Basically, Hugh, the jihad has been made possible because we, the West, become soft and let it happen. The muslims can achieve nothing on their own. On their own, they are completely useless. Their own countries achieve nothing, not one iota of achievement.

Every gain they have made has been at our expense. We financed the global jihad (1), we allowed them to live with us (2), and we sold them the technology to kill us with (3).

We have the power to send them back to the stone age just by not doing business with them. But we continue to do so. So in the end, a culture gets what it deserves. Like natural selection, a species that does not adapt to changing environmental challenges, dies out. Similarly, a genetic flaw for stupidity prevents that creature from going on to reproduce and prosper. It could be that if we allow Islam to destroy us, we have only ourselves to blame. Unlike the Nazis, Islam has no real military, technological, or industrial might. All they have is passion. We, conversely, have all that might, but strangely, no passion.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 5:13 PM

Hugh, this is wonderful writing, clear, with a long view of history. Although it does not fit your mechanism of thinking, another factor on the West's lack of response is our intrinsic, almost reflexive, positive view of the freedom of man, his intrinsic worth. Last Christmas, you wrote to have fun--or something like that. We in the West like history(even pre-Christian), we like art, we like satire, we like movies, we like a multitude of opinions, and although this is our strength; it is also our weakness, perhaps a fatal one. For we are so unlike the dour, pathetic, robot mindset of Jihad.

While many of us may be upset by the leniancy of the 20th hijacker's verdict a few moments ago, no such mistake would be made behind Islam lines would it . . . just a knife cutting through flesh. Only in the West could an attempt be made at a nuanced verdict for this thing. I myself could not sit on such a jury. I would tell the judge I can't be objective. I don't agree with this verdict, but I realize it signifies all the hidden strengths of Western Culture, although it be deemed weakness by laughing fools in caves in the middle east.

Posted by: biorabbi at May 3, 2006 5:18 PM

On the surface thethinker may be correct--perhaps he is correct under as well=), but I think that the passion of Jihad is a surface thing. The fact that the suicide bomber is so easily corrupted by ideology speaks to the failure of the swamp to cleanse itself, doesn't it? Remember, the most virulent virus--those that kill too fast--are not successful in the longterm.

The more the Jihadist mindset is shown in the news. TV pictures are sufficient--forget the politically correct bs. Esposito and company may be successful with Bush's crowd, but is he with the American people? Remember the dramatic poll recently showing that Americans opinion of Islam is more negative today than before 911. Why is that?

One reason is the daily drumbeat out of Iraq of Americans dying. Americans in their hearts realize we are there(however misguided, however tragic to our country)to help these people, get them back on their feat. I doubt no one on this board is more opposed to our continuation in Iraq than me. But, like 99 % of Americans, I realize we are doing it to help the Iraqis. What is our reward? Death and maiming of the proud and the innocent. Death to any iraqi who might want to help the US. Death to any Iraqi of a different varient of Islam than the killer. Americans see this and ask, "does Islam really mean peace?" After 911(to our great credit), most Americans(myself top at the list)were fairly clueless about Islam and Jihad. We were ready to give Islam the benifit of the doubt. While personally, seeing Bush at the Mosque was a bit too much for me at the time, I respect his sentiment about pulling all Americans together.

But the daily suicide bomber . . . in israel, iraq, pakistan, russia, england all seem to share a common thread. Each time an anchor makes the proclamation that "a great religion has been hijacked," it rings a bit more hollow, doesn't it. I even sensed something in Bush yesterday that seemed different. He praised Iraq and the new government, but his body language was somehow different. He seemed pissed off at his own words, as if even he is having doubts.

Posted by: biorabbi at May 3, 2006 5:31 PM

What we are seeing in the West is the opening salvoes of the continuation of the Jihad against Christendom that was brought to a close at Vienna in 1683. The new onset has come about as a direct consequence of allowing Muslim immigration to the West. Muslims are mandated to the Jihad and it is foolish of us to expect that they will refrain from doing so. It was our foolishness that gave them the opportunity to do so from within.

Each day brings news of events that seem to bring us to that inevitable reckoning. We do not wish to fight in a religious conflict but we are being engaged in the war quite against our will. Our politicians find it difficult to imagine that we are in a religious conflict. So passé - that sort of thing went out of fashion in the Middle Ages. It is all so pointless and avoidable.

The most vital strategic advantage an enemy can have is not weapons technology or money (oil or otherwise), but having millions of its soldiers behind enemy lines, and better still, protected by the forces of the enemy's state. Saudi oil or access to technology was never in our power to control but allowing muslims into the West, most certainly was.

It appears sometimes that the West is anxious commit suicide. Time is short, and we need to act now to avert a human tragedy, which this commentator just does not wish to see.

Posted by: DP111 at May 3, 2006 5:32 PM

I agree but disagree.

It is totally true that fossil fuel wealth has created massive funding for idle Muslim hands BUT during the Cold War, Audi Arabia was the number one purchaser of American war technology as well as support contracts and training.

The US spent trillions of Saudi oil and the Suadis spent trillions out of fear of godless communists behind the iron curtain. It worked out for many years until the Cold War fizzled out in the 90s.

No Cold War, no threat to the Persian Gulf, the end of trillion dollar war technology purchases. That money piled up quickly and without the threat of foreign intervention, the Saudis pushed OPEC into higher prices by controlling supply.

The Big Loser was the United States which saw it's biggest customers for it's war technology stop buying. The conversion into a peace economy created havoc with the off-shoring of consumer and technology manufacturing. Nobody wanted a washing machine built by McDonald Douglas and nobody was buying stealth bombers to fight against guys with AK-47s and home made bombs.

The United States needs a new Cold War and they are creating a new Evil Empire (Soviet Union) called The Axis of Evil (Iran and soon to include Iraq).

This new Axis of Evil is being cultivated to terrorize the rest of the Persian Gulf states into retooling and upping their investment in new Hi-Tech weapons and defence systems - all from the leaders in that field.

Repatriating all those hundreds of billions of oil dollars from the Persian Gulf, the creation of a new power structure that once again see the United States take on the Evil Empire... I mean Axis of Evil.

The US becomes a force once again in high technology manufacturing (military can't be offshored), perhaps a resurrection of the mighty US dignity where citizens buy US manufactured products in support of their country and fellow citizens.

Yup, that is why the US has gone to such lengths to create the Iran we see today - covertly providing weapons and technology as well as removing the only impediment to growth (nasty old Saddam).

Just mark my words - the US will not allow anything to happen to a nuclear powered Iran, other than posturing and threatening. I will even go so far as to state the US will prevent the Israelies from attacking Iran (covertly, perhaps).

CD 'Bar' Baric

Posted by: blazar-jet at May 3, 2006 5:33 PM

Ultimately, a military war will be needed. Isolation alone cannot end Islam, otherwise several North African countries that are non Arab, not sitting on oil, not collecting Jiziya (Senagal, Gambia, Mali, et al) would be on their way out of Islam towards something else. Hasn't happened, ain't happening.

It's just a question of when the Mohammedans will push the limit to the point that they cannot be ignored, not even by the most rabid West-hating Left. Once that happens, their days will be numbered. As the saying goes, "Those whom the gods wish to destroy..."

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 3, 2006 5:35 PM

In the West, we think that by staying engaged with Islamic countries that we can, over time, influence their behavior to the good. We think that when they get to know us face-to-face, they will understand what kind and generous and nice people we are. We think that by sending them monetary aid, they will see how charitable, constructive, and well-intentioned we are. We think that by treating them with respect, they will see that we are not secretly mounting any kind of threat to their culture. We think that by selling them defensive weaponry and helping them build a professional military, we can influence their leadership development away from religious fanaticism and toward responsible national loyalty. We think that by doing business with them, we can create local economic prosperity that will defuse their seemingly despair driven and envy driven hatred toward us. We think that by providing them with our technology, they will find ways to use it to uplift their society economically. We think that by permitting their students to attend our universities, we can make some light shine into their imaginations, such that they understand that there is a world of possibilities in life, beyond death in service to religious ideology.

Because Islam captures and stunts the psyche of its victims as children, there is no way we can ever influence them in these positive ways. The good-hearted assistence, at every level, will be interpreted merely as jizya from the infidels, or as booty won in clever deceptive trickery of those infidels--gifts from Allah to help spread the faith.

The only way we could positively influence Islamic countries through such initiatives would be to somehow wrest control of their childhood upbringing away from the madrassas and the imams. There is no practical way to do that.

Therefore, the proper thing to do is to recognize the primitive uniqueness of Islamic indoctrination, as distinct from other cultures that we daily interact with, and quarantine the Islamic countries. We must no longer accept Muslims in our midst. We must shut off all immigration, visitations, and other incidental contact. We must deny them any access to our technology. Finally, we must bluntly let them know, and remind them at every opportunity, that their ideology is intolerable in our society, and therefore will not be tolerated. Period.

Posted by: Stendec at May 3, 2006 6:17 PM

Stendec posted:

Therefore, the proper thing to do is to recognize the primitive uniqueness of Islamic indoctrination, as distinct from other cultures that we daily interact with, and quarantine the Islamic countries. We must no longer accept Muslims in our midst.

It is the only humane option I can think of that avoids large scale civil war in Europe and the West at large - which will be bloody beyond imagination.

For everyone's good, Infidels and muslims alike, it is best to separate ourselves from islam and muslims. This way there is hope for the future, once islam is no more a problem. A really bloody religious civil war OTH, will divide humanity for a thousand years or more.

Posted by: DP111 at May 3, 2006 6:28 PM

biorabbi said

But, like 99 % of Americans, I realize we are doing it to help the Iraqis.

Yes, but for God's sake why?!!! Why are we helping the Iraqis? At such great expense to ourselves? Why aren't we helping ourselves? We are the ones under attack by the jihad. Are the Iraqis such great allies that they are worth our sacrifice? Are we such great humanitarians that we will sacrifice ourselves to save them? When we realize that the Iraqis are not our allies, the Afghans are not our allies, the Saudis are not our allies, the Pakistanis are not our allies? What will it take? Does Hugh have to get on national television with a PowerPoint slide show for people (including those in the administration) to grasp it?

Posted by: special_guest at May 3, 2006 7:20 PM

Not disagreeing with many of the posts here, especially Hugh's, one way of beating the Islamics is by really pushing alternative fuel sources to the limit. The technology is there, and has been for quite a while. It's the business side of it that has to be pushed, and pushed independent of current large industrial interests, the same way that the computer was pushed in the face of many many entrenched alternatives. Alternative energy sources have to be removed in large part from government strangulation and pursued by private industry. This means a lessening of EPA oversight. As much as I admire the core scientific and ethical thrust of the agency, it has consistently fought a losing battle in the Washington swamp, and has to give way to private initiatives.

Posted by: HaMalach at May 3, 2006 7:49 PM

Whatever else Muslims don't have (creativity, artistic & scientific genius, liberal values) they do have far more patience than Western Infidels have. Since the 17th century when Islam began to be globally marginalized by a superior West, Muslims by and large have simply hunkered down and waited. They can wait for centuries, for signs of opportunity. The factors Hugh has adverted to, of the last 50-odd years (catalyzed by Osama and by Bush-triggered events since 911), have reawakened Muslims out of their patient hibernation. The Jihad that was put on hold for three centuries is on again, slowly but surely cohering.

Muslims have long memories, since they are not individuals, but a trans-national Super-Tribe, with a history and a memory that is encoded by trans-individual carriers: the individual units more or less act in the way insects do, moving forward the goals of the hive, not of any particular atomized individual.

Posted by: Television at May 3, 2006 8:09 PM

Alternative fuels are, as I see it, one way of at least slowing the flow of money to the Saudis. (They seem to be at the forefront of this even as they appear to be friendly.) We do need investment in ideas like fuel cells, but we already have alternate technologies here in the US.

The use of alternate fuels is growing here. In Illinois, the number of gas stations selling E85 is growing, and we have the largest producer of ethanol in this state. What should be done is to mandate that all new vehicles be made to have flex-fuel engines. These can run on gasoline, gasohol (10% ethanol we already use in the Midwest), or E85; diesel engines can run on bio-diesel with few modifications (many can already accept a high bio-diesel to diesel ratio).

This is a quick way to dump the Arabian oil (not to mention one Hugo Chavez) ASAP. It's also not fantasy -- it's being done in places like Brazil.

Posted by: BG at May 3, 2006 8:18 PM

Good point about ethanol GB. Also, we should be driving cars that good good gas mileage. Think about buying a hybrid or other high mileage vehicle ASAP. I am getting 50 MPG in a Prius and using 10% ethanol.

Posted by: Papa Bear at May 3, 2006 9:00 PM

Mr Fitzgerald sates that there are three reasons for the current assurgency of Jihad:
1. Oil Money
2. Muslim immigration to the west
3. Jihadists exploitation of new media

Oil Money: I agree that the west’s dependence on imported oil has placed far too much cash in the hands of anti-American states (including Venezuela), but that seems like complaining about how a crack dealer spends the money you gave him for his dope. America consumes x4 the fossil fuels than anyone else….but you totally waste it on pointless mega-SUV’s that only satisfy your vanity. America has elected an Oil Cabal to the executive branch, and has allowed lobbyists to set the political agenda from health care to oil exploration. One can’t complain about the undesirable re-distribution of wealth within capitalism, we made the rules.
Rather than allowing drilling in Alaska or attempts to stop the flow of cash to undesirable elements, America should be leading in the west’s attempts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But instead, GM and Ford pay lip service to alternative fuel technology (while the market votes with it’s pocket-book to buy Toyota’s). I think breaking oil dependency has to start with the American consumer. This is partly because of the purchasing power of the American household, but mainly because of the vastly wasteful way the American’s consume energy. So I say ‘stop blaming oil money for Jihad, and lead us in getting off this dangerous drug.’

Muslim Immigration: Now I’ve been reading multiple posts regarding Europe’s ‘5th column of Muslims’ that are (within this post) being partly blamed for the resurgence of Jihad. No-one seems to be going further and suggesting what is to be done with 50M Muslim Europeans. I disagree that by demonising Islam we are expressing a coherent strategy that will increase the west’s probability of beating Islamo-fascism. I mean, do you really want to beat these guys, or do you just want to be racist. No-one in the west has developed a coherent anti-Jihad strategy that works from within Islam. I think Europeans want to work with / keep their Muslim populations, because they have been able to harness the Muslim (and Hindu) entrepreneurial energy into better standards of living for all.
Here I’m saying: Europe has taken in millions of Muslims, Europe should lead in the development of an intellectual / social response to radical Islam. But sadly they won’t because they too lack an anti-Jihad strategy (that beats Jihad in the Mosque).

Exploitation of technology by Jihadists: I agree with Mr. Fitzgerald on this point. I would say the insurgents are whipping our asses on the media front, and we look like seniors next to teenagers as they exploit the idea of the citizen broadcaster. Why hasn’t the west responded by harnessing this media technology? I would suggest that the west lacks the will. We could apply the technology, we just wouldn’t know what to say on it.
As anti-Jihadists, we should encourage those civilians that want to use the Internet / emergent forms of broadcasting to promote our message.

Posted by: albion at May 3, 2006 9:04 PM

When I read this post, my first reaction was to note that Hugh had entirely left out the "US" from the equation, but as I came upon the very first comment I saw that thethinker had already pounced upon that obvious fact. Thethinker is quite right. Anyone asking the question "Why is the jihad resurgent?" needs at minimum to add a "point 4" to this list which questions the role to be played by a civilization which is militarily superior in every way and could end this problem in a heartbeat and yet refuses to do so. So arguably, the biggest reason that the jihad is resurgent, indeed lies within ourselves, within our own pyches as westerners. As soon as we decisively straighten that out, the rest ought to be child's play. On that note, I stumbled across these 2 articles at Lawrence Auster's site today
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005570.html

by the black conservative, Shelby Steele, which I found quite interesting in exploring the part of this that has to do with "US":

White Guilt and the Western Past
Why is America so delicate with the enemy?
May 2, 2006:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318

"In Iraq, America is fighting as much for the legitimacy of its war effort as for victory in war. In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal. If a military victory makes us look like an imperialist nation bent on occupying and raping the resources of a poor brown nation, then victory would mean less because it would have no legitimacy. Europe would scorn. Conversely, if America suffered a military loss in Iraq but in so doing dispelled the imperialist stigma, the loss would be seen as a necessary sacrifice made to restore our nation's legitimacy. Europe's halls of internationalism would suddenly open to us."

"Because dissociation from the racist and imperialist stigma is so tied to legitimacy in this age of white guilt, America's act of going to war can have legitimacy only if it seems to be an act of social work--something that uplifts and transforms the poor brown nation (thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old). So our war effort in Iraq is shrouded in a new language of social work in which democracy is cast as an instrument of social transformation bringing new institutions, new relations between men and women, new ideas of individual autonomy, new and more open forms of education, new ways of overcoming poverty--war as the Great Society."

"This does not mean that President Bush is insincere in his desire to bring democracy to Iraq, nor is it to say that democracy won't ultimately be socially transformative in Iraq. It's just that today the United States cannot go to war in the Third World simply to defeat a dangerous enemy."

"White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past."

I then followed the links and came across this prior post by Shelby Steele from Sept 17, 2001:
"War of the Worlds: The West must stop apologizing for the greatness of our civilization". :

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001154

"Today the First World is dealing with an embarrassed Third World that is driven to save face against the anguish of an inferiority that is less and less blamable on others. The deep appeal of a Jesse Jackson or a Yasser Arafat, one reason they hang on as leaders despite every kind of public and private failing, is their ability to hide inferiority behind blame, to be the parent who sees no wrong in the child."

"But blame is only the most common defense against this embarrassment. Terrorism is another. The shame of languishing in the midst of freedom generates a touchy, narcissistic sensibility and an abiding faith that, but for the evil of others, one's superiority would be self-evident. The terrorist act is a self-referential event, a self-congratulation that smothers the feeling of inferiority in one glorious blaze of spite. Here, finally, is the effectiveness that is so absent elsewhere. Even if you cannot build the World Trade Center's towers--emblems of demonstrable Western superiority--you can come along of a Tuesday morning and, like God himself, strike them down."

"But there is another actor in this drama--white guilt; one of the most powerful yet under estimated forces in modern societies. At least 50 whites have told me in the same conversation both that they feel no racial guilt and that on some occasion they have not said something they truly believed for fear of being marked a racist. But white guilt is precisely the latter, not a belief in one's guilt but a vulnerability to being stigmatized as a racist because of one's skin color alone. And this is the larger terror that hangs over the Western world."

"White guilt is what causes minority and Third World "inferiority" to stand as a negative moral judgment on the Western way of life. It presumes that Western success is the result not of three millennia of cultural evolution (much of it enhanced by contributions from what today we call the Third World) but of the ill-gotten gains of slavery and colonialism. Western success is presumed to have come at the price of Third World inferiority." [Note - in economic terms, this is the Baran-Wallerstein revision of classical Marxist theory]

"This doesn't just mean that Western moral authority is hostage to helping the Third World overcome inferiority. More importantly it means that Western culture is inherently sinful, that its superiority is a measure of its sinfulness. Thus, the World Trade Center towers become monuments not of a great civilization but of a great evil."

Well, what can I say but read it all. Together, what these two articles do is make clear what most westerners know but refuse to articulate. And their fear of articulating this stuff is, to put it bluntly - a huge part of the problem.

In short, as thethinker points out, a huge part of this IS in fact OUR problem. Which thankfully doesn't make us victims! On the contrary, it means that a huge part of this problem is our responsibility (how we choose to see ourselves) - and hence WITHIN OUR CAPACITY - to fix!

Posted by: Caroline at May 3, 2006 9:29 PM

Albion,

You write:

"Europeans want to work with / keep their Muslim populations, because they have been able to harness the Muslim (and Hindu) entrepreneurial energy into better standards of living for all."

The Hindus in India are harnessing their own entrepreneurial energy, thank you very much. As are members of other religious groups that are not Muslim and do not de facto hate the West.

I don't think Americans lack the will. I think if the country is threatened, they will respond.

Posted by: HaMalach at May 3, 2006 9:30 PM

Another reason why jihad is coming back is that Islam is competing with the Christian faith for new believers. They know that there is a huge Christian boom in the global south and so they are trying to grow like crazy in Europe. This competition could end up in a major conflict, with what we are seeing now just the opening shots.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 3, 2006 9:34 PM

responding to special_guest at May 3, 2006 07:20 PM

Why are we defending Iraq?

1. Because Saddam and his terror state had to go.

2. Because if Iraq had no Saddam and no Coalition, then Iran would have taken over the Shiite south/coast, Turkey would have invaded the Kurdish north, and where would that have gotten us? It would have gotten us even worse behavior by a vastly more wealthy and powerful Iran.

3. Because keeping Coalition forces in Iraq while other Coalition forces were in Afghanistan leaves us well placed to crush Iran in a pincer movement, should it prove necessary.

4. Because by luring the headchoppers to fight in the center of the Sunni Moslem world, it allowed the horrid face of their evil to become obvious to those "lukewarm" moslems who are not of the muhajidin or their supporters. It divided moslems. This ju jitsu wouldn't have been effective in Iran, since it's Shia. It wouldn't have been effective in Afghanistan or Indonesia or Thailand, because they're not Arab enough.

5. Because we owed it to Iraq and the world. In 1991 the US had the chance to destroy Saddam, but instead let him live. This was seen by the entire Moslem world as weakness. Worse, it abandoned those Shi'ites and Kurds whose hopes had been aroused by our actions to the vengeance of a redeemed and blood-frenzied Saddam. Worst of all, it inaugurated 12 years of sanctions that starved the children of Iraq and left Saddam free to buy weapons with Oil for Food money while he irredeemably corrupted the UN.

6. Because keeping troops in the heart of the Middle East scares KSA, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, even Libya into moderating the most noxious of their tyrranies.

Posted by: Pangloss at May 3, 2006 10:57 PM

American troops in Iraq are hostages, not a threat, to Iran. Afterer an American attack on Iran, American troops would be subject to retaliation by Iranian agents already within Iraq (filtering in over the last several years), Iraqi allies of Iran (Shi'a whose leaders, in some cases, spent years in Iranian exile), and generally, all those reminded forcefully that the United States has interests that do not coincide with those of either Shi'a or Sunni Muslims.

It is possible to judge the removal of Saddam Hussein a rational goal. But that does not thereby make the goal of a Light Unto the Muslim Nations defensible, or rational. The American soldiers fight the Sunnis today, but tomorrow they may again be fighting Shi'a militia, as they did in Najaf. They cannot possibly built, out of the ethnic and sectarian groups, mutually hostile groups, an "Iraqi" army where recruits could trust one another with their lives, nor an "Iraqi" police force where such trust could exist. Imagine a force of Sunni and Shi'a soldiers sent to suppress Shi'a, or to suppress Sunnis, without any worries over where loyalties might lie. Do the same with a joint patrol of Arabs and Kurds, sent to suppress Arabs in Kirkkuk -- or Kurds. Not possible. Yet the American officers and men are being asked to do the impossible because those who make policy in Washington will not admit to their own colossal errors -- errors about Islam (which explain why Americans were not welcomed as "liberators"), and errors about Iraq (ridiculously minimizing the desire of Kurds for independence, the deep resentment of the Shi'a for the Sunnis, and the Sunni halucinatory belief that they constitute 42% of the population and, in any case, deserve to continue to rule as the "best" -- because both Arab and Sunni -- of the local Muslims.

The two great beneficiares of the removal of Saddam Hussein were Iran and Saudi Arabia. By leaving, we ensure a Sunni-Shi'a split within Iraq and, if lucky, that hostility will spread to other places where Shi'a have endured Sunni contumely: Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (in al-Hasa), and Lebanon. The exploitation of those fissures, ethnic and sectarian, are handed to us on a platter, but the American government is doing everything it can, spending money and materiel, and risking the lives of soldiers, in order not merely to refuse to take that platter, but to undo the very fissures crying out to be exploited.

It is a great mistake, a fiasco. If only the Adminitration could start with the world-wide menace of Islam, as presented by the islamization of Europe through Da'wa and demography, and work towards comprehending how the Iraqi situation can be used to divide, to demoralize, to weaken the Camp of Islam, not to provide a model.

Posted by: Hugh at May 3, 2006 11:17 PM

a few meager comments on the thread here...

First, let's stop calling crude oil "fossil fuels". Does anyone still believe that oil is the flora/fauna of geological eras past, neatly piled up deep under the oceans and deep underground? Meanwhile, we have ample dinosaur fossils found a few yards deep in the southwest, not near oil reserves. Just semantics, that's all

Second, recommending high percentage bio-diesel as an alt. fuel. The manufacturers of diesel engines don't approve, and won't warranty those engines that have been run on bio-diesel, as it causes premature wear. I am sure with research and commitment to biofuels, that could be overcome, but not right now.

Last but not least, the bloody Jihad we all seem to be striving to avoid will be here, on our soil. While we (all those who aren't them) don't even have the collective courage to face facts and name the enemy, they are steadily marching towards their goal.
Denial is not a very useful defensive weapon.

I've been wrong before, I hope I am this time.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at May 3, 2006 11:17 PM

"That accident of geology has allowed nearly a dozen Arab states to be the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history"

But are they smart enough to realise that their wealth, mainly invested in western countries, will become valueless overnight if there is worldwide instability? The countries in themselves produce very few of the things needed for human living - they are totally dependent on the wellbeing and production of western economies.

Posted by: Lili at May 3, 2006 11:25 PM

also, as an aside, there are some very good posts here. I feel like the dunce in the corner of the AP class

Posted by: OneEyedJack at May 3, 2006 11:26 PM

How about fighting back - peacefully -. By a bicycle and use it whenever possible. It will do wonders to your health too.

Posted by: Marvin at May 4, 2006 1:17 AM

Albion wrote: "I mean, do you really want to beat these guys, or do you just want to be racist. No-one in the west has developed a coherent anti-Jihad strategy that works from within Islam. I think Europeans want to work with / keep their Muslim populations, because they have been able to harness the Muslim (and Hindu) entrepreneurial energy into better standards of living for all. "

1) Islam is not a race. To resist its expansion and its relentless depredations is not a racist act.

2) There is no such thing as Muslim entrepreneurial activity to achieve "better standards of living for all." Islam is not about life in the temporal world and cares not one bit about improving the physical well-being of mankind in general. And infidels, who are subhuman creatures by Islamic definition, are not to be helped in any way, economically or otherwise. The only goal of Islam is the spread of Islam itself. The only activity sanctioned by Islam, entrepreneurial or otherwise, is that which supports the struggle to dominate the entire globe, to bring the infidels into submission. That is why every technology and every invention and every welfare subsidy and every bit of foreign aid and every windfall profit that falls into the hands of the Muslims is applied directly or indirectly to one thing: the pursuit of jihad in all its forms, including subversion, dawa, taqiyya, murderous terror, demographic warfare, and outright military combat.

The Europeans, if they wish to live as free men, and if they wish their descendants to live as free men, must not permit the Muslim population to expand, and they must not permit Muslims to serve in positions of power within their society. Once a critical mass is reached, there will be daily terror in the streets and the end of civil liberties. The Europeans will wish they had acted to stem that virulent growth while they still had the chance. Their descendants, those who fail to escape the European continent, now resembling the Gaza Strip, or Beirut, or Anbar Province--hell on earth--will curse their forebears as traitors to civilization.

Posted by: Stendec at May 4, 2006 2:04 AM

thethinker said:

All they have is passion. We, conversely, have all that might, but strangely, no passion.

Reminiscent of Yeats' "Second Coming":

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

- Omar

Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at May 4, 2006 2:32 AM

Very good and informative posts today. I agree with Infidelpride that a military solution will be needed. We cannot hope to win (and by winning I mean a peaceful life for our kids) unless we have a war. The problem is that of time. A few years back, muslims were not good at computers. Now they have computer education in madrasas. They have realized that this will help their jihad. The time problem means that the longer we delay, the more sophisticated weapons will be theirs. They cannot develop them, but they will acquire them. And we have seen in the past, they will not hesitate to use them. Like Bruce Lee said to a pupil who was pulling his punches "hit with all you have got, for your foe may not be as compassionate".I forget the exact language,but the meaning is clear. And we know just how gentle the people of this cult are.I think that the war will be bloody,so it is better to avoid it.But the more time passes,the bloodier it will get.After all,nobody had even dreamed of the holocaust,or the World War 2 casualties.They ran in millions.This time,it may be tens of millions.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 4, 2006 7:25 AM

OneIjack
I am the product of a 1958 era education. If "oil" is not from flora/fauna can you tell me/us the genesis. No disrespect intended.
Regarding the "bloody Jihad", I don't believe we are trying to avoid it since it has already begun. The crescendo has not been reached certainly. The only question will be whose blood will be effused.

Posted by: pismopal at May 4, 2006 11:16 AM

Actually Hugh, one of the most important reasons, if not the most important one, for the resurgence of jihad is the free availability of information to previously uninformed masses. Yes, pure simple information. For centuries, islam spread through complete ignorance of the its followers. Only very few knew of the dark secrets of the devil worship cult, however, they had no incentive to alert others since that same cult protected their domination of the masses. They also actually truly believed that theirs was the true religion and the passage to eternal happiness (read unlimited sexual intercourse).

Islam is now threatened by a worldly force that is much more powerful than anything before. The free flow of information on the Internet. Suddenly, a lot of muslims are learning about the blood thirsty carnal foundations of their cult. Those who possess any hint of humanity immediately denounce their old religion, and although most of them remain silent to protect themselves and their loved ones, there are lots of them. Others, seeing the very foundations of their cult crumbling, become violent defenders of their religion of peace. The level of violence is directly proportional to the number of prominent ex-believers denouncing their old cult.

Posted by: middleastern at May 4, 2006 11:58 AM

Just a thought on the necessity of military conflict to contain the jihad. Put simply, a military cannot fight and win a war its nation, the people of its nation, do not see as necessary to fight and win. Right now, Americans will back a war against terrorists, but they have not been prepared for a war to contain Islam. The military need never come into play to restrict Muslim immigration, or to reduce oil dependency, and other than restricting certain technologies, doesn't really have a role in that fight, either. The military cannot save the USA if the USA isn't determined to protect itself.

Posted by: longtime lurker at May 4, 2006 12:49 PM

After the fall of the Ottoman empire, the kingdoms of islam were essentially
left for dead. Now after the resurgance, looking at the way the west seems so
impotent in the face of it all, it brings to mind the following:

3 One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth followed the beast with wonder. 4 Men worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?"
Revelations 3,4

Not the most reassuring look at things...

Posted by: NoMo at May 4, 2006 3:28 PM

Revelations 13, 3-4 that is...

Posted by: NoMo at May 4, 2006 3:30 PM

Yea - We have empowered them – through the oil
Without understanding the deadly nature of their religious aims.

When you see how fast the Arabs have progressed - and their inability to cope with it - makes you question – assistance or the empowerment through economic support – through the purchase of goods and services.

The illusion ends though, in Islamic countries - which don't have vast amounts of oil. Who try to emulate the oil rich Arab countries - and focus, for example, the education of their young people, almost entirely on the study of Islam. Produces an information gap - that would have otherwise, been used to create the jobs - to build a viable economy - and provide the food, which would allow these young people and their future children to eat. Hence we have the mass economic migration out of these areas - as religious ideology is put aside – when the people need to eat.

The poorer Islamic countries – reform, largely through international pressure - which makes these reforms, a criteria for future funding. This demonstrates the lack of will, to make the necessary and beneficial reforms - on their own. Although these people are taught proudly - that they are better and superior to all others, because they are Muslim; a quick look at the donors, shows that if they did not receive funding from the EU States and the US - they would be a lot poorer.

If for example – without Western help – otherwise Arab or Muslim nations, would have very little money – if they are going to use the money that we give them either through the sales of oil or through donor programs – to align their people against us – then we should re-consider how we deal with them in the future. Lowering the Western financial input to these regions – would sharpen their sense of reality.

________
The Arabs might have imaginings about an Islamic Europe,
But China is in no way going to allow it self to become Muslim.
And Europe is already fighting back!
So there will be no Arab Prince at the head of these lands!

Posted by: Pass It On at May 5, 2006 12:02 AM

The nutshell reason that the whole of western civilization is now looking over its shoulder like Salman Rushdie at a Danish film festival is packed into that single, ridiculously expansive word "globalization." It may be maligned for both good and bad reasons, but maligned it should be for the self-absorbsion, the credulity, and the witless mix of capitalist greed and craven romanticism that it represents.

Globalization says, "strategy does not matter, but only tactics," and "money isn't merely the root of all evil, it is the solitary motive for everything," and, reducing the latter to one of its many natural absurdities, "you can trust those who do business with you."

So, you buy from tyrants, you sell to murderers; you advertise the reasons why the enemy might hate you and then advertise the gun (pc, sat phone, video camera, reeboks) they'll want to shoot you with. (The rope to hang you?) They get hard currency, advanced technology, entree to our society/freedoms/education/rule of law; we get cheap (relatively) petroleum, every day low prices at Wal-Mart, and barbarians inside the gate.

This beautiful shirt for only $7.95?! I'll take it!!

When you entangle yourself with another country or culture--even if it's just business--you entangle yourself with their problems: their poverty, their tyranny, their travellers and migrants, their stark raving ideologies.

Posted by: mountainecho at May 5, 2006 1:40 AM

Very good info. on jihad and Islam.

I would like more info. on Sufiism and perhaps more moderate branches of Islam (Asian schools ? even Turkish). It does seem most of the worst Islamofascism comes from the Arab Wahabi faction... fueled by radical mullahs and oil money of course.

It does seem that a containment strategy is possible, some suggestions below:
1. Feminization of Islam: stop allowing the importation of teenage brides into the West; increase educational opportunities for Muslim women in the West - a majority of Muslim women in Canada did oppose Sharia Law - fortunately just recently rejected in part of that country.

2. In the West particularly Europe, reform and improve economic opportunities - unemployed young Muslims seem to be particularly good recruits- How about lower taxes? free trade? hiring reform? although the French elites are of course rejecting such Anglo-Saxon common sense.

3. Ridicule their leaders - I read today that the main Arab networks did NOT show the latest tennis-shoe clad and gun-stupid Jihadi. Why ? Embarrassment ? Iraqi state-run TV did show the ridicule though. Yes we do have a few allies in the Arab world.

4. Continue to nurture those few allies: Iraqi Shites, Kurds, Persian youth (the majority actually love America if Nichol Kristoff NYTimes can be believed), Jordan, Arab Emirates (yes Dubai actually has Christian churches).

5. Squeeze Arab tyrants to democratize & develop their economies - particularly Egypt - $2 billion a year buys the US what ? a stupid autocratic Jew-hating, Jew-baiting tyranny. Also middle-class Muslims IMO have more of a stake in peace like middle-class folks everywhere.

6. Perhaps a WISH: Encourage handback of Mecca and Medina to Sufi control - perhaps better than Shite control and MUCH better than current Wahabi control - again more on Sufiism would be welcome.

I'll stop there. Keep up the good fight !Thanks !

Posted by: wilso at May 5, 2006 3:53 PM