Realism vs dreams

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jul 14, 2007 at 10:31

Hi, Chris G. !

Thanks a lot for your critical input.

Now let me consider a few things which I find unrealistic in your post.

> Ianus, you shouldn't be so fearful. Never did I say that Islam is a perfect innocent religion.

Not saying that Islam is a perfect inncoent religion is far from seeing it for what it is - a malicious totalitarian mind control in the service of a hedious death cult bent upon the physical conquest and spiritual enslavement and degradation of this world.

> Please explain how what I advocate is unrealistic and what a more realistic alternative is that will win the War on Terror?

Well, more than anywhere else at war efficiency and results are the only thing that counts in the last analysis. If you want to lose this war, please continue on the absurd path where the politicians interfere with and direct (=bungle) the job of the military to appease the dhimmi-minded opinion makers in hostile Eurabia and the even more hostile Near East.

Now more concretely :

>> The appointment of a special envoy to the OIC is an extremely important move. Mr. Pipes is right that they made a lot of anti-America statements at those conferences (and even more anti-Israeli statements). Nevertheless, without a voice in that conference we are unable to contest the allegations made against us and thus allow conspiracy theories and anti-Americanism to flourish in the leadership of the OIC.

This is an empty gesture that will bring no positive results whatsoever. It will be a sinecure for the diplomat in question. The envoy will be exposed to the corrupting influences of the Moslem environment. The statements against America will be made further on as they don't depend on whether there is an American envoy to the OIC or not. There are much more profound , structural reasons for their being made than just the lack of a watchful American at teh OIC. The envoy will be simply lied to while the oil sheikhs and their chain dogs across the Muslim and Eurabian world will be doing what they have always done - spreading anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.

>> If the special envoy is an Arabic speaking American Muslim and even better, is a traditional Islamic scholar who is skilled at inter-Islamic dialog (such as the American Shaykh Hamza Yusuf), he will be able to translate American foreign policy into an Islamic framework that can be respected in that part of the world.

Wishful thinking, dear Chris. You have to look at the way "inter-Islamic (or inter-faith for that matter) dialogues" have worked to understand that your postulate is most unrealistic. Thsese usually dialogues of the deaf. As they share no rational logical criteria, the only criterion is that of force. Allah is on the winning side.

An "Arabic speaking American Muslim" "translat(ing) American foreign policy into an Islamic framework" is a fine piece of word acrobatics but I do wonder how you imagine that ? If he tries to be pro-American the Moslems will treat him as a traitor. If he is pro-Moslem he will never ever support the US in the conflict with a Moslem state or entity or individual. This is strictly forbidden by the Islamic law ! In fact this is the central pillar of Islam - in EVERY conflict between a Moslem and a kaffir(non-Moslem) all Moslems will blame the kaffir. If you think otherwise, you must be living a dream world, dear Chris.

> > What I am more afraid of is that he will appoint a political friend who knows nothing about the cultures and religion of that region and who will make even more of a mess and more anti-Americanism. Whoever is sent can not be naïve about the back-stabbing nature of Middle Eastern politics and must understand the region and its complexity thoroughly.

To my mind what you say here is correct but contradicts what you have said above. You tacitly suppose Islam is like Christianity or any other religion you're familiar with. The problem is that it isn't and this is the central problem of the ruling elites of the West. They are clueless about who they are dealing with. If Bush enters a mosques shoeless and praises "a great religion", he only reveals his ignorance and corrupting influences of his Saudi "friends". His knowledge of Islam is next to nothing, if I may guess from what he has said about it in public.

> At any rate, respecting the religion of Islam is not "appeasement" as long as you respect those who follow peaceful and tolerant interpretations of the religion.

This is a question very often raised in this forum. There were hundreds of possible candidates as to who exactly are those "who follow peaceful and tolerant interpretations of the religion". Among the candidates were -Malaysia, Mauretania , Turkey , Pakistan, Isaq, Syria ...even Saudi Arabia .... ;).

On closer interpretation all of them turned out to be wrong candidates. You can find discussions on that topic under Dr. Pipes' previous articles.

> Bush does not respect those who seek to carry out death, chaos, and destruction in the name of Islam. Please, Mr. Pipes do not confuse the two and lump all Muslims together as so many neoconservatives do.

It is hard to say whom Bush respects or not. His and his predecessor's jihad on the Balkans has created and supported all along two Muslim states there - Bosnia and Kosovo and opened up a fruitful field for activities for his beloved Saudi friends for free. If the Saudis chose Bush as a tool to promote world-wide wahhabism, they can't be disappointed indeed.

As to Dr. Pipes , rest assured that even if his dismal jihadist apocalypse for America 2008-2012 came true, he would not change his mind in the slightest. He's a fanatic as far "moderate Islam" is concerned.

>> This is done using a wide variety of methods. The primary method being the usage of internet-based counter-propaganda in which not only extremists are refuted, but it is done in a multi-media format with production values that conjure the romantic imagery and emotions of Islam such as what you see in typical Al-Qaeda Jihadi videos.

> > The same goes for Shi'a radicals. Its not hard to find Hezbollah supporters on the internet who you can surprisingly have dialog with and get them to use some common sense if you know how to frame your arguments within an Islamic context that they can relate to.

I conducted an opposite experiment , dear Chris. I joined a "moderate" Muslim forum (Islamicboard.com) where I played the role of a "radical" Muslim and I "framed my arguments within an Islamic context". I was surprised at my own success. If you're clever enough you can make of those idiots (sorry "respectable Muslims") whatever you wish bar moderate , rational human beings.

If you don't believe, try and imitate my experiment with the same "radicals made moderates". I assure you it will be easy to have them again on the traditional Muslim war path.

> Sadly however, nobody seems interested in funding my research and I lack the internet expertise, production equipment, and funding to do all of the work myself. I can not tell you how frustrating it is when I know from my research that in one on one dialog with wahhabi types on the internet that extremists can be turned towards more traditional and peaceful interpretations of Islam.

"Traditional peaceful interpreations of Islam"? Dear Chris, you are no doubt a brilliant anthropologist, but I don't think that you're a professional historian as this statement is totally un-historical. It runs counter to the bulk of Islamic tradition and historical evidence.

> Simple things, like a female politician wearing a hijab at a mosque is not appeasement, but rather a sign of humility that goes a long way in winning the trust of Muslims.

Do you know the Latin phrase : "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"? Change "Danaos" in "Muslimos" and you'll have what all your trust of Muslim is worth of.

Trusting a Muslim is a dangerous delusion. You're a kaffir he's a Muslim and that's the end of the story, dear Chris. As long as you don't convert to Islam, you can't hope to have his trust as you understand it. And even if you do convert , then take heed to convert to a "right" sect as otherwise he might hate you more than if you were a kaffir.

>> However showing humility does not mean allowing extremists to run rampant such as we have seen in Britain and a few other European nations. There are limits to free-speech and any individuals who openly advocate violence and terrorism should be dealt with, especially when they are following ideologies that we know are deadly serious about what they say.

Ideologies? Those "extremists" are true Muslims while the silent Muslim masses aren't. That's why when the time comes the silent Moslem masses will support those "extremists" and not us kaffirs. That's the bitter truth we have to face. If we don't we should accelerate the Mars project as this earth will be made uninhabitable by the Moslems (modeartes made radicals) and their Western allies and do-gooders.

> There are also many Islamic values that are also valued by Western cultures and in which we all have a vested interest in promoting.

Can you give me an exmaple , please ?

I respect no Islamic values and I have no vested interests like Bush and co. in promoting them.

But I have a damn respect for Western culture and I know that I will not survive long its demise and the emergence of the Islamic West.

> So far I've yet to hear a single Republican or Democrat come up with any realistic ways to end the War on Terror. I am more then willing to back up what I advocate with solid research showing that it works.

According to Clausewitz the objective of any war is to break the will of the enemy and impose our own will upon him. N ow without defining clearly who the enemy is , you can't break his will ... or can you impose your will on a phanthom, a ghost ? It is like the ancient Greek fable of fighting the Nile god Protheus.

> Also, I have never seen any survey showing that Osama Bin Laden was the most popular person in the Islamic world. I would love to see that study.

You know that in any police state (all Middle Eastern states - with the exception of Israel - are police states) no objective studies are possible if they might cast some doubt on the regimes in power.

> At any rate, all I'm advocating is an alternative that attacks terrorism at its roots, that is cost-effective, and that fights against terrorism intelligently in a manner that has never been tried before. It is also capable of being tried in specific regions as an experiment. If my methods don't work, I'll be the first to say so and move on to something that does even if that means more war.

How long will you need to see the tangible results of your Muslim-friendly anti-terrorism measures "at its roots"?

> There are many Muslim leaders all over the world who are passionately fighting against extremism.

What they are fighting for is power and the moment they see that what you call "extremism" might boost that power they won't hestiate to use it against the West or another "extremism" within their despotic states. All those Muslim leaders are despots.

>> However they tend to get extremely little media coverage (because they're boring) except from the liberal left in the media (such as NPR, Frontline, etc...). My area of research is precisely on this issue. I am a cultural anthropologist who is currently developing alternative methods of counter-terrorism using traditional Islamic theology to counter Al-Qaeda type radical Islamic ideologies.

I wonder how you can do that piece of magic, dear Chris? Even if you do, this magic works both ways and I feel that it works even better when applied by Al Qaeda against "moderate Islam" after Dr. Pipes' breath-taking definition "Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, liberal, good-neighborly, humane, and respectful of women".

> But seriously...you shouldn't be afraid of Muslims taking over the U.S. Given the projected growth of Islam in America and migration patterns (that are totally different from Europe), that's not going to happen.

I am not afraid of that sort of conquest of America by Moslems. I am afraid of creeping, clandestine, unseen Islamization of America's power elites through Saudi bribes, Saudi grants, Saudi loans, Saudi orders, charities, aids, generosity, cultural projects, Islamic centres, scholarships ... wrapping and binding America with millions of little golden threads and golden chains which in the long run will make America a tool to execute the will of its Saudi paymaster ...

This is a more dangerous and disgusting form of invisible Saudi protectorate of the USA than an open Islamic takeover which awaits Western Europe.

Best,

Ianus

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".