Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom This article raises some intresting points on why the West will fail against the Jihad movement. <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013041.php" target="_blank">http://www.jihadwatch.org/arch ives/013041.php</a> <<September 09, 2006 Can the West defeat the jihad? Ten reasons why not David Selbourne, author of The Losing Battle with Islam, has written a piece in the Times entitled, "Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not" (thanks to Nick). His points are well taken -- not so that we can go gentle into that good night, but so that we can begin to address these matters as quickly as possible. For it is never too late until we are actually put to the sword, and our children pay the jizya and wear the zunnar. And of course, even then begins the reconquista. 1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st centuryâ€. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue†to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy†to “taking out Islamic sitesâ€, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist†and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation. 2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace†nor a “religion hijacked†or “perverted†by “the fewâ€. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values†with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself. Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise†Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers†merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot. 3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill togetherâ€. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 In the early 1950's General McArthur also questioned whether communism could be defeated without another world war --sometimes time takes care of things in it's own way.
Originally Posted By woody We did defeat communism. We defeated by out lasting them and our big military built-up. Jihad can be defeated. It will certainly take time, lots of time. It's ridiculous to say it can't be defeated, but it was under the surface with communist and authoritian regimes. Are we to assume the return of powerful leaders is the answer? That's essentially the answer to Islamic fundamentalism with the caliphate will have absolute power over the Islamic countries and eventually, the world. The counter argument is democracy is the answer using the combination of the military and reason. Otherwise, capitulation and the slow suffocation of western countries is inevitable. I certain don't think running away is a viable solution.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<In the early 1950's General McArthur also questioned whether communism could be defeated without another world war --sometimes time takes care of things in it's own way.>> As statements go, I would agree. However, in the 1950s we were not dependent on a single Communist country for anything. Today we are dependent on the Muslim work for oil.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <As statements go, I would agree. However, in the 1950s we were not dependent on a single Communist country for anything. Today we are dependent on the Muslim work for oil. < I agree there are plenty of different circumstances that are different between the two, however just wanted to highlight the one that was the same, some of our most dedicated military and political minds had their doubts communism could be defeated also...in the 1950's that was as relevant as the comments about terrorism today. Same level of fear.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Same level of fear.>> And when we are faced with fear, sadly there are those who would take away our rights -- i.e. the McCarthy hearings and the Patriot Act.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I read the entire piece. I am in fundamental disagreement with almost every conclusion. Part of the problem is faulty reasoning based on the notion that "everyone knows (fill in the blank)." One example: >>The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty†— are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not.<< Really? In the battle of ideas Islam trumps freedom? If that were true, Islam would have spread inexorably long before now. That it has been largely confined geographically to its birthplace for hundreds of years is telling. During the time period that Islam was essentially contained within the middle east, principles of freedom were spreading throughout the world, not only in the Americas but in Europe, the former colonial provinces, and most recently in Communist bloc nations. (In point of fact, Islam's "robust" spread has actually been reversed. See the history of Spain as an example.) As long as arguments like these are built on shaky foundations, they will do little more than cause alarm.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>If that were true, Islam would have spread inexorably long before now. That it has been largely confined geographically to its birthplace for hundreds of years is telling.<< I wouldn't be so cocky. Europe came very close to falling to Islamic invasion. And northern Africa was once a bastion of Christendom, before it was overrun by Islamic invaders. It took 700 years to take Iberia back.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I wouldn't be so cocky.<< Trust me, I'm not. But I do stand by my assertions. Northern Africa was not really a "bastion" of Christianity during the rise of Islam. That the spread of Islam was stopped rather effectively in Spain is just the point I was making.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Northern Africa was not really a "bastion" of Christianity during the rise of Islam.>> St. Augustine of Hippo would disagree with you.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>That the spread of Islam was stopped rather effectively in Spain is just the point I was making.<< It was also stopped in Austria. My point was after running roughshod through northern Africa and eastern Europe, the Europeans were barely able to stop them, and even after stopping them it took 700 years to drive them out of Spain. And northern Africa was lost for good.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>St. Augustine of Hippo would disagree with you.<< What I mean by this was that northern Africa was firmly Christian by Augustine's time, and remained so until the Muslims invaded. You might argue that it was a backwater of the Roman Empire, but part of the Empire it was.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What I mean by this was that northern Africa was firmly Christian by Augustine's time...<< No, not really. Augustine's own father was a pagan. Augustsine's childhood and youth was spent in an atmosphere of constant struggle with competing religions and doctrines. That Islam grew rapidly, and spread into areas where Christianity had been introduced and even established is not in dispute. But the original point-- that the doctrines of Islam are somehow more "irresistable" than the doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition-- is, in my opinion, not borne out by history.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>But the original point-- that the doctrines of Islam are somehow more "irresistable" than the doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition-- is, in my opinion, not borne out by history<< I wouldn't say that Islam is against economic choice and economic freedom. True, it will never be truly capitalist (for instance, they are forbidden from charging interest on loans), but I think that there are many people in the world who do find Islam to be very compelling. FWIW, the west is more despised in the 3rd world than Islam. That said, I don't expect the secular and hedonistic west to rush and convert to Islam.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>No, not really. Augustine's own father was a pagan. Augustsine's childhood and youth was spent in an atmosphere of constant struggle with competing religions and doctrines.<< OK, how about Christianity was the ascendent religion in the empire at the time, and eventually Paganism, Gnosticism and Arianism faded away leaving Christianity with little competition.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I wouldn't say that Islam is against economic choice and economic freedom.<< Then you are also in disagreement with the original assertion that Islam is opposed to these principles, and destined to supplant them. >>Christianity was the ascendent religion in the empire at the time, and eventually Paganism, Gnosticism and Arianism faded away leaving Christianity with little competition.<< I would agree that in Northern Africa this was true, and that the region was not a "bastion" of Christianity. Hence, the conquest of Islam in its initial phase of conquest, which has been largely moribund for centuries.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Then you are also in disagreement with the original assertion that Islam is opposed to these principles, and destined to supplant them.<< But they are against civil liberties.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I would agree that in Northern Africa this was true, and that the region was not a "bastion" of Christianity.<< Agreed, it wasn't Rome or Constantinople.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Then you are also in disagreement with the original assertion that Islam is opposed to these principles, and destined to supplant them.<< In part yes. But I can see the west collapsing under its own weight, like Rome, and being supplanted by Islam by default. In some ways this is already happening in Europe. This would be a conquest by demographics, not by conversion or military invasion. I don't expect all those pretty Euro girls to trade in their topless swimsuits for burkas just yet.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>Northern Africa was not really a "bastion" of Christianity during the rise of Islam.>> St. Augustine of Hippo would disagree with you.<< I was thinking the same thing. St. Augustine is one of the most important of the Church fathers relative to the doctrines of original sin and the role of grace in salvation.
