Buried beneath news of the “balloon boy” hoax is the story of Muslim versus Muslim attacks in Southwest Asia. The latest installment in that saga is the bombing of Islamic schools all over Pakistan. The Daily Times banners “Students Terrorised”.
* Three women among six killed in first-ever attack on students as twin suicide bombers hit Islamic University Islamabad
* 25 female students among 29 injured
* Punjab closes educational institutions indefinitely while NWFP, Balochistan and Sindh closed till SundayISLAMABAD/LAHORE: The provincial governments on Tuesday ordered the closure of government and private educational institutions across the country following an attack on the International Islamic University Islamabad (IIUI) in which six people, including three female students, were killed and 29 others injured.
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Judith Klinghoffer noted the ironical similarity between the bombings in Pakistan to the attack of the Hebrew University by Hamas in Jerusalem in 2002. The attacks were accompanied, as these these are, by the usual statements of denial. Officials quickly claimed that the “attackers were not followers of Islam”. How could they be? and Klinghoffer reminded her readers not to forget that “Iranians claim that we should not worry about their nuclear development as Islam forbids the use of nuclear weapons.”
But assuming it were possible, why would Muslims be bombing Muslims? Because they are involved in a global struggle for power among themselves and in relation to the world. World Islam is trying to define itself in a vast civil war. Perhaps it is far more important for radical Islamists to bomb Muslims attending university than it has ever been for them to kill Jews. Killing Jews is a symbolic act. Killing other Muslims is the practical side of the war. Reuel Marc Gerecht argues in the Christian Science Monitor that the War on Terror is nearly synonymous and to a large extent, coextensive, with the civil war raging in the Islamic world. He describes the battle lines as internally being between Sunni and Shia radicals and their more secular bretheren, and across confessions between Sunni and Shia communities. Sunni Jihadism has been trying to take leadership its side, he says, but has lost the battle in the Arab world. It was defeated in Iraq, an event whose historic consequences have been unappreciated by all except al-Qaeda itself. Now their last hope is in South Asia, which may be lost in a fit of absentmindeness by Washington, which sees it as a distraction from the the pursuit of a domestic welfare agenda. But the real story of Afghanistan according to Gerecht is that it represents not only a chance for Sunni radicalism to recover, but a changing of the guard from Arabs to South Asian jihadi leaders.
Unless Al Qaeda is able to reignite Sunni-Shiite strife in Iraq – and the odds of this happening seem pretty small – Sunni jihadism has lost the Iraq war, and with it, cross your fingers, the Arabs.
Mesopotamia really was the central front in the war on terror because it was the only military theater Al Qaeda and its allies had in the Arab world. Drive out the Americans, unleash a Sunni-Shiite bloodbath that just might bring Sunni Arab states and Iran into a bloody cold – ideally hot – war, and Sunni Islamic militancy might just shake the region.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, both decent strategists, knew what they were saying when they described Iraq as the decisive battleground. Victory there would have given their cause real possibilities in the Muslim heartlands.
When al-Qaeda lost in Iraq their sole change of redemption was to win a rematch in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Yet even if they were to succeed, one thing has changed for the foreseeable future. The defeat in Iraq has momentarily eclipsed the dominance of Arabs in the leadership of the Sunni Jihad in favor of the better educated and more formidable South Asians. More to the point, it has moved the fulcrum of the Muslim civil war eastwards. While the Middle East remains important, it is no longer central after Iraq. Gerecht describes the prospects of the Sunni Jihad:
But they do offer the promise of great success, and within Pakistan and India are highly educated Muslims who just might join the cause. Arab Al Qaeda never enlisted first-rate – or even second-rate – scientific talent. Pakistan and India, with vastly better educational establishments than the Arab world, might just provide what modern holy warriors have so far lacked: the requisite skill to deploy weapons of mass destruction against the United States.
Pakistan, indeed, has become one of the great battlegrounds of the Muslim civil war. It’s not an Arab-only endeavor. Pakistan and Iran, the most dynamic laboratory of Islamic political thought, and post-Saddam Hussein Iraq are the guides to a better (or worse) future for believers. They are trying to rework the way modernity and religion have, so far, unsuccessfully married. They are trying to work democracy effectively into the faith, and with it the promise of less easily traumatized mores. ….
The Arabs are big players in the current tug of war among Muslims. But they may not be the decisive agents. That honor may go to the Iranians and the Pakistanis, with the much more religious Turks running closely behind.
Arab lands surely will provide more lethal soldiers and philosophers to the jihad. But they will likely join a movement led by Muslims who won’t give automatically pride of place to those who come from the historic heartlands. Their passions and their enemies will be shared – note that the three pillars of the Afghan neo-Taliban (Omar, the Haqqanis, and Hekmatyar) have become more virulently anti-American than they were a decade ago, and they were extreme then.
The war aside, this is a natural evolution: The best and the brightest of the Islamist cause will think and hate globally.
As if to punctuate Gercht’s thesis another set of Islamic bombers struck a group of Iranian Revolutionary guards deployed near the Afghan border. The NYT reported that “At least five commanders of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps were killed and dozens of other people were left dead and wounded on Sunday in two bombings in the restive southeast along Iran’s frontier with Pakistan, according to Iranian state news agencies.” The attackers — assuming they could be Muslim — were said to be from Baluchistan.
The Baluchi insurgent group Jundallah — or Soldiers of God — took responsibility for the bombings, which included a suicide attack on a community meeting led by Revolutionary Guards and a roadside attack on a car full of Guards, both in the area of the city of Pishin.
Jundallah, whose members are Sunni Muslims, has claimed responsibility for other attacks in the region in recent years, and is believed to have killed hundreds of Iranian soldiers and civilians. The southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan has been the scene of attacks in the past, and in April the government put the Guards Corps in control of security there to try to stop the escalating violence.
The Western press has tended to regard South Asia as the hillbilly backwater of the Jihad. Fixated on the Arab/Israeli conflict, it was regarded as a side-show. Only recently have some realized, as Gerecht warned, that South Asia represents a first-class breeding ground for radicalism on its own terms. One person whose eyes were recently opened was David Rohde, a NYT correspondent who was kidnapped recently by the Taliban. Although he had been writing about Afghanistan for the better part of a decade, only during his captivity did he realize that the Taliban really did hate him and the civilization he represented. He recounts:
Over those months, I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of “Al Qaeda lite,” a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan.
Living side by side with the Haqqanis’ followers, I learned that the goal of the hard-line Taliban was far more ambitious. Contact with foreign militants in the tribal areas appeared to have deeply affected many young Taliban fighters. They wanted to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world.
I had written about the ties between Pakistan’s intelligence services and the Taliban while covering the region for The New York Times. I knew Pakistan turned a blind eye to many of their activities. But I was astonished by what I encountered firsthand: a Taliban mini-state that flourished openly and with impunity.
Mr. Rhode’s blissful unawareness may simply mirror on a smaller scale the attitudes within the Obama administration about the severity and nature of threats radical Islam and aggressive national regimes pose to the international stability. Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post argues that the administration has been acting as if real international threats were only a joke. It is playing with fire, he says, and is acting like an adolescent who has yet to experience real pain. Can it seriously believe, he asks, that safety can be found behind a wall of Nobel Peace Prizes? Krauthammer believes there is something absurd about relying on “national self-denigration — excuse me, outreach and understanding” that “is not meant to yield immediate results; [but] simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.” That’s like buying beers for thugs in a tough neighborhood in the hope they’ll respect you instead of coming back for more. Krauthammer claims that the policy of bending over backward so far has been a dismal failure; it has only resulted in the betrayal of the Iranian opposition, the sell-out of Tibet, “the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic” in exchange for exactly nothing. He concludes with a piece of gallows humor.
Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick.
No need for a Dobrynin today. The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and “reset” buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.
Krauthammer’s chuckles from the Washington Post are actually echoed in the NYT, which feels somewhat of the heat of the bonfire of the current administrations vanities. Just a little tingle, but enough to register. In an news analysis piece, Ethan Bronner of the NYT wrote that come to think of it, the only moments of peace in the Middle East on both sides were bought by the IDF’s suppression of gangsters and thugs. The Peace Process, though launched with much fanfare and followed with great expectation, have led largely to a boom in the undertaking business. The safety of civilians on both sides of the divide, not to mention the cause of nuclear non-proliferation in the region, have largely come as a result of the suppression of bad guys.
As the Obama administration tries to broker a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is a dark truth lurking: force has produced clearer results in this dispute than talk. …
The payoff from the use of force in the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is evident. It was only after the first Palestinian uprising in the late 1980s that Israel recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization and started to consider a two-state solution, and after the second — and very bloody — uprising that it left Gaza in 2005.
Meanwhile for many Israelis, the past decade looks like a model of the primacy of military action over diplomacy.
Through relentless commando operations and numerous checkpoints, the Israeli Army ended suicide bombings and other terrorist acts from the West Bank; since its 2006 war with the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, widely dismissed as a failure at the time, the group has not fired one rocket at Israel; and Israel’s operation against Gaza last December has greatly curtailed years of Hamas rocket fire, returning a semblance of normality to the Israeli south.
Two years ago, Israeli fighter planes destroyed what Israel and the United States say was a budding Syrian nuclear reactor; and last year in Syria, Israeli agents assassinated Imad Mugniyah, the top military operative for Hezbollah and a crucial link to its Iranian sponsors, a severe blow to both Hezbollah and Iran.
Diplomatic efforts, whether the Oslo peace talks of the 1990s or the Turkish-mediated negotiations with Syria last year have, by contrast, produced little. Every Israeli military operation of recent years — including the December invasion of Gaza that was condemned Friday by the United Nations Human Rights Council by a vote of 25 to 6 and referred to the Security Council following a report by a committee led by Richard Goldstone — has come under international censure.
Maybe someday it will be different, Bronner says, but not right now. That doesn’t keep people from trying to use John Lennon’s Imagine as the manual for international “peace”. There are some who even now believe it is better to paint Israel into a corner by making concessions to the ayatollahs, the better to force the Jewish state to take out Iranian nuclear capability. Let them take the rap. And as to ruffling Ahmedinajad’s feathers, that is altogether too troublesome and unpleasant to those for who everything has always been a choice. Denial runs deep. It’s the logic of the man who enjoys his steak and playing on his ivory chess-set without wanting to worry about where it came from.
If Gerecht is right, then a battle for the soul of Islam is raging in South Asia. And the President may have elected to watch it from the sidelines, figuring the fires won’t jump. And if Krauthammer is right, then the West is facing a series of challenges which cannot be ignored. But maybe Obama is calculating he can ignore them; that it is better to keep talking than trying to act; because things just might take care of themselves. The world is about to find out who’s right. It should be an interesting next six months.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
95 Comments
1. Lord Acton:Good one Wretch. I suspect voting present for 4 years isn’t going to work. Unless he is already running for President of the UN before his first term ends.
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:06 am 2. blogstrop:Voting present, or suggesting that talky-talk, or that the UN or some other international body will solve the world’s problems is pissing in the wind. So many of our pollies appear to be heading towards a further career in the UN that one’s confidence in their ability to solve either long-term or more immediate issues is severely undermined. They are talk-fest DJs, not Mr. Fixits.
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:22 am 3. ADE,:W
then a battle for the soul of Islam raging in South Asia
The battle is terminal for Islam, because it has no soul.
To speak in parables:
First, the Beatles:
I’m looking through you, where did you go,
I though I knew you, what did I know,
You don’t look different, but you have changed
I’m looking through you, you’re not the same
Your lips are moving, I cannot hear
Your voice is soothing, but the words aren’t clear
You don’t sound different, I’ve learned the game.
I’m looking through you, you’re not the same
Why, tell me why, did you not treat me right?
Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight
You’re thinking of me, the same old way
You were above me, but not today
The only difference is you’re down there
I’m looking through you, and you’re nowhere
Now, here’s Cindi Lauper on the same theme:
Money changes everything
Money, money changes everything
We think we know what we’re doin’
That don’t mean a thing
It’s all in the past now
Money changes everything.
Apart form the changes in social status caused by oil money, we have the staggering intrusion of social change caused by modern communications.
The place is doomed, and for me, schadenfreude doesn’t even begin to describe the pleasure I feel as complete ***holes get what’s coming to them.
ADE
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:43 am 4. RWE:Wretchard once described the Eurasian land mass as analogous to an ocean, with attempts to control the “ports” – the inhabited areas – while most of it would forever remain lawless.
Under a related analogy, the war in Southwest Asia is like the theories of Mahan. In his view, the key battle in a war between great powers would be fought well out a sea, between opposing fleets. The loser of the sea battle might as well give up rather than fight the land portion of the battle, since he would be cut off from trade and have his whole coastline vulnerable to bombardment, raiding and invasion.
But does this analogy apply? It is not clear it does. It is much harder for the militants in the mountains to “sail” over to the Middle East and the rest of the world, especially since they will be forced to do it in ones and twos, analogous to the way the 9/11 hijackers operated. Suitable vigilance can stop that, not that such sustained wariness is easy in a free society nor even in an despotic one where power, privilege and blood ties may interdict action the same way the ACLU and Democratic Party does in the USA.
Will Muslims far away really note the victor in the Battle of Afghanistan and comport themselves accordingly? Maybe and maybe not, but Islam is a Fantasy Ideology, and that counts, although in ways that are difficult to evaluate at best.
Oct 21, 2009 - 5:28 am 5. the Anti Jihadist:If there was ever proof that Islam brings nothing but war, look at the lands of the Muslims themselves. Even in lands 100% cleansed of the dreaded kufir, Muslims are fighting and slaughtering one another. Wretchard wrote that into his ‘3 Conjectures’ long ago and this bears out the accuracy of his prognostications.
In regards to the current bloodbath, to quote Kissinger from another day and age: “It’s too bad both sides can’t lose.”
Oct 21, 2009 - 5:35 am 6. Lifeofthemind:Real news, war and the alignments of hostile regimes, is ignored both by the administration, who think that kicking a can down the road is a policy, and by the media. The later are only willing to turn up for the stories that confirm their prejudices, even if they are totally fake. From Theo Spark channeling a story from Rush, Video: Will the Real Chamber of Commerce Please Stand Up?
Oct 21, 2009 - 5:40 am 7. anton:I have long viewed the Sunni/Shia split akin to the Catholic/Protestant split in the Thirty Years War, it is complicated by the constant pressure of the obviously more advanced and vibrant Western world.
Ethnic facets of this conflict are enhanced by the post-Ottoman division of the area into countries that have little respect for ethnic populations (Syria came from where? while the Aremenians and Kurds get no nation). Let’s face it, most of the nations in the arc from Pakistan to Syria are artificial to one extent or another. The Baluchis live across two borders, the Kurds across three and many of the smaller ethnicies suffer under the same divisions.
The Taliban has found the perfect wedge-point between Pakistan and Afghanistan, both these nations are artifical constructs, Frankenstein’s Monsters in effect, with little or no internal structure and nearly no concept of nationhood. Essentially they are geographical expressions with a government is residence instead of in control. Unfortunately Pakistan has nukes while Afghanistan has opium. This means that they cannot be readily ignored.
The difficulties we have encountered fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan are increased in Pakistan, large populations and extensive landmass make ferreting out the terrorists difficult, particularly so as the populations are either more sympathetic, or at least cowed, and far less helpful.
Perhaps the best play in the short run would be to enhance the Arab/Eastern split and reduce the money that oil has given to the forces of AQ and Taliban. In the long run support secular powers while they try to hammer out some sort of resolution between Islam of the 7th century and the world of today is probably the best course. This will take a long time and is apt to be messy and expensive, just the sort of thing that doesn’t sit well inside the Beltway.
Obama’s performance has done nothing to help any of the problems confronting us or our allies (do we still have any, or have they all gone under the bus?). He reminds me of someone playing a game of Monopoly that has lost interest and is just going through the motions, voting present if you will. It doesn’t help that his staff and Secretary of State are utterly clueless in matters of foreign policy, a cacophony of ideas, all of them bad.
Oct 21, 2009 - 6:38 am 8. Gordon:Bend over backwards long enough and you’ll suddenly find yourself bending forwards.
I think it’s time we stop
Oct 21, 2009 - 6:39 am 9. Habu:Children, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
O/T with requested permission.
THIS IS VITAL. PLEASE WATCH AND DECIDE. IT WILL OCCUR SHORTLY WITH VERY BAD CONSEQUENCES. This isn’t just Jack and Jill, thi is the game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
Thank you
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:07 am 10. Cannoneer No. 4:Iran has been at war with the United States since November 4, 1979. Few Americans seem to realize that. Farsi-speaking Persians are barely a majority. Lots of oppressed Arabs, Azeris, Kurds and Baluchis out there already resisting Persian and Shiite domination, ripe for exploitation by Special Forces and CIA paramilitary Unconventional Warfare operators. The ayatollahs could be overthrown before their nuke works, but the pitifully few operators available are already bowed up with higher priority missions, like Direct Action against Al Qaeda High Value Targets and Transition Teams in Iraq.
If we are not supporting Jundallah versus the mullahtariat, we should be. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. There are probably upwards of 10,000 50-something old farts who served in Iran before the Shah fell who could still be useful, if anybody bothered to ask.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:37 am 11. Salt Lick:Excellent piece, wretchard. How you assimilate and synthesize tons of info so quickly is a wonder.
But maybe Obama is calculating he can ignore them… because things just might take care of themselves.
Well, he never wrote a law review article, failed to publish anything at Chicago Law School, and voted “present” umpteen times as a legislator, and it worked out well for him.
The world is about to find out who’s right. It should be an interesting next six months.
Was it bad of me to buy small positions in gold and oil mutual funds after Obama stood down during the recent Iranian uprising?
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:50 am 12. John Lynch:What strikes me about the Taliban is that they are a modernizing, anti-western revolutionary movement. They are fighting the traditional feudal culture in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s as much about overthrowing the tribal elite as it is about fighting the infidels.
In this they are much like the Communists of the 20th century. The ideology is different, but they act much the same. Communism was a godless religion. The jihadists fixed that. When they take over an area they kill or intimidate the traditional tribal leaders.
What happened in Iraq, it seems to me, is that the Sunni tribal elite realized that they were doomed if the war continued. They had allied themselves with the Al Qeada radicals to fight the Shia-dominated Iraqi government and their American allies. What they then realized was that if the Shia didn’t kill them, the Sunni radicals would. Whether the Sunnis won or lost the traditional elite was doomed. So, the sheiks switched sides to keep their dominance. The US military actively supported them, with the result that the radicals were put down fairly quickly.
This strategy is probably not going to work in Afghanistan, because the feudal system is much less progressive than the tribes of Iraq (Iraq was 2/3 urban and land reform had already happened) and the radicals are far stronger. As long as we are supporting a historically doomed feudal landowning elite it’s hard to see how we are going to win. Afghanistan is a nation of peasants, and if we don’t have a plan to improve their lives while providing security, the radicals are going to have an advantage.
For people who doubt the Taliban’s ability to take over Pakistan, I point to the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Communists in China. Yes, they can. It may take a long time, but so did the Chinese civil war. A radical Pakistan would be a disaster for Pakistan and the world, and we should do our best to forestall it.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:52 am 13. Cannoneer No. 4:Whomsoever signs such a treaty qualifies as a domestic enemy to me, Habu.
This has been coming for decades. May as well come now while I’m still spry enough to be of some use.
Start the ball, Tector.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:57 am 14. HEPT:Muslim on Muslim war who do you root for?
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:57 am 15. JackWayne:The weapons.
You describe it as a Civil War which it is. But isn’t it better described as a Reformation? The Christian Reformation was pretty violent and this one is staying true to course. To me, the issue is whether Bin Laden’s side wins and they go back to the Caliphate. Or if the Muslim governments/religious institutions find they need to “modernize” to keep their “phony, baloney jobs”. Many people today think that Reformation = Modernizaton but Martin Luther and the Protestants wanted to go back as close to the early church as they could. The Catholic Church did 2 things in response: they cleaned up their act and they withdrew from governing the secular governments. That took 300 years. The question is what path the Muslim religion/governments will take to “modernization”. We won’t know for a long time.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:00 am 16. Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Worth pondering:[...] We are all for killing bad guys — after all, the US military killed over 5000 Saudi jihadists in Iraq, a figure that seems incredible in itself (and that was before the surge). Perhaps Gerecht is correct. And it seems certainly true that only bad things can happen if America can be portrayed as cutting and running. But, unlike Iraq, which seems to have decent shot at being a non-failed state, it appears somewhat unclear what victory in Afghanistan would look like. (HT: Belmont Club) [...]
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:19 am 17. LFMayor:Too bad it’s so far away, the Russians have a real monopoly on arms sales since their transport costs are less. And ADE, I concur fully… makes me want to dance in the streets and pass out candies.
Let them grind each other down to nothing… if they organize enough to pose a threat to us then flatten them, otherwise the most we should do is try to make a profit.
We have a garden of our own that needs weeding before we export freedom again.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:25 am 18. Nomenklatura:Bush’s whole strategy was to redirect Muslim aggression back home where it belongs (i.e. to turn it back against other Muslims) by showing that we are not an easy target. His aim was to deny radical Muslims an endless series of attacks on the US as an easy, superficially unifying tactic.
What he did was essential because in truth we were an easy target until Bush decided to demonstrate how effectively we can hit back.
This was and remains the only way we can wake up the nonaggressive Muslim majority and get it to confront the big problem of radical violence within its own culture. For radical Islam, attacking the US was a handy option, but in the end it isn’t able to avoid the real conflict: a massive civil war within Islam over modernity which is just getting started.
This background was the basis for Bush’s otherwise nonsensical statements about Islam being a ‘nonviolent religion’, and naming the fight as the ‘War on Terror’, rather than a ‘War on Radical Islam’. Islam does have a big problem with violence, and we are fighting radical Islam, but it’s not our war to win because it’s really a civil war. What Bush wanted was to get us out of the way so they can get on with it.
Bush achieved his goal, now we are seeing the ‘getting on with it’ part, and for the first time all the partially modernized Muslims in the middle are going to have to realize that they have a choice to make and a fight they need to win.
In this context, it actually may not do too much harm if Obama pulls us back somewhat. Bush’s key point was demonstrating our capability, our lethality and our resolve when provoked, and it will take more than a display of fecklessness from Obama to dissipate the resulting impression. Bush left a mark on the radicals.
Obama gets to be president, but he’s still playing on a board designed by Bush.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:30 am 19. Marcus Aurelius:One daily feature in the UAE English dailies was reporting on the latest bombs going off in Pakistan. Not vs. Christians but usually one Mosque fighting another. Never really read too deeply into the articles to discover what the exact motivations were but it was a daily event in Pakistan. I don’t know what that was like after 9/11 I am guessing those Islamists also unified and Mosque vs. Mosque violence in Pakistan subsided, well its back.
Now, in the UAE? Never heard of such events.
I’ve yet to read the whole post but my immediate thoughts were to the thoughts of: Reuel Marc Gerecht and I scroll down and lo & behold there he is! I should think of lots of money in my bank account!
I saw him on C-SPAN one night having a friendly debate with Daniel Pipes and discussing the compatibility of Democracy and Islam. Pipes carried the debate (Pipes argued against the compatibility) with Reuel conceding the point for the time being. Reuel made some good points namely if Muslims are not allowed to win a Democratic victory why bother playing by those rules?
The most important point, though, was made by Reuel that the Islamic world must first have its Martin Luther before it can have a Jefferson. http://bloggerbeer.blogspot.com/2005/10/pipes-vs-gerecht.html
Right now, the most prominent figure in the Islamic world is probably the anti-Martin Luther.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:34 am 20. exhelodrvr:4) RWE,
“since he would be cut off from trade and have his whole coastline vulnerable to bombardment, raiding and invasion.
But does this analogy apply?”
It would if we were willing to be ruthless in our prosecution of the war.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:51 am 21. Marzouq the Redneck Muslim:Great post Wretchard.
Things have been interesting. I agree Iraq was pivotal. I also agree it will be interesting the next 6 months. It is also apparent things will be interesting for decades.
My prattle over the years about renaissance, Muslim reformation and “Armed Peace Corps” was serious even though I seemed less so. The AF/PAC theatre is becoming central. Since this theatre is in such close proximity to India and China, I wonder why the coalition does not include their troops.
Salaam aleikum!
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:57 am 22. Achillea:Filed under: “Let’s You and Him Fight”
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:10 am 23. Marty:One way of looking at this is as a renewal of the ages-old conflict between the nomads of the steppes and the settled civilizations. You can see this all over the Islamic world, at least those parts of it on the Eurasian mainland.
The Taliban are rural tribesmen and their interpretation of Islam is simple, pure and direct. The town-dwellers are part of teh larger Islamic “conversation” that has been going on since roughly the death of the Prophet, as cultured people have interpreted and re-interpreted the Koran and hadith to make them suitable for different places and circumstances.
Now, for a variety of reasons, the people of the steppe are reasserting themselves against settled civilization, a conflict that has existed since the dawn of settled agriculture ca. 8000 BC. It was largely in abeyance for the last few hundred years, since the Black Death deciamted tehs teppe population even more than thes ettled areas, and civilization developed superior weapons and sopcial institutions. But now, it’s coming back.
Remember, but for the death of the great Khan, Europe and the Middle East would speak Mongolian.
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:39 am 24. Uncle Jefe:US out of UN, UN out of US.
Oct 21, 2009 - 9:58 am 25. herb:Let’s see how hamas and hizbollah fare after their UN enablers no longer exist (for without our $$, who would fund that nuthouse?? And sadly, we give the UN ‘legitimacy’)…
Let India loose on Pakistan.
Thus far they’ve been persuaded to go easy on Pakistan, in spite of muslim violence against India in Kashmir and Mumbai, as well as many other areas…I don’t think it’s just fear of a nuke exchange that’s holding India back.
Marty: Who re-interpreted the koran?
The revelation dictated by allah to Mo is supposedly without error. These revelations are not subject to questions by any person because of the source of the revelation being allah hisownself.
The centrality of the recurring activity by allah leads to uncertainty about the future (what happens when allah just has a crappy day?) The unquestioned nature of the revelation prevents any sort of evolution of thought. Islam’s only reformation will occur when islam is no more.
If two islams are in a fight to the death, only good things can happen.
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:05 am 26. Paul Milenkovic:“Lots of oppressed Arabs, Azeris, Kurds and Baluchis out there already resisting Persian and Shiite domination, ripe for exploitation by Special Forces and CIA paramilitary Unconventional Warfare operators.”
Not much coverage of the attack in Iran, where an assailant blew himself and 6 Iranian leaders with a grenade. Iran blamed the US (presumably, to them, this was one of these Special Forces and CIA encouraging the bomber situations) and vowed unspecified revenge.
Does our side “do” suicide/homicide bombings? Is this a rogue element of some faction with CIA support? Or perhaps there is enough blue-on-blue attacks on that part of the world that it didn’t neet CIA involvement? 9-11 mastermind KSM is said to be Baluchi — could it be that Iran fell victim to the same dark forces that attacked the US on 9-11?
Can we assume that a group that attacked the US would automatically never attack Iran? I am thinking about that STV episode about the aliens with ultra-powerful biology who are a threat to both the Federation and the Borg. We tend to divide the world into the US side and the Islamist-Iranian side, but are their fanatical Baluchis who are threats to both sides?
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:06 am 27. John Lynch:I don’t think that starting a proxy war in Iran by employing Muslim terrorists is a moral course of action. Most of the people killed by guerrillas and terrorists are innocent civilians. We shouldn’t be doing that. I don’t see how murdering civilians is a good way to change Iranian behavior, even if it works. We did plenty of that during the Cold War, and it did very little good and left a lot of dead bodies.
About the Taliban being the traditional country vs. the city dwellers, no, not really. The Taliban are overturning the traditional way of life in the countryside, not protecting it. They are revolutionaries, not reactionaries. A good comparison is the fascists in the West. They claimed to be restoring the past, but in reality they were rejecting liberal democracy and overthrowing centuries of tradition to build something new.
The Taliban are doing much the same thing when they murder the village elders and impose new “Islamic” rules that never existed before. The idea that unites revolutionaries is that the old ways have failed and radical (and bloody) change is the only solution.
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:16 am 28. JMH:Two unrelated thoughts.
First, reading of David Rohde’s epiphany:
the same morning as Shannon Love’s post about what the Rush Limbaugh quote hoax really tells us:
and I found myself more sympathetic to Rhode’s than I might otherwise have been.
Second
Or, Obama simply views foreign policy as a distraction from his real objective of transforming the US from within. Or better yet, he views foreign policy as a resource from which to mine “crises” to use in his assault on internal American institutions. But it’s just a resource, a magic crisis-berry bush that he can pick from and not worry about actual results or resolutions, the internal struggle is what really matters.
And if that is in fact his approach, I agree with him. (My fingers ache typing that). Who wins the internal struggle for the soul of American is more important, far more important, that who wins the latest round of the perpetual Civil War that is Mohammad’s religion. Oh, that doesn’t mean it’s not a tragedy that we’re too consumed with our own internal war to solve a problem while the solution is relatively painless. It just means that once America’s internal war is over, the problem of Islam will either be quickly solved (if the right side wins in the US, an American purged of leftist waffle being able to put an end to radical Islam) or irrelevant (if the wrong side wins in the US, a neo-fascist US being a far bigger problem than a new Caliphate).
PS: I place the threat Habu links to in the same boat. Irrelevant once our own internal war is over. If the right side wins, reclaiming our sovereignity will be as natural as breathing. If the wrong side wins, won’t matter much. As always, we are our own worst enemy and own best friend.
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:18 am 29. Matt Beck:RE: #9 Habu,
Climate Cooperation to Help Ties, Hu Tells Obama
From the article: “‘China may be able to make more concessions over climate change if it feels it’s gaining more in other areas of the relationship, such as trade,’ Wang told Reuters.”
Laughable. Absolutely laughable. Is there a foreign adversary of our’s who isn’t stringing our president along?
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:28 am 30. Uncle Jefe:Boy oh boy, just after I post “US out of UN, UN out of US” as part of the solution to the islamic terror movement, I find…
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:40 am 31. Don Rodrigo:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568869,00.html
“”"”" For people who doubt the Taliban’s ability to take over Pakistan, I point to the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Communists in China. “”"”"
Oh Goody. So Anita Dunn could add Mullah Omar to her short list of favorite philosophers.
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:59 am 32. 10-21-2009 | Drive Time Happy Hour:[...] [...]
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:19 am 33. Cannoneer No. 4:We didn’t start the war, John Lynch, they did, 30 years ago. Somebody’s “innocent civilians” are going to get killed. Better their’s than our’s.
What is so “innocent” about civilians who through apathy, sloth, gullibility and cowardice permit regimes to come to power and remain in power in their homelands that threaten my homeland?
“Innocent” civilians died in Dresden and Hiroshima. Does your heart still bleed for them?
“Our” side doesn’t “do” suicide/homicide bombings, Paul, but if our enemies have enemies who do, it sucks to be them.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:28 am 34. John Lynch:Well, Cannoneer, if you believe your rhetoric about the Obama administration aren’t you responsible for their actions? It’s your country, isn’t it?
The people we killed in Dresden and Hiroshima died to end a war, and the bombing served a purpose in shortening the war and ultimately saving lives (Hiroshima much more so than Dresden). Once we occupied territory we stopped bombing it. The killing stopped.
It’s hard to see how a terrorist movement in southeast Iran would do anything like that. Militarizing entire societies in the service of ideology is something we should avoid, not perpetuate. It just kills people for little purpose.
If we want the Iranian regime to change, supporting violent radical groups is not the way to do it.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:44 am 35. anton:When thinking about the prospect of a Islamic Civil War I am reminded of watching the movie “Enemy at The Gates”. Commies and Nazis killing each other.
I ended up cheering for the bullets.
More seriously, the comparison to the conflicts of the Thirty Years War are apt in many ways, the real problem is that they were murdering each other with black-powder muskets and pikes, Pakistan has nukes. This could get very messy if things get out of hand.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:46 am 36. Mark:Does Islam need to find its “Martin Luther” first? Yes and no. “No” in the sense that OBL is the latest in a long line of Islamic Martin Luthers who believe in “Word Alone, Faith Alone.” I don’t think you’ll ever get a “Grace Alone” in Islam to go along with the other two “Alones.” Islam favors the group, not the individual. Conversion in Islam is to a prophet and an Ummah.
Islam can only be reformed via the rejection of it. This rejection has been tried numerous times in splinter, fusion, and mystical sects.
As many commenters have pointed out in past threads, archaic/violent versions of Christianity run up eventually into Christ, who exposes archaic and violent attavistic religious tendencies. Reform in Islam runs eventually into the attavistic, archaic/violent Mohammed, who declares non-violence against non-Muslims to be non-Islam.
This is not to say that Christianity is pacifist. It isn’t to say it isn’t, either. One can at least say that Christ warns us that the demonic is very real, and that the spirit of opposition and envy in the world is always corrupting the soul of individuals and groups.
It’s easy to twist Christianity into a blunt weapon, e.g. “White man’s need rules a world in need.”
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:47 am 37. Marty:herb @ 25,
good point, I should not have said “re-interpret”
Otherwise I stand by it–there are many flavors of Islam and they reflect different histories and needs. But my larger point really wasn’t about Islam, per se, but about what may in some respects (not all) be the return of one of the most ancient of conflicts, the steppe nomad against the settled community
Anton @ 35
“rooting for the bullets” lol
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:38 pm 38. Matt Beck:The basic Whig interpretation of history that would describe the Protestant Reformation as the “Enlightenment” of the West, and on the basis of that framework look for hopeful seeds to germinate from the current civil war within Islam, is mistaken. While it does have some truth in it, it is a truth that cuts both ways.
First of all, Islam is more than akin to Protestantism, it is Protestantism, plain and simple. The birth of Islam was the first Protestant Reformation: it was Calvanism 1.0. As a matter of historical development, Islam was an Eastern Christian heresy with Zoroastrian and Nestorian influences. Accounting for cultural differences, Islmaic theology remains very similar to the Westeminster Confession. The “5 Pillars of Islam” and the “5 Points of Christianity” contain more than just a numerical resemblance.
But has Protestantism really been good for the West? I speak not of individual souls, of course, but of the culture at large. The secularism which currently plagues the benighted West was, after all is said and down, a result of Protestant innovations. Protest leads to Puritanism, which leads to Rationalism, Which leads to methodological Atheism – with clockwork regularity. The haggard condition of Islam today is naught but the end product of a culture that long ago tread down that path.
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:41 pm 39. John Lynch:It would also be good to remember that the “good” things that came out of the Reformation didn’t happen until centuries after Martin Luther. Capitalism and constitutional government lagged the religious wars by a century or two.
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:46 pm 40. Armeggedon Rex:Habu #9 and Cannoneer No. 4 #13:
The whole situation is surreal. Although I’ve thought we’ve been on this increasingly steep downward spiral toward violent correction for some time now, this may be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Cannoneer, thanks for posting the Oath Keepers Orders We Will Not Obey. They are a useful reminder to those of us who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution including all law enforcement & military personnel, officers of the Courts, and nearly all public elected officials, government appointees, and even some civilian government employees. I hope more than a fraction of all these folks remember the oath they took and have the courage to act honorably. Time will tell…. perhaps very soon now!
Semper Paratus
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:51 pm 41. Cannoneer No. 4:What rhetoric about the Obama administration, John?
I’m not responsible for Obama, but America is indeed my country, and if the Obama regime has any external enemies with the temerity to attack my country on his watch I don’t expect any mercy from them.
What hostile foreign power or NGO would fare better if the Obama regime were to fall?
Oct 21, 2009 - 1:20 pm 42. Delia:14. HEPT:
“Muslim on Muslim war who do you root for?
The weapons.”
Ouch. Way harsh but…
Isn’t there SOME hope for Islamists or are they eternally doomed to the dark ages forever?
Oct 21, 2009 - 1:21 pm 43. Knight1:#9 Habu – thanks for bringing this up. This may be a dumb question that I could solve with some quick research, but can anyone tell me if this treaty were signed, doesn’t Congress have to agree? Vague memories of the Kyoto treaty come to mind. Anyone?
Oct 21, 2009 - 1:38 pm 44. herb:Delia: Orthodox and fundamentalist Christian theology holds that those who do not believe are condemned and that those who believe will have everlasting life. Now there are those of us who are old softies who believe in a merciful God that has somehow worked out a way so that good but ignorant people who are innocently locked into a wrongful belief system may be saved.
Now the islams are perversely convinced that their purpose in life is to either convert by any means necessary any other-than-islam who falls under their control or to kill them. They have, from the time of the allah-Mo conversation, held that they should get the trees to reveal the Jews so that they could kill them. They have held that someone who became convinced that the Way, the Truth and The Light is better than mo&allah must be killed. I dont think that meets any of my softy criteria of goodness, ignorance and innocence. Ergo, when they’re gone, they’re gone. No virgins, no raisins, no nothing. Meh.
Oct 21, 2009 - 1:57 pm 45. Margo:Delia @ #42–
I’ve done a fair amount of research on that subject and have concluded that there is no hope. They would rather fight than fornicate. The present day genital mutilations of Islam daughters and the Koranic instructions to kill those who defect seems to be hard wired to Islamic dna. That’s why this present conflict is called The Long War. If your research leads you to a different conclusion, please post title and author. I’m tired of being depressed about the whole mess. BTW, you might start by reading “Eurabia” and go from there. “The Red Tent” is another good source.
Oct 21, 2009 - 2:14 pm 46. Subotai Bahadur:#43 Knight1
If the rule of law and the Constitution held, yes, a treaty would have to be ratified by the Senate. However, since January 20, 2009 how many times has the rule of law or the Constitution inhibited any action by the regime? And they hold the Senate. And he can impose anything by Executive Order. That will hold until either Congress overturns it [and any effort to do so is subject to veto and would require an over-ride] or until a subsequent president revokes the order.
An administration that has invested much in Executive Orders to permanently implement rule outside the legal and constitutional realm is equally invested in seeing that they are never overturned, if only to avoid consequences. The only means of doing so permanently involve elimination of the chance for a change of regime through normal means.
The issuance of such Executive Orders can be considered a clear bright line that has been crossed.
Habu, et. al.: Does this make sense to you?
Subotai Bahadur
Oct 21, 2009 - 2:34 pm 47. Walt:The MSM will never say
Oct 21, 2009 - 2:37 pm 48. Josh:George Bush was right in any way
Iraq was the right war at the right time
No they continue to exclaim
That patriotism is the flame
That makes them scream resisting is a crime
The Taliban makes war on girls
They hate them ‘cause their gorgeous curls
Are prettier than ones the menfolk wear
They also think that girls and schools
Will show them up as silly fools
So bombing girls and schools is price they bear
For keeping Allah’s flame alive
In every Pashtun hut and dive
In hopes of gaining power most complete
Over the West and Shiites too
So all belongs to Allah’s few
With dhimmis on the Sunni side of the street
Obama knows that he’s first class
That his reflection in the glass
Will cause the world to smile and have a coke
But if he caves in far Afghan
Then you can bet that to a man
The world will treat the US as a joke
And then one day and fairly soon
The nukes will fly and then the moon
And earth will look a lot alike for sure
The craters fill the eons pause
God shakes his head in grief because
The creatures in his image are no more
Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post argues that the administration has been acting as if real international threats were only a joke. It is playing with fire, he says, and is acting like an adolescent who has yet to experience real pain.
Or a gambler with other people’s money.
Or, someone actually intent on losing – I discount this, but always keep it in mind. Denigration of the US and deflation of the US to just-another-nation is a kind of losing, too, and is *certainly* a cornerstone of Obama’s and the Democrat’s mindset.
–
Overall, I agree with others, very nice post, wretchard.
Oct 21, 2009 - 2:37 pm 49. Doug:The REAL Balloon Boy:
Bay Area’s balloon boy scaled heights of fame
Been there. Done that.
In 1964, Nowell was a skinny 11-year-old who volunteered to help launch a hot air balloon in Mill Valley. But when the balloon abruptly lifted off, his fingers became entangled in the rope. As a horrified crowd of 200 spectators watched, the sixth-grader from Tamalpais Valley Elementary School was hoisted 3,000 feet into the air.
“People still refer to me as the Balloon Boy,”
Oct 21, 2009 - 2:54 pm 50. DennisC:Nowell said.
“My kids got pretty tired of it over the years.
I did get some interesting phone calls and e-mails last week.
43. Knight1:
#9 Habu – thanks for bringing this up. This may be a dumb question that I could solve with some quick research, but can anyone tell me if this treaty were signed, doesn’t Congress have to agree? Vague memories of the Kyoto treaty come to mind. Anyone?
++++++++++
Monckton addressed this question specifically this morning on the Laura Ingraham show.
From memory, he said that if brought to the Congress as a treaty 67 votes would be needed in the Senate, which would not happen. But that it could be enacted by a simple bill, echoing the treaty, needing only 51 votes. In this case, it could be repealed by a future Senate, and if Republicans loudly proclaimed that fact now, that resistance could forestall presentation of a bill.
free clip does not cover his answer:
http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03Njc1
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:12 pm 51. DennisC:Duplicate comment – sorry for taking up bandwidth.
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:15 pm 52. whiskey:Obama is not stupid. He knows Pakistan well, having had many Pakistani friends, a Pakistani room-mate, and spending a Summer in Pakistan in 1981 IIRC. Where he may or may not have hooked up with jihadis including bin Laden. Obama has many Muslim friends and associates, was brought up a Muslim, and can recite the call to prayer in Arabic and has done so for one NYT reporter.
Obama WANTS the US attacked, with nukes, so he can suspend the Constitution and rule as “America’s Vizier” or Marshall Petain, whichever model you prefer. This is why he wants to unilaterally disarm, so that there is no choice but total surrender. The man hates America and all it stands for, particularly its White majority population. In that he stands with Bill Ayers, his mentor, and Rev. Wright, his spiritual guide.
I believe Obama will be entirely successful in getting America nuked, and losing one-three major US cities with US dead in the tens of millions. He would in fact be delighted, and would immediately declare a national emergency, rule by decree (suspending the Constitution) and order a surrender. This has been his goal from the beginning.
He is likely to find, however, that America is simply too big, not being Hawaii or even Indonesia (itself home to about 300 million people over a much smaller area). Most of the military will simply not obey an order to surrender along with suspension (permanent) of the Constitution. Nor will most States, Governors, and regional media. National media is likely to be wiped out (NYC and DC being major targets) and sheer survival mode (nuking of US cities means more will be nuked — Dallas or Atlanta or Chicago or Portland or Salt Lake City — unless the US response is so horror inducing).
Indeed the urge to survive in places like Dallas or Atlanta or Miami or Indianapolis or Nashville is likely to push America (even disarmed) into a crash course to wipe out most if not all the World’s Muslims. No matter what the cost, or censure. Because people in survival mode will do ANYTHING to stay alive. ANYTHING.
Obama is not stupid. He like Hitler in 1939 or 1941 senses an opportunity with weak, disorganized rivals (Obama’s enemy is America and its White majority population). BUT … he overestimates his power, the ability of the media to control people, the bigness of America, and the desire for a nation when hit with an atrocity to fight back not surrender. Not the least of which is that surrender only invites more attack and more dead cities and Americans.
Obama’s legacy will be millions of dead Americans, billions of dead Muslims, and ruined American cities. With him of course will be the death of the legitimacy of the elites, and the rise of the populists — angry and vengeful with good cause and wanting to deal with Obama’s enablers in a structural way.
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:18 pm 53. Bob Murphy:4. RWE
“Will Muslims far away really note the victor in the Battle of Afghanistan and comport themselves accordingly?”
Yes if they reasonably expect the same forces to affect the same outcome in their location.
Oct 21, 2009 - 3:43 pm 54. exhelodrvr:Matt Beck,
“But has Protestantism really been good for the West? ”
There is a noticeable difference in the development paths if you compare the nations that have a significant percentage of Protestants to those that remained almost completely Catholic.
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:03 pm 55. Josh:53. Bob Murphy:
“Will Muslims far away really note the victor in the Battle of Afghanistan and comport themselves accordingly?”
Yes if they reasonably expect the same forces to affect the same outcome in their location.
Especially if they win.
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:03 pm 56. mac:I suspect that armed foreign military forces in the streets of the U.S. enforcing “order” will meet the same response as the British did at Lexington and Concord.
If Obama thinks he can cede American sovereignty by signing something at Copenhagen, he’s at least as high as he ever was on weed or coke. Not a chance in Hell this will fly and even the attempt would sink him and the Dems irrevocably.
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:12 pm 57. Delia:I’m scared.
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:20 pm 58. Abe:I went over to the NYT site and read the David Rohde series you linked to. It’s an interesting and entertaining read, highly recommended. I then made the mistake of reading some of the comments. Let’s leave aside the Non-Americans commenting. Let’s leave aside the “We Americans brought this on ourselves” contingent. How are we to understand the many comments asserting that extremist Talib are no worse than many (or most) Americans? Is this mere reflexive blathering? Are they merely disingenuously attacking their political rivals? Or is it possible that they truly believe (no matter how objectively ridiculous) that their political opponents are as bad as we see the Taliban as being? And given our prescription for the Taliban, just how far would the “hard left” go in dealing with us?
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:23 pm 59. Charles:38. Matt Beck:
Islam endorsed the arian heresy which theology is not part of the Calvinist, Catholic, Lutheran, or Eastern Orthodox tradition. Arianism was a third century heresy which said that Jesus was fully man but not fully God. It is from that period that the Nicean creed comes.
That said, the English speaking protestant world began to shift to the arian heresy after issac newton pushed the theology fervently. he used descartes scientific methodology to come to his conclusion . newton was held in near demigod stature for two centuries after his death in the english speaking world. people pretty much figured that if the master believed than it must be true. the unitarians got their start with newton. the arian heresy was all the exciting thing in the USA before the civil war. melville began his book moby dick “call me ishmael”. after writing the novel he began to attend a unitarian church for the first time in brooklyn.
on the continent the “higher criticism” school sought to use descartes scientific method ie “man is the measure of all things” to investigate the bible as a myth, like norse myths or greek myths. their work got into the divinity schools on the continent so that by the mid 19th century as the philsophy departments were advocating atheism the theology departments were advocating the arian heresy. this stuff jumped the pond at the beginning of the 20th century to american divinity schools so that by the 1940’s they were mostly teaching the arian heresy in the liberal mainline protestant churches. Other smaller denominations like the jehovah witnesses and the mormans also believed that jesus was fully man but not fully God.
In the 20th century christendom completely collapsed in europe.
however, in the USA unlike Europe there was and remains a strong evangelical component to christendom. in the USA– as happened in europe generations before — the liberal american protestant churches are in retreat — and their numbers are shrinking rapidly. the evangelical church membership is growing.
There are no culture wars currently in europe because the pagans have won.
meanwhile the dominant culture in the USA grows increasingly pagan even as the numbers of evangelicals increases. There remains a culture war.
we are right now in the very deep fog of war. I for one do not know how this will play out.
however, if in the next 10 years or so the tide does not turn — there is trouble for christians as the pagans currently hold the high ground.
“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
Oct 21, 2009 - 4:53 pm 60. Bpb Murphy:Great thread guys. Thanks, Wretch.
57.Delia
Oct 21, 2009 - 5:03 pm 61. Knight1:Don’t be scared, Delia. Empower yourself. Equip yourself to deal with the consequences of whatever happens. Get angry that there are elitist mongrels and barbarians that want to do sh*tty things to you and the rest of us reasonable types who would prefer just to get along with our lives.
I suggest you start with a good firearms training course and arm yourself so you can protect your home and yourself.
It pays to be more self contained spiritually mentally and physically when society and the established order is threatened.
#46 Subotai Bahadur and #50 DennisC,
Gentlemen, thank you for your responses. I’m going to pursue this inquiry – these are dangerous times.
Appropos of this thread, does anyone remember the song by the Kingston Trio, “The Merry Minuet?” (I’m trying to post links for the first time here, so apologies if they don’t work):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y71_Cxui_oU
It’s much better if you hear it, but the lyrics are:
The Merry Minuet
The Kingston Trio
Words and Music by Sheldon Harnick
-From their 1959 LP “From the Hungry”
They’re rioting in Africa (whistling)
They’re starving in Spain (whistling)
There’s hurricanes in Flo-ri-da (whistling)
And Texas needs rain
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
AND I DON’T LIKE ANYBODY VERY MUCH!!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man’s been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Someone will set the spark off
AND WE WILL ALL BE BLOWN AWAY!!
They’re rioting in Africa (whistling)
There’s strife in Iran
What nature doesn’t so to us
Will be done by our fellow *man*—
Transcribed by Ronald E. Hontz
Oct 21, 2009 - 6:30 pm 62. Schizoid Tan:ronhontz@worldnet.att.net
retrieved from: http://www.songlyrics.com/the-kingston-trio/the-merry-minuet-lyrics/
S0Bama thought he could withdrawl from the IslamOdramas abroad and do their dirty work for them, here at home and from the executive office.
But what he didn’t count on was that the blood lust would continue and that old rivals would start trying to settle ancient scores that would spill over into sectarian turmoil through mutually assured jihad.
And that was Bush’s plan all along.
Knowing he would be leaving office soon, The Bush/Rove/Cheney triangular axis of bad things started to cultivate and lure the unknown 0bama with all the temptations and trappings of power, scouring his records from even the LSM, giving him a clean rap sheet and a false sense of security while Bush the puppetmaster pulled the strings of his master plan.
By then it was too late, and 0bama knew he’d been had, by the double reverse jujitsu jihad. Like a beetle on his back, he couldn’t even fall on his scimitar. He would be remembered for having policies that led to the death of more muslims than anyone in history.
And all he could hear was the laughing, the laughing, that insane laughing!
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:01 pm 63. toad:“PSSST, It wasss the BUSH ADMINISTRATION! AH HA HA HA HA HA! IT WAS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!! AH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!”
A Pakistani once told me IIRC, “We are not really a nation but a collection of tribes.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:14 pm 64. solovyov:I’m Punjabi and we’ve been at war off and on with the Pushtan since forever. You have four major tribes and the Saudi sponsored Madrases stirring things up so you also get the Sunni vs. Shia fight going also with their Wahabi version of Sunni. I’ll deny it if ever accused of saying it, but I think our biggest mistake was separating from India.”
JL, it’s _partially_ right to say that constitutionalism and (less so) capitalism followed the Reformation. Of course there has always been trade, however the invention of double-entry bookkeeping in late 14th century Florence did a great deal to get capitalism off the ground in Europe.
Much of modern constitutionalism indeed grows from attempts by 16th and 17th century French Protestants to find a way around the Pauline injunction to obey the governing (in this case Roman Catholic) authorities. Yet one might also trace limits on English central government back to the Magna Carta.
The most important sense in which the Reformation brought about constitutionalism is that it was the 16th century’s destruction of the unity of Western Christendom that caused a crisis of authority up and down the political chain. One response was the invention of the Divine right of kings. Another response was a series of attempts to create political foundations _de novo_, i.e. constitutionalism.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:38 pm 65. Jean Valjean:Whiskey @ 52,
I’m wondering how you reconcile your view that BHO wants major US cities nuked w/ the possibility that such an attack might cause him to be included among its casualties. I realize that the WH has some pretty secure facilities etc., but he can’t always be in a position to immediately occupy one of them. I am assuming, of course, that DC would be on any Muslim hit list and that such an attack would be unannounced. Additionally, his trips to other major US cities are often publicized well in advance of the actual event. It seems to me that he could guarantee his own personal safety only by being privy to the Muslims’ plans for attack. I will not pursue that track further, at least not at this time.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:40 pm 66. Wadeusaf:The Muslim Internecine Fighting (MIF) has roots in the Modern era directly in the partition of Pakistan from India. The forces that have stymied the development of a successful democratic republic in Pakistan are the same today as they were in 1948, and the failure of Pakistan to achieve a stable civilian government is the same failure on display today in Iran and to some degree in Turkey. The republic of Iraq is the real test.
Replication of a successful IIraqi republic, even on a smaller scale in Afghanistan, would be the death of radical Islam, as a working secular government responsive to the economic and judicial challenges of the nation would destroy the allure of the Islamists and reactionary’s.
It is a long road from 9/11 to here, and a long way to travel still. But the way is clear and the point to turn back is behind us. I do not think president Obama can screw it up too much, even as he acts foolishly to undo what President Bush set in motion. However if he acts intentionally to let the Islamists off the hook, and enables Pakistan to surrender to the Taliban, then a wider wilder war will be a near certainty, IMO. The democracy movement that stalled during the middle of the Bush administration is not dead, but it is not healthy. Thankfully, unlike the Ayatollah, it is not old and feeble or a failure.
Oct 21, 2009 - 8:21 pm 67. Lifeofthemind:Habu, Knight1, DennisC and Subotai Bahadur,
It is not so clear cut as to say it would be a bright line of usurpation if BHO issues Executive Orders to conform to an agreement that has not been ratified by the Senate. The State Department series listing agreements the US is bound to is titled T.I.A.S. for Treaties and International Agreement Series. The fact is that any Minister Plenipotentiary has the power to enter a binding agreement on behalf of their country. In fact every time that an army captain signed a purchase agreement for fuel in Germany they were acting as such an officer and entering upon a binding international agreement on behalf of the United States.
For decades efforts have been made to define the distinctions between: 1) administrative agreements, enterable upon Ministerial or agency authority, 2) treaties governing a purely international relationship that would be effective upon Senate ratification, and 3) conventions that would change domestic law and which should demand enabling legislation or additional assent by the House of Representatives. All such efforts have failed.
Just as the Interstate Commerce clause gives the Congress almost unlimited power to regulate domestic activity the power to enter into binding International Agreements gives the Executive almost unlimited authority to regulate domestic conditions. The only firm controls that Congress has had that prevented wild abuse of the treaty making power by the President has been custom and the power of the purse. The first means nothing to Obama and the second was ceded by Congress with the Tarp bill a year ago. If Obama orders the EPA to issue regulations in accordance with Kyoto or the Copenhagen Treaty then the only hope to overturn that would be legislation to the contrary and an appeal to the Judiciary. That is not going to happen with this Congress and may not in the next. If a repudiation did get through Congress and survived a veto there is no guarantee how the Courts would rule.
Matt Beck et al,
The discussion of the Nestorian roots of Islam is fascinating. Many of the early converts to Islam, in Syria, North Africa and Bosnia especially, were from oppressed Christian minorities who preferred Islam to the rule of the Byzantines.
toad,
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:29 pm 68. RagnarD:The realization among some of Pakistan’s urban elites that they lost in the partition by being chained to the rural Pashtun reactionaries and steppe culture has parallels. Sophisticated Greeks regret the loss of their position of influence in the Ottoman Empire. Many Jews resisted Zionism on similar grounds until the Holocaust convinced them that there was no alternative. Elitists like the Sulzbergers of the NY Times remained and remain skeptical of the idea of a Jewish National Home. Small nation nationalism was a product of the Romantic Movement, championed first by Lord Byron in Greece and a century later by Woodrow Wilson. League of Nations, UN, Wilsonian Self Determination is not the same as Democracy. The two concepts have completely different origins, allegiances and consequences.
Habu @ 9 said:
May be O/T but not off point. This is part and parcel of the issues threatening the US at this juncture. The question becomes, in one small aspect around the recent talks with Russia, why did the regime in DC treat the failures in those talks as no concern? The answer is that there are bigger things afoot. As you point out so succinctly.
Cannoneer No. 4 @ 10 said:
True. And if you ask the Asia hands, the problems with International Jihadism do not source in Iran or Gaza or Damascus but in Lahore and Islamabad and Kabul. And they have for some time for the reasons that wretchard, you and others point out. We could do it right as we have quenched the fires in Baghdad for the time being but it appears that we will not for the other bigger games afoot as Habu shows. We should stay in Iraq as advisers and go put a fort-and-trading-post system in Afghanistan. Then maybe we could get a handle on the whole thing. Maybe.
JMH @ 28 said (in part):
Which is what Lenin also said, I believe. Now, I am not conflating you with Lenin, but the pResident does most likely lean that way. It’s all that hanging out with the radicals in his college days, you know.
Subotai Bahadur @ 46 said:
Yes, this does make sense. The Constitution does state that the senate must ratify any treaty with another country. What is the current regime’s work around? Perhaps that this is an extraordinary treaty with a non-governmental entity? An NGO? I do believe that there will have to be several pieces in place before this can be tried.
Oct 21, 2009 - 10:39 pm 69. whiskey:The interesting thing is that technology and globalization is fracturing the West as well as the Muslim world. Consider the “revolt of the elites” ala Obama against Bush watered down populism, or the Yosi Sergants and Shepherd Faireys of the West, against Sarah Palin and her followers.
Just as the AK-47, cheap IED, disposable cell phones, the internet, and lots of global travel and mobility enable the Jihadis modeling themselves after Mohammed (kill the Western enemy in Medina, to assemble an exile army and retake Mecca), the internet, astonishing skills, and alternative media make the Joe the Plumber guys in the game against the Sergant/Fairey hipsters of independent wealth.
[It is fascinating to see the class divide in Fairey/Sergant/Ayers -- people of wealth and leisure, against the populists. In that regard the Obama backers are like the Jacobins facing the emergence of an obscure Corsican corporal somewhere.]
Technology by keeping underdogs in the fight allows for fights to just keep going on. Until the fight intensifies for one of naked survival.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:39 pm 70. Subotai Bahadur:#67 LOTM
Of course, not all Executive Orders would be that clear, bright line. I thought I was being clear when I said:
“An administration that has invested much in Executive Orders to permanently implement rule outside the legal and constitutional realm … “.
If he uses some form of treaty, ratified or otherwise, as an end around to transfer control of our lives to a foreign body, like Britain is and has been for decades governed by the EU; or to allow foreign intervention on US soil … it is on. I rather suspect that for most Americans, the colloquial name given to any foreign “enforcers” on our soil under whatever pretext would be “targets”, if not something more colorful.
Poetry turns up on occasion here at BC. I don’t know how this would scan if retranslated back into the original language.
If I may quote and (modify) a couple of lines from a Japanese military song called Umi Yukaba:
If duty calls me (from) (my) mountain,
A verdant sward will be my pall;
Thus for the sake of (our)(country)
I will not die peacefully at home.
Subotai Bahadur
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:52 pm 71. JMH:Lenin was evil and corrupt, but not stupid. The internal struggle is what matters. For example, what difference does it make what treaties we have or haven’t signed when Obama is fillling the EPA with warmingmongers and Reid and Pelosi have Congress nationalizing major industries and passing Cap-n-Trade?
And given the behavior of the, ahem, International Community towards American these last few years, once the Leftists are out of power in the US I don’t see any great constituency of American voters who will give one tinker’s damn about walking out of any international agreements previous administrations have entered into. If the Left is turned out of power in this country, it will be a Jacksonian America that emerges, and the International Community has pretty much proven dishonorable and unworthy of respect. They’ll be considered to have already abrogated their end of too many bargans, we won’t worry about tossing the rest in the ash can.
Oct 22, 2009 - 12:41 am 72. Barry Meislin:Three ponderables:
Iran
Oct 22, 2009 - 1:35 am 73. Wednesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath:Pakistan
India
[...] In Pakistan … unrest. [...]
Oct 22, 2009 - 4:23 am 74. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e90v3:[...] In Pakistan … unrest. [...]
Oct 22, 2009 - 4:23 am 75. For the Water Cooler » Evangel | A First Things Blog:[...] In Pakistan … unrest. [...]
Oct 22, 2009 - 4:24 am 76. Wadeusaf:Habu, are you and Lord Christopher Monckton referring to this document?, which is a refinement of the Bali conference, aa well as resuscitation of the Kyoto Protocols?
IOW Al Gore’s wet dream of a Carbon scam.
Oct 22, 2009 - 5:13 am 77. ScenarioA:Normally, one might think that attacks on such soft targets as schools as an indicator of extreme weakness of the attacker. I see another explanation for the recent attacks in Pakistan. My guess is that these attacks, together with others since the successful storming of Army HQ on Oct 10, provide an adjunct to diplomacy, taliban style and are connected to the current Pakistan Army offensive in South Waziristan. I understand that, three days into the offensive, the Pak army was still in negotiation with important tribal leaders in the region. If my guess is correct, these attacks have no cosmic significance beyond their influence, if any, in setting terms and conditions for the ongoing military operation in South Waziristan.
Speculating further, it’s not unreasonable to guess that the recent attack in Iran might also be connected to the operation in South Waziristan. AQ jihadists, fleeing the long advertised sweep of their base, would have to go somewhere. Possibly some of them joined Jundallah, bringing with them their considerable bomb making expertise.
On far firmer grounds, I note that the Shia branch of Islam has already encountered its “Martin Luther” in Sistani at Najaf. Sistani’s quiet and apolitical form of Islam is not only compatible with democracy – it is actively supportive.
Oct 22, 2009 - 5:43 am 78. Doug:There’s No Substitute for Troops on the Ground
Max Boot
“I HOPE people who say this war is unwinnable see stories like this. This is what winning in a counterinsurgency looks like.”
Lt. Col. William F. McCollough, commander of the First Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, is walking me around the center of Nawa, a poor, rural district in southern Afghanistan’s strategically vital Helmand River Valley. His Marines, who now number more than 1,000, arrived in June to clear out the Taliban stronghold. Two weeks of hard fighting killed two Marines and wounded 70 more but drove out the insurgents. Since then the colonel’s men, working with 400 Afghan soldiers and 100 policemen, have established a “security bubble” around Nawa.
Colonel McCollough recalls that when they first arrived the bazaar was mostly shuttered and the streets empty. “This town was strangled by the Taliban,” he says. “Anyone who was still here was beaten, taxed or intimidated.”
Today, Nawa is flourishing. Seventy stores are open, according to the colonel, and the streets are full of trucks and pedestrians. Security is so good we were able to walk around without body armor — unthinkable in most of Helmand, the country’s most dangerous province. The Marines are spending much of their time not in firefights but in clearing canals and building bridges and schools. On those rare occasions when the Taliban try to sneak back in to plant roadside bombs, the locals notify the Marines.
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:23 am 79. Lifeofthemind:Wadeusaf,
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:23 am 80. Teresita:Good catch with the draft climate change framework convention. Remember that that collection of proposed amendments is at 180 pages less than 20% of the length of the unread Stimulus, Health Care and Cap and Trade bills that the Democrats attempt, in the first case successfully, to ram through Congress. They have fun referring to the Conference of Parties (COP) that will establish a government. Perhaps they can establish a headquarters in Munich for the new regulatory entity and call it the Bavarian Administrative Department. We can all take our orders from the Bad Cop.
Exhelodrvr: There is a noticeable difference in the development paths if you compare the nations that have a significant percentage of Protestants to those that remained almost completely Catholic.
This doesn’t compute. Of the top ten nations by GDP, France, Italy, Spain and Brazil are “almost completely Catholic” while Germany is (and since the Reformation has been) roughly 50:50 Catholic. The US and the UK are the only ones that have a Protestant majority (although Baptists in the US would think a high Church C of E liturgy was pure Popery). Japan, China and Russia are essentially atheist.
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:31 am 81. Teresita:Charles: Islam endorsed the arian heresy which theology is not part of the Calvinist, Catholic, Lutheran, or Eastern Orthodox tradition. Arianism was a third century heresy which said that Jesus was fully man but not fully God.
Arianism said the Son did not exist from all eternity co-equal with the Father. In other words, Jesus was created by the Father. It is endorsed by Islam in the same way it is essentially endorsed by Judaism. Jews believe a man Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, but that God created his spirit like that of all other men. Mormons and JW’s hold this view too, and Seventh Day Adventist prophet Ellen White flirted with it. The consequence for soteriology is that if Jesus was only a man, why would his death alone redeem mankind, as opposed to the death of any other man?
Oct 22, 2009 - 7:01 am 82. HEPT:DELIA 42 >Isn’t there SOME hope for Islamists or are they eternally doomed to the dark ages forever?<
I see no hope in Islam. ya just cannot fix stupid.
Oct 22, 2009 - 7:20 am 83. Marzouq the Redneck Muslim:Scenario A #77,
Good point about Aytallah Sistani (PBUH).
Doug #78,
This is a good illustration of the “Armed Peace Corps”. U.S. Marine Corps and certain U.S. Army units proved the effectivness of this tactic in Vietnam. Bing West’s book “The Village” is an excellent chronicle of a Marine platoon using such tactics plus the bravery of the Marines and their allies.
Salaam eleikum!
Oct 22, 2009 - 7:47 am 84. Doug:43. Knight1:
“#9 Habu – thanks for bringing this up. This may be a dumb question that I could solve with some quick research, but can anyone tell me if this treaty were signed, doesn’t Congress have to agree? Vague memories of the Kyoto treaty come to mind. Anyone?”
Oct 22, 2009 - 8:22 am 85. Marty:—
Yeah, think they have to get 67 Senators.
It could then not be repealed, per Article 6 in the Constitution.
…if they can’t get the 67, it could be passed along with other legislation.
…but then it could be repealed.
Ratifying a treaty takes 2/3 vote of the Senate.
Short of that, general rule is that treaties once signed will be followed until either ratified or rejected. If not submitted by the President to the Senate, eventually people will see that as a game to get us to follow it without ratification, and try to “call the question” as it were.
In 1997 the Senate voted about 95-0 a resolution telling Clinton not to bother submitting Kyoto as signed, because of its effect on the US economy.
Treaty superseding the Constitution is extremely iffy, would have to be tested in court.
A treaty, esp. an unratified one but even one that has been ratified, cannot force Congress to make an appropriation or enact implementing legislation, tho the enforcement mechanism of the treaty could be used by other countries to apply pressure to do so.
Executive Orders can be rescinded by the same or a future President. In theory they only involve teh internal workings of teh executive branch, tho that branch’s scope has grown so large and Congress has delegated so much disctretion to it that such Orders can and do have substantive effects beyond what the Framers would have thought appropriate.
Oct 22, 2009 - 9:02 am 86. RagnarD:Teresita @ 80 said:
I cannot say for the last two but for Japan – WRONG! You cannot walk down the street of any town and not trip over a Buddhist temple, Shinto shrine or some sort of observance of a religion even in Tokyo. They are everywhere! The LDS has also had missions going in Japan for a long time and the church does well there.
Of course they are not Christian religions. And I probably miss that you are lumping them as non-believers just because they do not worship the same way as you do. My bad.
Oct 22, 2009 - 10:34 am 87. Charles:81. Teresita:
yup.
Oct 22, 2009 - 10:51 am 88. Teresita:RagnarD, I was in the Navy, I’ve been to Japan, I’m well aware of the Shinto shrines on every path, etc. Ancestor worship is atheism because theism is the belief in a personal Creator, and no one believes their ancestors were this Creator. Buddhism bypasses gods altogether, and becomes a system of good works and meditation which allow you to permanently step off the Big Wheel.
Oct 22, 2009 - 11:45 am 89. Knight1:#76 – Wadeusaf – thanks for the link – just lost hours reading it – overall sensation is the heebie-jeebies.
Oct 22, 2009 - 4:42 pm 90. Abe:Following up on my previous comment (#58), see the following article at Chicago Boyz:
Oct 22, 2009 - 5:13 pm 91. Knight1:http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/9801.html
For anyone interested in the actual documents of the upcoming Copenhagen Convention Treaty re Global Warming – here is the website – on the left are various components – I’ve set it to the page re countries in Annex 1 because it is not immediately obvious – note: you can actually click on the individual countries for their status and compliance:
http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.php
Oct 22, 2009 - 6:15 pm 92. Wadeusaf:Vets on the Hill
Oct 22, 2009 - 10:00 pm 93. Fresh Bilge » Islam’s Civil War:[...] other day I read a Belmont Club post that has stuck in my mind. Here is the apposite passage. Why would Muslims be bombing Muslims? Because they are involved in a [...]
Oct 23, 2009 - 5:32 am 94. Lifeofthemind:Teresita,
Ancestor worship is atheism because theism is the belief in a personal Creator,
Sorry no, this is solipsism. Redefining the terms to win the argument is not a tactic I can support. While one definition of theism is the belief n a personal creator that does not mean that atheism is simply the rejection of that particular belief. We see this debating trick often used as a rhetorical device and it should be challenged.
Your underlaying point is interesting and there are philosophical links between Buddhism, Ethical Culture type New Age quasi religious philosophies and Unitarianism that may leave their adherents more receptive to Socialism then those who adhere to a belief in a personal god. My argument has been that the nature of the deity in Islam is also functionally different than that in Judaism or Christianity.
Oct 23, 2009 - 6:40 am 95. Charles:The consequence for soteriology is that if Jesus was only a man, why would his death alone redeem mankind, as opposed to the death of any other man?
////////
I think this part is right.
A man has no more power to save people from their sins than a sheep or a goat. For this reason the people in arian churches that hold to this view remain dead in their sins. that’s why arian churches lose membership.
Oct 23, 2009 - 9:26 amSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.