« Obsolete Obama? | Main | Those Convenient Counterfactuals (updated) »

12 August 2010


Todd Juvinall

If they want to get in line and do it legally we are all for it. Alas, the liberals who favor abortion on demand must be reading this and going bonkers. The illegals with their anchor babies must put liberals in a tailspin.

Dixon Cruickshank

Absolutely great piece George, couldn't have said it better myself.

Larry Wirth

Au contraire, Todd. Liberals see anchor babies as their passport to future power. George, great article; I would have been a bit more strident. L

Paul Emery

"We are instead practicing tolerance toward our invaders in the same spirit that we have always practiced tolerance toward welcomed minorities who come here to become part of the greater us."

Are you implying that Americans and legal immigrants that practice Islam as the faith of their choice are invaders? Some pretty dramatic generalizations here George. Islam is a complex and diverse faith as is Christianity and I don't think your simplistic dramatization would hold up well in a discussion with a scholar of the Islam faith.

George Rebane

Paul, you're nailing it on the head. Yes they are "pretty dramatic generalizations" because I am reporting to you their arguments, the arguments that international Islam is reporting to its adherents. And these are not the ones that you get from CNN, MSNBC, etc. It is they who are looking at it exactly as I have relayed it to you. Bring on your scholar of the Islam faith and we will have the discussion you desire.

Look up 'dhimmitude' and see how it is used in the new Obamacare law. Please understand that these people are first and last settlers, not people who want to assimilate into the American amalgam. Open your horizons and hear what the EU leaders are saying, hear what the EU rank and file are saying about their Muslim settlements. Hear the bullshit that your President just respun from his Friday Ramadan speech to his recasting of it today. Bring your critical journalistic instincts to bear on this.

But once more, bring on your Islamic scholar.

Paul Emery

It's probably a good idea to find someone who engage in this conversation that can represent the diversity of Islam. I know, for example, that those who are Sufi's, a branch of Islam are completely different than those who follow Shi'a or Sunni traditions. Much like the difference between Protestants and Catholics. Zionists are much more militant than other Jewish factions. There are some Christians that worship snakes, as an extreme example. I'll look around for someone that can talk to this issue perhaps in a public meeting.

George Rebane

That sounds good Paul. But let's be sure that we don't stray off the subject in this pursuit. I am not aware of anyone contending that Islam does not have a rich structure of factions, sects, nuances within each, etc. And that there exist such correspondences between the various religions is worth little recount.

The issue worth a discussion is 'Islam is in a self-declared war with western civilization which it must win or suffer the fate of Christianity and Judaism at the hands of the secular humanists. The revival of this war is currently promoted and prosecuted by fundamental factions of Islam (it was ever thus), and funded by broader, like-minded segments of the worldwide community. Polls over the last years have indicated that the worldwide 'Muslim street' is more than sympathetic to a fall of western civilization and its replacement by one or more regional Islamic caliphates. Given the current asymmetries in the two cultures, what can/should the putatively moderate Muslims do to dispel the existence of dar al-Harb?'

I have worked intimately with Muslim colleagues over the years and count several of them as my friends. Our explicit and deep discussions on this issue would amaze anyone whose acquaintance with Islam's teachings are from the casual and mostly erroneous fare put out by the usual media.

As was 9/11 a shock to the west, equal shocks even more variated are on the way. Given what is happening in the world today, pabulous discussions revisiting the encyclopedic shades of Islam will not serve.

Paul Emery

That's a different conversation than one based on the definition of Islamic people as invaders unwilling to assimilate. There is no doubt that some factions of Islam promote Jihad against us but the vast majority of immigrants and those converted to Islam do not. I don't get the relation between 'dhimmitude' and the new Obamacare law. Can you explain?

George Rebane

?? "... definition of Islamic people as invaders unwilling to assimilate."?? Don't know where you got that one from. But one of Islam's stated (Quranic) core objectives, if not THE core objective is to achieve dar al-Islam by assiduously prosecuting dar al-Harb. That is the topic worthy of discussion with a knowledgeable and practicing Islamic.

"Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam." It is claimed that Obamacare introduces a first vestige of this by exempting a number of religious adherents - Muslims, Amish, New-Age sects, American Indian, ... - from having to buy health insurance. This is a discrimination against Christians and Jews among others. Probably the next dust-up on Obamacare.

Paul Emery

This was your quote George
"We are instead practicing tolerance toward our invaders in the same spirit that we have always practiced tolerance toward welcomed minorities who come here to become part of the greater us."

Calling immigrants invaders does imply that they don't intend to assimilate but instead wish to conquer.

Some recent history

In 1952 the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown by Iranian rebels and the CIA in a coup codenamed Operation Ajax. The coup was planned by the CIA after receiving the blessings of the US and British governments. Muhammad Mosaddeq is deposed and later executed and the CIA promptly reinstates Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi , the Shah of Iran, to the throne. Now that was a wonderful human being.. Could events like this and our support of Sadam Hussein have contributed to our reputation as the Great Satan?

George Rebane

The implication on Islamic assimilation is correct. The paradigm is much like the invasion of the North American continent by the whites. We came as settlers to live peacefully among the Indians while we were numerically weak and as they remained compliant to our presence; and when our numbers increased, to drive them out and/or annihilate them if Plan A did not work. We did plan to screw the Indians, and the Indians were ignorant enough to let us. But never in our dreams did we ever plan to assimilate with them.

Now it looks like it's our turn to be the double dummies.

Re Great Satan - indeed that history with Iran gives them much basis for seeing us as the Great Satan, although their younger generation has a much nuanced view of both Europe and America. However, Iran's historical justification for such attributions is again another (orthogonal) issue to what is the intent of Islam given its teachings and today's geo-strategic stance.

Again, it's real easy to go all over the map and not make any progress on the 'war between civilizations' subject regardless of the multiple histories which led to the current state of world affairs.

Paul Emery

I'm glad you appreciate the hangover that results from the arrogance of imperialism that can affect future relationships for years. Imagine if Iran instigated a coup that would have resulted in the ouster and execution of Dwight Eisenhower and the installation of a dictator whose death squads would have killed thousands of citizens that were part of his administration. That's the time frame that we are looking at. It sure is a boost for radical action that we can take credit for inciting. Also, the British intentionally divided the Hindu and Moslem populations in India in the 19th and 20th Century to keep them from effectively resisting British colonialism. There's not much historical dispute about this.

There's an old saying that there's nothing better for religion than a healthy devil. We've certainly done our part.

And then there's the war in Iraq which has done more to strengthen radical Islam and the rise of Iran than we can imagine.

We need to look at ourselves and our history as we look to the future.

Ron Paul has a good take on this in his essay Why We Fight.

The comments to this entry are closed.