Rebane's Ruminations
May 2011
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

IslamMeetsWest Thank goodness, at last I’m not alone 😉  In these pages my commentaries on the resumed war between (radical) Islam and the West have met with some pretty hard criticism from our progressive brethren.  My assessments have been described as everything from lunacy to racism.  While I have never claimed a sole perch on this tenet, others have bestowed that upon me.

In regard to the war on Muslim terror, yesterday 3may11 the venerable Wall Street Journal again acknowledged that “we cannot forget that this is a war for national survival against enemies who would annihilate our cities if they could.” (emphasis mine)

I suppose my detractors will now argue that the WSJ is just playing catch-up with RR, even though I myself would take a more modest stance on such a conclusion.

[12may2011 update]  The debates in the comment stream to this post notwithstanding, I early on joined with those who saw the conflict between radical Islam and the West as something much larger than fragmented Muslim vendettas against the western countries for their alleged and acknowledged acts of imperialism.  My claim was that I agreed with the declared Islamists and their condoning silent majority.  Among these was the former head of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.  As reported in the world’s leading journals it was bin Laden who “by framing the fight as a clash of civilizations, he could draw the West into a global war on terror.”  (The Economist, 7-13may11)

In the meanwhile it has been the constant and conspicuous labor of the left to minimize the scale and scope of this confrontation to the point of attempting to trivialize it into a series of disparate criminal activities.  As the conversation in the sequel reveals, the left is coming around to acknowledging the global import of radical Islam, and instead, is now citing a view of history highlighting the argument that the West had it coming.

The natural extension of this line of reasoning is that our proper response should be contrition in the extreme, doing everything we can not to aggravate or further irritate Muslims wherever they may be found – in their historical lands or in our midst.  All asymmetries in how the two cultures treat each other’s members should be ignored.  And since our culture is the guilty party, it falls on us to bend, comply, and comport ourselves properly so as to bring the matter to a peaceful conclusion acceptable to Islam.

Posted in ,

171 responses to “‘… war for national survival …’ (updated 12may2011)”

  1. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Well golly, why don’t you travel over to Syria this week. Seems as if its great leader is killing many of his own citizens. Or maybe Egypt where the Christians are being killed and their churches burned. You defense of the persecution of Christians is amazing.

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    MikeT – your personal sample will successfully defend against the “all”, but I’m afraid it will not stand against the gale of data in supporting the “majority” claim. The surface harmony between Muslims and Christians in Islam has for years been correctly reported as the exception and not the rule. Or to put a finer technical point on it, the topical successes do not eliminate the synoptic failure of Muslims accepting non-Muslims in their midst when they are the overwhelming majority or even a minority enclave.

    Like

  3. Mike Thornton Avatar

    There is no evidence that the majority of Muslims are attacking Christians.
    The idea that Islam is inherently anti-Christian is illogical, since (a) Jesus is considered to be a great prophet in Islam and more importantly Mary (the mother of Jesus)is considered to be nearly on a par with Muhammad himself.
    Look, I know you guys want Islam and Muslims to be the replacement for the Soviet Union Communism, but it just doesn’t wash.
    By your logic, the fact that American Christians burn the Quran, attack Masjids and protest the construction of Masjids, after a thousand years of Christian leaders calling Islam a “gutter religion” proves that Christians don’t accept Muslims either, right?
    Lets also remember that much of the conflict in the Middle East has less to do with religion than with various tribes, being forced to live under arbitrary national boundaries that were draw by foreign occupying forces. There are huge divisions within Islam itself and the vast majority of religious violence involving Islam is between competing Islamic sects. In modern times anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim, Middle East is largely fueled by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And historically you would be hard pressed to show the same level of anti-Jewish violence in the Muslim Middle East as was perpetrated by Christians in Europe and Russia.

    Like

  4. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    OK, explain Ahmidenijad and Iran to us so we can understand how Islam is our friend.

    Like

  5. Mike Thornton Avatar

    Well, Many Iranians (as we’ve seen) don’t like Ahmadinejad or the regime either, correct?
    So that kinda throws a rock through your theory that all Muslims think alike, right?
    Besides, I’ve never said that Islam is our “friend”, I’ve simply said that it isn’t our “enemy”!
    Do you really want to go back to Paul Emery’s discussion of the overthrow of an elected Iranian government, the installation and support of a brutal dictator, who was then overthrown by religious extremists?
    One could make the argument that most if not all of our current problems with Iran could be laid directly at the doorstep of BP and the CIA. Without them, we don’t get the Shah and without the Shah, perhaps we don’t get Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Like

  6. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    That is the lamest response you have made so far. Iran has been run by religious Muslims for 32 years now. You are stuck in the past. Explain how your views make any sense regarding the Iranians present day government and their views and pronouncements on the west.

    Like

  7. Mike Thornton Avatar

    I think what you really mean to say, is that YOU have no idea how to respond and so you’ve come back with an inane response to what I’ve already said!
    It’s really not complicated, Todd.
    You say that because the Iranian regime is belligerent to the west, that proves Muslims are bad and Islam is evil.
    I say that many Iranians risked their lives to oust the regime and so it proves that Muslims don’t all think alike and so therefor can’t be labeled as a group.
    As far as the rest of it is concerned, Iran had a democratically elected government that was overthrown, we helped install and supported a dictator that so abused his people that they were willing to accept a government run by religious extremists in order to get rid of him.
    Maybe if we hadn’t gotten rid of the first leader we wouldn’t have gotten the third.
    Why is that so difficult to understand?

    Like

  8. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Your responses are so insane it is unbelievable. Are you sure you had political science and social studies because what you are writhing is bogus. Iran had elections a couple of years ago and the rulers didn’t like the outcome so they threw the opposition candidate in the clink, negated all votes for anyone or party they didn’t like and did it all under the guise of Islam! Perhaps you need to read up and get educated on current vents rather than worrying abut things that happened 60 years ago. Amazing! Ih, and when the Iranians leaders say they want to wipe Israel off the map, because the 12 Iman (out of a well no less) is coming, how do you interpret that?

    Like

  9. Mike Thornton Avatar

    Todd, Do you just act stupid in order to get a reaction or are you genuinely as dense as you seem to be?
    Did anyone say that the current regime in Iran wasn’t corrupt?
    The point is (and I’ll try one more time) you try to paint all Muslims with the same broad brush, but tens of thousands of Iranians were protesting and trying to oust their current government, right? That’s not ancient history, right? So all Muslims don’t think and act alike, right?
    Even some of the country’s religious leaders were protesting against the extremist regime, right? So that means that even all Muslim religious leaders don’t think or act the same, right?
    When the Iranian leader says that Israel needs to be destroyed, do you honestly believe that every Muslim in Iran (much less in the entire world) believes that too?
    Do you believe actions have consequences? Do you believe that people are responsible for the choices they make and have to take responsibility for what happens because of what they did? Think it through!
    And as far as the craziness of religions are concerned, do you believe everything that’s written in the “Book of Revelations”? There is some pretty wild stuff in the Bible, ya know. Is it really any more or less crazy than and “Imam in a well”?
    Why is it that you only want to focus on bad things that are (as you correctly point out) done “under the guise” of Islam? What about all the bad things that are done under the “guise” of Christianity? Why don’t you paint all Christians with the same brush?

    Like

  10. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    I think there is a disconnect in your mind with reality as of today and your droning on about the past. I call that an uneducated position. Do some reading of current events and get back to us.

    Like

  11. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall
  12. Mike Thornton Avatar

    I’m sorry, Todd, but your positions are just ,”scary stupid”!

    Like

  13. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    I don’t think we are in a ” war for national survival”, and I am not sure who at the Wall Street Journal came up with that phrase, but it does not make sense to me.
    If we are “at war”, when did this war start?
    If Bin Laden was commander-in-chief, and he is dead now, the war is over.
    If the WSJ is referring to Al Queda as the enemy we are at war for national survival with, how does Al Queda kill our nation?
    Our nation will still be here, even if a Bin Laden, or Timothy McVeigh blow up a building, or two.
    What is Al Queda’s goal, to rename our country “New Baghdad”?
    Al Queda operates as little more than a drug cartel in flowing robes, with their drug of choice being their twisted interpretation of their religion.
    “War for national survival” is just a catchy phrase.
    I am not afraid of Al Queda.

    Like

  14. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    You and Thornton must live in an alternate universe. You two are scary. Especially Thornton. I haven’t seen such ignorance since the USSR evaporated.

    Like

  15. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Here is another story today the defenders of Islamo-Fascists will enjoy.
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110512/D9N674D00.html

    Like

  16. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I won’t comment on the intellectual value of Todds arguments or the intelligence required to come up with them . His depth of his research and unwillingness to defend his proclamations with any kind of documentation are what they are.
    And yes Todd, lets talk about the present not the past. That’s why you introduced the relevance of our foreign policy towards the Barbary Pirates into the conversation. Now that’s really important.
    “The west was under attack and paid tribute to the Barbary Pirates in the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries until Thomas Jefferson kicked their butts in Tripoli. The reason the “pirates” were doing this is because they had declared “Jihad” against everything western. Some things never change eh? “

    Like

  17. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    That is my point. I do realize that when one questions someone one on the left they become the target of comments such as Thornton’s. Too bad.
    Yes, i would say not mich has changed since the 7th century actually with the Muslims. The West has moved on to progress of human life and the Muslim’s haven’t. Since the Ottoman Turks had hegemony over most of present day Arab lands, do you think they had something to do with the attitudes of the people under their power? You see, you folks think you have the answers but your questions are what are suspect. I am simply providing a contra point based on my support of the values we enjoy in America because of the expenditure of blood and treasure by many people to protect that right. You fellows just want to be mad so go go ahead and be mad.

    Like

  18. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I prefer not to use characterizations such as calling someone a fool when responding to intellectually shallow and vacant comments. An example being it’s okay to go back in time and use the Barbary Pirates in the late 1700’s to illustrate the continued barbarism of the Muslims but not Iran in 1953 to demonstrate American imperialism. Todd, the great Liberal slayer of the early 1990’s seems to have lost a touch and can no longer put ideas together in a coherent manner. There are others that I respect that can express conservative values and concepts that I can learn from that I prefer to engage with that don’t need to resort to calling those who have opposing views fools or idiots.

    Like

  19. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    “The reason the “pirates” were doing this is because they had declared “Jihad” against everything western”. Paul, this statement and Todd’s, “i would say not mich has changed since the 7th century actually with the Muslims”, speak to my question regarding how long we have been in this “war for national survival” and illustrates the silliness of calling our skirmishes with Al Queda radicals “a war”.
    Al Queda, and other groups that use religious teachings for political ends, are no different than protestors in the streets rallying against causes they feel are not consistant with their idealistic world view.

    Like

  20. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Paul, I appreciate being called names by liberals because I know I have defeated their vacuous arguments. Again, thanks.

    Like

  21. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Todd
    I don’t believe I’ve called you any names. I can’t call you an idiot because I don’t think you were born stupid. Fool won’t work because to be a fool means, in a classical use of the word, that you have some entertainment value. I think I’ll call you a Legend. Todd Juvinall, a legend in his own mind.

    Like

Leave a comment