too long, and overly alarmist in certain areas

Submitted by A Bhardwaj (Canada), Aug 8, 2009 at 15:00

As much as I sympathize and agree with the view that it is ISLAM that is a threat to global peace & free will of individuals, this article just didn't cut it for me. It was too long, and overly alarmist in certain areas. While I agree with one of the conclusions that pandering to Islamic peoples will never work and always result in failure (e.g. mussolini, napoleon, britain's machiavellian policies, the policy of the Congress led govt of India, and China's short-sited policy of arming and supporting terrorist sponsoring islamic states like Pakistan and Iran),

I believe that the article may miss the possiblility that US govt. may also be following a policy of divide and defeat. While I agree many left-wing imbeciles may actually believe the pandering rhetoric they spew, I believe it is equally likely that hard-nosed strategists in the US govt. may be using such language to divide Islamic societies, with the goal of making their ruling and general classes the target of Islamist terror. If the civilized world were to make this an openly declared war against Islam then all segments of Islamic societies would unite with the salafist terrorists. It is much better to get the peoples of Islamic countries to experience the vicious, vile, venom, destruction, nihilism, intolerance and murder of Islamic terrorism directly for themselves by pitting them and their personal self-interest against the goal of Islamic terrorist organizations.

Nothing is better at cleansing the hypocrisy and malice that exists in the hearts of many 'moderate' and 'secular' muslims towards non-muslims than making them the victims of their Islamic "brother's" terror and violence. In addition, such societies have no qualmes about using the most brutal and expedient methods of cleansing themselves of internal threats (apparently, muslims have no problems with mass murder and human-rights violations against other muslims as long it's them doing the killing; winess the Syrian massacre in Hama (20,000 killed), the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh (2 million murdered), the Arab genocide against black African muslims in Dafur, Jordan's 1971 pogrom against their cousins the palestinians, and now the indiscriminant Pakistanil saughter against Pakhtoons/Pathans in the NWFP and SWAT).

Therefore, I believe that the authors should perhaps make a distinction between the treasonous fools that think the Islam is peaceful and beneficial and those individuals who say similar things in order to create strategic and moral space to carry out a policy to coopt and pit incumbent and future stake-holders of Islamic societies against the forces of Islamic violence. These stakeholders include the young materialistic sex-starved youth, the middleclasses, the urban population, the commercial classes, their ruling elites, and the urban poor, Such a policy is not only wise and ruthless but is also just; it makes Islamic Violence "their" problem more than ours, it maximizes their casaulties while minumizing ours, and it gives both sides in the conflict a taste of the kind of "peace" that their Koran actually advocates.

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".