Sad commentary about the "War on Terror" - DFWstangs Forums
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 4 (permalink) Old 05-14-2005, 10:36 PM Thread Starter
Married Man on 14Feb2010
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Sad commentary about the "War on Terror"

On May 19, 2005, next Thursday to be precise, America will have been waging the “war on terror,” for longer than it took us to fight and defeat fascism in WWII. Today, there are those who feel that this war will be over and forgotten within another three or four years, and history and progress will simply pick up where it left off without so much as missing a beat. There are others however, myself included, who view Sept. 11, 2001 as only the first salvo of a protracted conflict with an entirely uncertain outcome; the first thunder clap of a grave and foreboding, “gathering storm” from across the ocean.

Unbelievably, though three and a half years have passed during this war, we have yet to officially define the enemy, and we have still to rearrange our foreign policy in accordance with the goal of opposing and ultimately defeating this new and nebulous enemy. In short, we have yet to understand what our interests are and what our goals should be in this new and rapidly changing landscape of crude and barbaric violence coupled with sophisticated and skillful propaganda.

Europe, on the other hand, has long ago defined her interests in an alliance with the Muslim world so strong as to be virtually indistinguishable in terms of foreign policy. Our policy towards Europe should be altered to reflect this new reality instead of ignoring it in the flush of excitement over a seemingly democratizing Eastern Europe. Underneath, there are currents pulling “Old Europe” further and further away from us.

According to Bat Ye’or, in her excellent new must-read, Eurabia, Charles DeGaulle set in motion the policies that would result in the present realignment back in the early 1970’s. His feeling seems to have been that Europe should develop a “third way” in foreign policy by occupying a wedge between America and the Soviet Union, just as the development of socialism was a third way between capitalism and communism. Therefore, he began to develop ties with the Arab world that he believed would result in a third “world anchor” to stabilize the inherent instability of what was, in his day, was a very rapidly polarizing world.

Opening all of Europe including Britain to massive Muslim immigration was one result of these policies and this has accelerated the process by which European foreign policy has aligned with Arab foreign policy because of blatant political pandering for the votes of these new and suddenly large Muslim immigrant communities.
Arab foreign policy is essentially a "Muslim foreign policy" that is basically defined by two criteria. One, it is pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian with regards to Israel. This is derived from the Islamic view of the world in which any land under Muslim control must remain, forever and always, under Muslim control. If any is lost, the first priority of all Muslims must be to re-take that land. This understanding is derived from Islamic law that dictates all Muslim relations with non-Muslims even to the point of dictating the foreign policy of Muslim dominated countries.

Second, EU foreign policy as "Muslim foreign policy" is anti-American. This is also derived from Islamic law on the basis of America being predominantly a Christian nation. America’s Christianity is not the central issue here, however. It is just that in the world according to Islam, all non-Muslim peoples must be “struggled against,” in order to free humanity of what is to Muslims, the essential injustice of all that is non-Muslim. Non-Muslims with any amount of power over Muslims in any way are, according to Islamic definition, Muslim oppressors. Thus, opposition to and hostility towards America, both open and subtile, is based on an imagined solidarity with the poor and oppressed Muslim masses, victims of American and Israeli "aggression."

So, by aligning herself in an anti-Israel and anti-American stance at the behest of France, all of Europe has essentially adopted, albeit unknowingly, Islamic foreign policy as her own. She has also, quite knowingly, positioned herself as America’s adversary in this new world realignment; one that is rapidly polarizing just as in De Gaulle's time.

America herself however, has still to come to grips with these new realities, or even to completely comprehend this new and rapid shifting of world alliances that is proceeding on apace without her. Platitudes about “democracy on the march” and the “power of freedom,” simply will no longer do. Eventually, a new foreign policy must be constructed to promote our interests and to oppose those striving against our interests in the world.

It is not enough for conservatives to define our objectives in terms of a war that no longer exists, as “Reaganites v. Neo-Reaganites” as even the traditional understanding of liberal vs. conservative is changing. Communism has been vanquished, but Islamism is on the rise and it poses just as great a threat to liberty as communism or European fascism ever did, for Islam is likewise collectivist in theory, authoritarian in practice, cunning in propaganda and fanatically and ruthlessly violent.

Fighting this new threat requires new thinking: a new strategy for a new war. We must struggle against those shallow-thinking souls in this administration who regard the present “war of ideas” as merely a public relations battle over America’s image in the Middle East. We must also struggle against our fellow conservatives who apparently believe we must never waver in our support for the endless pouring of blood and treasure into the sands of Iraq as well.

As hard as it may be for some conservatives to admit this, we should probably disengage militarily with the Muslim world as much as possible, else we be sucked into the endless sectarian warfare that has always characterized Islamic societies. We should bid the good Iraqis and their Shi'a vs. Sunni civil war adieu, and instead perhaps, support the creation of an independent Kurdistan. There we could install a small, rapid-strike, high tech, great for intelligence gathering, military base for use in future emergencies in the region.

There will be future emergencies in the region, of that, I have no doubt. We will need some military presence there, especially since we have allowed the new Iraqi government to tread the road to Islamic governance that will guarantee its hostility toward us no matter how much infrastructure we repair or how many schools we decide to build. They will never love us, because true Muslims can never love the "enemies of God. Therefore, we must stop trying to appease them immediately and face this harsh reality with hard policies instead.

Next, we should disengage from the Muslim world economically. The massive transfer of wealth, in the form of oil revenue that is fueling Islamization in the region, must be stopped or at least slowed as much as possible. Having just lived through the amazing computer revolution brought to us solely by American ingenuity, I’m beginning to believe what my dear old granddad used to say, “Americans can do anything once we set our minds to it.” Let us find the will to kick the oil habit, whatever it takes, and however long it takes us.

Third, we need to contain current Sharia states like Iran to within their present borders and try to prevent the spread of Islamic Law in other Muslim states; most notably Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, and Iraq simply because Islamic Law is inherently aggressive and belligerent to US interests. The incredible insouciance of this administration on this vital issue will not look good in the history books of the future. That is, unless we allow Muslims to rewrite it, the way they rewrite history in every area of the world where they hold power.

Next, we must constrain the practice of Islam within our “law and liberty” states, especially in the anglosphere where precedents have not yet been set. To do this, we must come down like a ton of bricks with every ounce of our legal power on law breaking that is the expression of Islamically allowed practices, especially in regards to the oppression of women, such as wife battery and honor killings. We simply cannot afford to allow these practises to grow or to go unprosecuted. The law of the people must trump the law of Allah in the Western world in every instance, period.

In this battle, we must also adhere to our cherished conservative principles and especially uphold the “liberty” of free expression over the concept of the “equality” of religions. When the concept of the free practice of religion results in the oppression of individuals, that religious practice must be constrained and if possible, eliminated. On this principle, we must not compromise.

Lastly, we must begin to constrain the immigration of Muslims into our country and do eveything possible to prevent the creation of Muslim conclaves within the US. Let us return to the old idea of America as the melting pot, an idea that has served us well, and whose time has come again. Let us repudiate social relativism and multiculturalism, for these ideas have not served us well and no amount of liberal moralizing can change that fact.

We must also being shutting down foreign-funded mosques and to deport their foreign-born Imams. This one step would go a long way toward making our country safer from potential terrorists. American Muslims can fund and staff their own places of worship just as Christian congregations do.

If our Muslim immigrants would be Americans, they must be Americans first and Muslims second in terms of patriotic loyalty. Therefore, we must call upon all American Muslims to repudiate the concept of territorial sovereignty as it pertains to Islam. Allah may be sovereign over the heart of the individual believer, but he may not hold sovereignty over American soil in any way or at any time. This fundamental principle must be repeatedly stressed in this “war of ideas.”

Speaking of ideas, let us close with this one, from the Muslim Brotherhood philosopher, Sayyid Qutb, in his seminal masterwork, Milestones:

“This secret of man’s identity and his relationship with the creator and with creation, is the great question upon which man’s existence depends and will continue to depend until the end of time.”

On this one point, I wholeheartedly agree. All human beings are equal in the spiritual sense, because we are equally children of the living God. We hold this truth to be self-evident.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 4 (permalink) Old 05-15-2005, 08:01 AM
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
jyro's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
who are you quoting?

who wrote it?
jyro is offline  
post #3 of 4 (permalink) Old 05-15-2005, 08:56 AM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 783
regarding this part in the 2nd paragraph:"we have yet to officially define the enemy" This seems like a little bit of crap to me.
The enemy is always changing. My grandfather duked it out with Japan and Germany in WWII. Now look at our relationship with those countries. My "older" uncles went to vietnam. That was our enemy then. Now our enemy is a bunch of cowards who choose to kill innocent citizens from countries all over the world! We haven't caught that S.O.B yet in Afghanistan, but we will.

Sir-This commentary is truly sad.
MGDMike is offline  
post #4 of 4 (permalink) Old 05-15-2005, 12:38 PM Thread Starter
Married Man on 14Feb2010
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Originally Posted by jyro
who wrote it?

Originally Posted by MGDMike
regarding this part in the 2nd paragraph:"we have yet to officially define the enemy" This seems like a little bit of crap to me.
To me, war on terror is as winable as the war on poverty, war on drugs, war on people being scared. It is too abstract.

Who are we fighting against and why do they want to fight us? If we can't answer that, then we don't know who the enemy is.

Don't take me wrong, I support our troops and what they are having to suffer through. I personal think this "war" is unwinable, in the long run. We need to stablize the country and get the heck out. A couple years later, it will be a thriving muslim theocracy again that will curse the USA.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
Sponsored Links


Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome