islamic fundamentalism, we're stuck in the exact same bind we've been in for the last 5 years. Islamic fundamentalism is the outgrowth of an Islamic pan-nationalist movement reacting to Western interference in the Middle East. This movement has been afoot for over 50 years, which we of course like to overlook because of the way in which the West is implicated in it.

Also, crushing fundamentalism (which as an ideology cannot be defeated with huge weapons alone as history has sufficiently proven) needs to start at home. We can't claim to oppose fundamentalism somewhere else but tolerate fundamentalism here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh we can't defeat them, let's just give up and die then.

now you're sounding like a liberal

Oh please, I vote Democrat and I say CRUSH the fundamentalist bastards and those who support them.

...

[homesick_american 1]

Oh we can't defeat them, let's just give up and die then.

now you're sounding like a liberal

Oh please, I vote Democrat and I say CRUSH the fundamentalist bastards and those who support them.

And that -while not a partisan position per se- seems to be exactly the attitude critized in the article. If we don't understand the stakes of what is being propagated as a war against Islamic fundamentalism, we're stuck in the exact same bind we've been in for the last 5 years. Islamic fundamentalism is the outgrowth of an Islamic pan-nationalist movement reacting to Western interference in the Middle East. This movement has been afoot for over 50 years, which we of course like to overlook because of the way in which the West is implicated in it.

Also, crushing fundamentalism (which as an ideology cannot be defeated with huge weapons alone as history has sufficiently proven) needs to start at home. We can't claim to oppose fundamentalism somewhere else but tolerate fundamentalism here.

Hey, I've tried to understand it. I'm sick of it. I've been living in the UK for the past five years where the Muslim community gets their knickers in a twist over ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. I am sick to goddamn death of it, and I'm tired of trying to understand it. I'm ready to turn my back on it. I give up.

[Risto 0]

Sure we can.