Credit Where Credit is Due
Another good sign that conservatives are learning about the Islamic threat is National Review’s review of Andrew Bostom’s important book. This is certainly a step in the right direction (although the author still shows signs of his ignorance about Islam) and a welcome contrast to a previous article in NR and past dhimmitude. At least they have opened their pages to the debate—including those critical of Islam. Could it be that they are trying to compete with Human Events?
Links to other reviews of Bostom's book.
Wait, there’s more: the Pentagon is learning, too.
Paul Sperry, notes that: “Four years into the war on terror,
Someone at the Pentagon finally realized that: "… political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed. … Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."
posted by Jason Pappas at 8:39 AM
11 Comments:
I'm not inclined to believe the Pentagon is unaware of Islam as a strategic mechanism of the enemy. But, really all they have to know is that terrorists holed up in a mosque negates that mosque's protected status under the Geneva Conventions. Then the problem transforms from a never-ending philosophic debate to one easily wrapped up with a 500-pound bomb. When people get tired of mosques being leveled, they will stop letting mosques be safe havens for terrorists.
We didn't have troubles destroying churches that Nazis used as sniper positions in World War 2. The same principle applies.
Wars are won on the battlefield. The enemy is broken by overwhelming defeat.
Anything elese would be uncivilized.
It’s still important to be able to speak about the nature of the enemy. There’s something wrong if someone in the military, government, and media can say what is horrible about the enemy’s way of thinking and the religion that inspire those thoughts. You and I may know, but if it is unacceptable to say what’s wrong in public, we undercut our nation’s ability to fight the war.
As I said today on another venue: how the hell are we going to win the war if we are afraid of hurting the enemy’s feelings? What the hell is going on here?
The war of words is vital to our overall morale, strength of our resolve, clarity of purpose, and ferocity of implementation. The war can’t be lost over there (our troops can do it even as they are hamstrung); it can only be lost over here. We can defeat the enemy ... it only takes the will.
Leave the enemy's feelings to the triangulators. If he isn't feeling "If I don't stop this I'm going to be bombed" then he hasn't been bombed enough.
Beamish has a point but I will be more direct. The hypersensitivity to Islam is encouraging the enemy so don't waste time or loose sleep.
That article by Sperry is outstanding! I particularly liked the section about the three stages of jihad.
CAIR must be pissed!
I agree. As soon as I read that article I rushed to mention it here, even though I know that Front Page Magazine is a website many of my read will normally check. I didn't want anyone to miss that one. For a single article it really got to the bottom line about the Islamic threat.
The 3 stages really helps clarify the different ways the threat manifests itself. Most people believe if there isn't any terror acts today, there is no problem - like how they are shocked in London! A long time ago I said it's not just the way they fight but what they fight for. For example, it's not just that they target civilians in Israel instead of Israel's military. It's not that they don't fight like gentlemen (although it's not surprising that they find such methods acceptable without any shame.) But it's that they fight for the establishement of Islamic oppression. Terror, conventional war, or one time democractic election (like Hitler) ... it all amounts to the same end result.
The Pentagon got the whole picture. Now they might want to tell the State Department ... but let's enjoy this step. I think Hugh at Jihad Watch was only seeing the "glass as half empty." Still, I left a not of congratulations for Spencer ... since I'm sure all his books helped.
Jason,
I put up a lengthy article a day earlier than I had planned. We're expecting an ice storm, and the power lines may go down.
BTW, I didn't whore anything from your site, but found all the info "on my own," with some help from Dhimmi Watch and some files I had saved.
And, Jason, I take this opportunity to wish you the best of holidays and a happy new year. I celebrate Christmas--as you know--but I don't know if you do. Hence, the generic term, so to speak. I don't consider this a bow to pc, because I've always wished happy holidays to those not of the same faith as mine, or to those who are not followers of any faith. I call that "manners." Maybe that's wimpy of me, but that's the way I was brought up--to respect the feelings of others and to expect them to respect my feelings too.
Caroline,
I'm hoping that we've indeed reached that turning point which Jason has mentioned.
We’ll be putting up the Christmas tree this weekend. So Merry Christmas! Now, to get back to the shopping …
Hi Jason,
let us hope that the pentagon has developed this insight and subsequently act on it.
we must be optimistic.
May I wish you and yours the best of christmases and may you all prosper.
Jason,
Okay then. Merry Christmas!
I wish that you hadn't mentioned shopping. How I hate it! I'll have to go to the Harley-Davidson store to pick up a gift certificate for my cousin-in-law. And maybe even to the mall. Mercy!
Now, back to the topic of this artccle...I agree with Gandalf. We have reason to be optimistic. We can only hope that the Pentagon takes the appropriate action. Will pc and "Islamophobia" sink the efforts?
<< Home