Friday, January 27, 2006

Majority Supports Terrorists

Should we be shocked?

Through out the mainstream media, there is complete shock that Muslims, if given the chance, would vote for a terrorist organization but that’s exactly what has happened with the Hamas victory. We've been inundated with the lie that “it’s only a few” who support terror and “Islam means peace.” The kind of peace they have in mind is outlined by Robert Spencer and reduces to: we Muslims rule—others surrender and submit. It's four years after 9/11, and people are still ignorant about Islam. That’s the real shock!

After shock comes denial.

Politicians of all stripes are suggesting that members of Hamas can act contrary to their identity. It is as if their thoughts, feelings, tradition, religion, disposition and habits can just be jettisoned. President Bush asks for a change in Hamas' rhetoric on the issue of Israel’s destruction. Jimmy Carter hopes that they will now act responsibly. An editorial in the Times suggests that if Arafat can change …

Culture, like character, has to be cultivated over an extended period of time. Just as a person cannot be someone different tomorrow, so too a society cannot suddenly change the identity of its distinctive manner of viewing the world and behaving accordingly. One can, at times, act out of character but to do so on a sustained basis cannot be expected within reason. Redemption and transformation take years for an individual and generations for a culture.

During Arafat’s rule, PA-controlled areas were turned into terrorist training camps where children were groomed for jihad. The level of barbarity and savagery is now part of the character of the Palestinian culture. It’s a fact that one can’t wish away regardless of the reasons for its existence. It is what it is. The idea that Israel should join together with Islamists in the hope that they may change is less intelligible than an individual who marries an ax-murderer in the hopes of reforming them afterwards.

After denial comes appeasement.

“Those who harbor terrorists …” were the words of resolution that put the terrorist supporters on notice. Or at least we thought. Has the world changed? Sadly, no. The election is a logical consequence of decades of Western appeasement. The fact that Arafat, “the father of modern terrorism,” was rewarded with control of a territory and billions of dollars sent a clear message: terrorism works. After 9/11, despite the rhetoric of resolution, one of the first acts of our President was to unilaterally change our policy and endorse a state for Palestinians on the West Bank. Terrorism works. The Intifada, paused for a short period after 9/11, resumed with greater vigor. Immediately after the London bombing of 7/7, the G8 leaders meeting in Scotland at the time, pledged billions for Palestinian terrorists. Terrorism works!

The American government now has to choose: continue to fund the terrorists in the West Bank or end the appeasement. Is Bush to replace Saddam as the source of funds for Hamas? The road of denial and appeasement leads to such absurdities. The administration should not only change course but it should repudiate past actions and past administrations. The policy should be clear: no to appeasement! We were wrong in the past, let’s admit it. Let’s face the harsh reality: Jihad is a core part of the Islamic Revival. We will not be shocked in the future if we face reality today.

42 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

Jason:

The policy should be clear: no to appeasement! We were wrong in the past, let’s admit it. Let’s face the harsh reality: Jihad is a core part of the Islamic Revival. We will not be shocked in the future if we face reality today.

Indeed, the policy should be NO appeasement. It's the weak who appease. Just as weak parents give in to their child's every whim and wish in the vain hope that the child will start behaving itself better, so weak politicians give in to the demands of our foes in the vain hope that they will start behaving themselves better, too. But history has proved over and over again that appeasement NEVER works. One of the most recent examples, as we all know of course, was the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930's. We all know how that period of appeasement ended!

Not to appease takes courage and spunk and determination. Churchill had these in abundance. Few leaders today, if indeed any, show any such qualities.

But to confront also requires something else: It requires that the confronter understands what he is confronting. In this case it is the jihad and the unrelenting rise of Islam and the attendant resurgence of the Islamic identity that goes with it.

Denial of the true nature of Islam and the aspirations of Muslims is everywhere around: in the US, in the UK, in Europe, and in Australia, too. If any leader really, truly understands the problem we face, then he is certainly not showing. (It could be out of fear. I have heard it mentioned that the West cannot confront 1.2 billion ++ Muslims. That sounds distinctly like fear to me.)

Electorates have been lulled into a false sense of security. There is a general sense that the ways of the West are here to stay. Civilizations, as we all know, rise and fall, just as the tides ebb and flow.

It takes the perspective of history to know exactly when a civilization began its decent into the abyss. It is far too immediate for us to see clearly now. It's like viewing something too close to one: the image is always out of focus, so that the details cannot be discerned. However, there are signs aplenty that we have begun our decent!

The demise of the West is, of course, not inevitable. But what is very disturbing is this: We seem to have no leaders strong enough and determined enough to move us forward, to bring Western civilization to another even more elevated plateau. By contrast, the Islamic world, despite their backwardness in many ways, does not lack 'leaders' to push them onwards and upwards! Not upwards in the sense of cultural or scientific achievements, but upwards in the sense of seense of strength and might.

This is troubling indeed!

1/27/06, 10:51 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Thanks for expanding on my post. That’s exactly it. But I’m not only saddened by the lack of political leadership but also by the lack of intellectual leadership. Too many writers, conservatives included, are AOW on this issue. There are exceptions.

I have another post I’m working on to contrast America at the time of our founding with the state of our culture today. There are some interesting … actually appalling … differences that I don’t think are fully appreciated just for the reason you mention. Cultural changes are glacial in speed, so much so that one can’t sense these changes while they are happening.

1/27/06, 11:24 AM  
Blogger Duffy Nichols said...

Well said. But what does "no" to appeasment actually mean on the ground, so to speak. I am not disputing your premise, but I'm just not sure what specifically its implications might be.

1/27/06, 11:37 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

It involves many things. Stop giving money to the enemy; make appropriate moral judgments and express them; stop pressuring allies to capitulate to demands. In extreme cases it may mean ending diplomatic relations, reducing trade, or complete ostracism. It may mean refusing to respect legitimate grievances because a tactic exhibits a complete barbarity that it overrules all other considerations. Appeasement, intentional or otherwise, requires aiding the enemy. Ending appeasement involves at first disengagement but may proceed to opposition and even acts against the enemy depending on the nature of the enemy.

However, we aren’t even at step one: stop the aid and condemn the enemy. Of course, being consistent is a key requirement if you want to be taken seriously.

1/27/06, 12:35 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Mr. Ducky, I deleted your post because your manner of referring to the Secretary of State was racist in nature.

1/27/06, 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Bilwick said...

Anyone here surprised that Duck-Pasha is sympathetic to Hamas? Is there a Jihadist outfit he actually would oppose? I know the following scenario is far out, and what MAD magazine would call a "Scene We Would Like to See," but imagine if there were an anti-Zionist group who to overthrow "the oppressive socialist State of Israel" and replace it with, say, "the Free Arab Republic," run along classical-liberal lines, with a minimalist, democratic government for defense only, and a free-market economy? How much sympathy do you think Duck-Pasha and others of his ideological ilk would have for the Free Arab Republic?

1/27/06, 12:40 PM  
Blogger American Crusader said...

Great post. If democracy has a flaw it has to be that for democracy to work you need to have an educated electorate. The fact that Palestinians elected a terrorist organization without any governing experience, shows that they weren't ready for democracy.
I couldn't agree more with your point that we shouldn't be surprised by this turn of events. An Islamic government that goes by the Koran and Sharia law will never be a peaceful government and will always support terrorism.

1/27/06, 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

after appeasement - WAR!

Excellent post.

1/27/06, 2:42 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Duffy Nichols:

But what does "no" to appeasment actually mean on the ground, so to speak. I am not disputing your premise, but I'm just not sure what specifically its implications might be.

Jason answered (rightly, of course): It involves many things. Stop giving money to the enemy; make appropriate moral judgments and express them; stop pressuring allies to capitulate to demands. In extreme cases it may mean ending diplomatic relations, reducing trade, or complete ostracism. It may mean refusing to respect legitimate grievances because a tactic exhibits a complete barbarity that it overrules all other considerations. Appeasement, intentional or otherwise, requires aiding the enemy. Ending appeasement involves at first disengagement but may proceed to opposition and even acts against the enemy depending on the nature of the enemy.

I should like to add that we are appeasing the Islamic world now in part because we are forgetting what the West stands for; we are forgetting our own principles.

Muslims have principles to live by (even though they sometimes seem strange to us); but it seems that forget that we have principles, too. We should never lose sight of them, either.

The West seems to have become all things to all men. This should not actually be so: the West has been founded on very definite principles, and we should always try to keep them in mind. (I don't just mean democracy and freedom here, either.) We compromise those principles at our own peril.

It appears that we are yielding to too many demands made on us in a conciliatory manner in order to win favour with the Islamic world. We want their oil, remember! But we are compromising our own principles into the bargain.

For a start, we are allowing all these mosques and Islamic schools and Islamic propagation centres to be built here in the West, and we are doing this without making any demands on the other party. Haven't our leaders ever heard of the word 'reciprocity'?

Take Saudi Arabia as a case in point! They are afraid to demand of the Saudis that churches be allowed to be built there in return. Oh, people say: We can't do that because we want their oil. Yes, we do. And they want our consumer goods and food and cars and technology in return! (What do the Saudis produce other than oil and gas? Yes, they do. Dates! But they can hardly live by oil and dates alone!

But there is something even more important than this. It is that the Saudi régime would not be able to survive but for the West's support of the Saudi royal family. We keep them in power! That family could never keep itself in power were it not for our support. Never!

Furthermore, it is partly because of that support for the royal family there that we have incurred the wrath of Al-Qaïda and their ilk. It's not only our support of Israel that maddens them, but our support of their decadent royal family, too. Even when the average Saudi is quite short of money! (Living standards for the average Saudi have dropped in the last ten years, believe it or not!)

So the bottom line is this: There is no real need to appease these people. They need us every bit as we need them! We seem to lose sight of this, too.

We need to start showing them that we have some spine, we need to show them that our backbone is in tact! The nature of the Arab is such that they have no respect for weakness anyway. (They are essentially Bedouins, remember.) In many ways, they see the West as weak; and they take advantage of that perceived weakness as a result. Furthermore, the weaker they perceive us as being, the greater will be their demands.

1/27/06, 4:12 PM  
Blogger zama202 said...

"But what does "no" to appeasment actually mean on the ground, so to speak."

Jason gave a nice list in resoponse to this question. But let me add the one thing he did not say explicitly: War. A truly unapologetic and non-appeasing response to Islamic agression would involve the display of massive destructive force against many if not all of our Islamist enemies including the Palestinians.

All the land Israel gave to them should be taken back by force. The Palestinians should then be given a choice: accept Israeli governance and swear allegiance to the state of Israel or be exiled to Jordan or anywhere else by force. Then Israel should with the help of the U.S. invade Syria and destroy its military, and if neccessary its economic capabilities, and Israel should annex a large section of it so it becomes a legitimate nation in terms of its size. Then the US should arm it to the teeth and make it the US watchdog for the Middle East. If anyone in the region (including North Africa) acts up, Israel would be charged to destroy them.

That would be a rational foreign policy. That would be a nation fighting to achieve victory by any means. That would be an America and Israel that was proud and not infected with self-doubt and self-hatred.

I'm sorry but that needed to be said. Jason is one of my favorite comentators but I personally need to hear the call to war far more often.

1/27/06, 4:38 PM  
Blogger zama202 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/27/06, 4:40 PM  
Anonymous leelion said...

Many in the free-thinking west struggle to understand the mindset of muslims in general.

And I see a muslim group is now threatening suicide bombings in Denmark over the "cartoon-rage" thing.
As Daniel Pipes once wrote; "the (very dark) human comedy continues."

1/27/06, 7:31 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Both of you (Mark and zama) are making extremely important points. But before I address them directly (which means explain how I agree), I’m becoming even more alarmed over the inability of our President to express little more than a quizzical pondering of the oddity of engaging in negotiations with those who use words advocating the annihilation of the Israel, which seems to be the limit of his concern. Let’s review how we got here.

For over a decade our government under several administrations pretended that Arafat was not a terrorist. “We” pretended that the Palestinian people have changed and it is only a minority that supports terror. Krauthamer expressed it well on the television today when he said nothing has changed except the façade has dropped and the ugly truth is exposed. Our deliberated self-deception fooled no one but ourselves. “We” believed that if we lie they’ll change. But we’ve only achieved the destruction of our ability to face the truth. And the terrorists in the West Bank fully expect that we’ll continue to lie to ourselves.

What I expect is that the President will only ask for a verbal change, and when that happens (in English only) he’ll pretend that substantial change allows us to support the new Palestinian state. We give $500 million a year to the terrorist people in the West Bank (according to the network news.) And they will be bankrupt in a week if we stop!

The self-deception and rationalizations already started. Juan Williams, on the same set as Krathamer, said we have to continue to give them the $500 million or someone else (like Iran) will and that would be worse. Why? Is it worse that the 9/11 hijackers got their money from bin Laden instead of the State Department? This bizarre logic is typical of what is coming. A sustain practice of immorality makes it hard to think straight but on some level one knows the truth. And as hard as it is, one has to reform.

We are like the women (or man) that keeps finding excuses to believe our drunken husband (or wife) will now reform. And they know that being excused yet again means they don’t have to reform. We, too, have to change our past habits. We’ve supported the terrorists in the West Bank and most people have tried hard not to draw attention to it. Now, as Krauthamer has noted, the façade has fallen. What will we do? Listen to sweet words and close our eyes?

It’s time for a policy of zero tolerance. No more money to anyone – absolutely anyone – in the West Bank. Here’s what I would say as President:

“It is clear that by embracing the terrorist organization Hamas, that the people of the West Bank have sunken to a level of depravity that we can no longer avoid facing the truth. Over the last decade, under Arafat’s control, a culture of savagery emerged in a people we once believed we could help. The educational and cultural institutions have cultivated a jihadist terrorist mentality that has resulted in a people who are an enemy to civilization. This is a change in character that is so great it will take a generation to transform Palestinians into a recognizable member of civilization.

We respect the democratic process and its result. We respect that it expresses the will of the Palestinian people. We respect the fact that they have decided to become our enemy and the enemy of all good people everywhere. And we will act accordingly. We will no longer give one cent to our enemy. We will insist that anyone who accepts our aid will also not give one cent to our enemy. No American citizen can trade or travel to PA areas. All visitors from the PA controlled areas will have to leave America. We will not support terrorists nor will we support those who harbor terrorists.

As we support the United Nations, our continued support will also be contingent on our policy of zero-tolerance for terror states. We were wrong in the past. We apologize for being so blind. We repudiate the Oslo process and our past support for Arafat. We now embark on a new policy—a moral policy—that requires we not longer support savage killers bend on the destruction of civilized peoples.”


Zama, this of course, would be the first step and the bare minimum of an acceptable policy. Mark, this would be a step to re-establishing a moral posture.

What can we do to further a change in our government? Can we keep a vigil every day that our gov't gives money to Hamas? Can we take out ads in national newspapers once a week to remind people that Bush is funding Hamas as Saddam once did? Can we put pressure to insure that our leaders don’t pretend and return to business as usual? What do people think?

1/27/06, 8:11 PM  
Blogger beakerkin said...

Jason

I seldom disagree with you but there is a subtle point you have been overlooking. The over looked factor is the massive corruption in Fattah. The UN and the EU gave a wink and a nod at unprecedented theft and a culture of corruption.

The economy is in a shambles and if the USA and some of the Europeans suspend aid the economy will get worse. There is a genuine prospect for a Palestinian Civil War and of course who gets the blame Israel.

There is a hidden secret in this as Hammas at some point may crack down on rival groups and bring them under one leadership by force.
This might sound odd but totalitarians do strange things all the time.

1/27/06, 8:49 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I haven’t over looked that fact so much as I think the welfare of those who choose to become terrorists or support terrorism is no longer our concern. And Israel has withdrawn from Gaza. A civil war, which may indeed have just started, is a tragedy; but we cannot support savages who no longer are capable of being members of civilization. The choice was theirs to make long ago. They are now who they are.

I don’t even favor an ultimatum (as I just saw Newt make on TV) because it assumes they can be who they aren’t. That possibility no longer exists. It's been drummed out of them long ago.

We must not support our would-be killers. We have to be firm. I respect your disagreement. However, I feel strongly about facing facts and taking a firm moral position.

1/27/06, 9:47 PM  
Anonymous leelion said...

Jason, you wrote; "Culture, like character, has to be cultivated over an extended period of time."

Here's a question: Is Islam fully responsible for the Arab world's failure to change over the last 1400 years? What if Muhammed had never existed and the Arab world had followed Zoroastrianism or been Christianized? A difficult question I know and I don't know the answer but it's interesting to ponder.

1/27/06, 9:47 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
I'm late in getting here--and this is a very important posting with comments which complement it.

Why am I late? I've been busy, of course. But not just busy.

Since the news that Hamas had won the election, I've been sitting around in a dazed state. I'm not paralyzed into inaction, but I'm finding it hard to write much these last few days.

I worried all along that Hamas might win. But that was an intellectual worry, not yet a reality, and I kept hoping that the outcome would be something other than my dire prediction.

I find myself being very quiet these days as I consider the significance of what has just happened, on top of the Iranian situation.

Politicians of all stripes are suggesting that members of Hamas can act contrary to their identity....President Bush asks for a change in Hamas' rhetoric on the issue of Israel’s destruction. Jimmy Carter hopes that they will now act responsibly.

Good grief! How clear does the gravity of the problem have to be before somebody stands up and shouts, "ENOUGH!"?

As I said over at Mark's site, I'm no quitter. But I am so disheartened that appeasement seems to be our leaders' chosen path.

I'm rambling, I know. But the multitude of signs of danger keeps compounding.

1/27/06, 9:54 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I know how you feel, AOW. I go back and forth. Sometimes I look at the culture and think its such a long way to go that we won't change in time to avoid disaster. But then I see signs of hope. I still think it will get worse before it gets better.

I just was listening to a Democratic pollster who was surprised that a majority of Americans want to take action against Iran. He said it is surprising because no major figure is talking about it. It is a popular groundswell. That makes me optimistic. The American people have good sense. People are talking … perhaps online, perhaps talk radio … or they are just thinking on their own. The pollster thought it was odd that even those who aren’t pleased about Iraq are pro-active on Iran. Interesting.

1/27/06, 9:58 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
Thank you for your last comment. Yes, this helps: a majority of Americans want to take action against Iran.

Maybe I'll feel better tomorrow. But whether or not I feel better, I'm going to slog on. Tough to do, but I will stay strong.

I recognize that things will get worse before they get better. I'm prepared for that reality--as prepared as one can be, that is.

I was just hoping that our leaders would wake up before the getting worse happened. I don't believe that any more, and that's one tough pill to swallow. In a way, my blog article today reflects that recognition, in a somewhat subtle way.

Good night.

1/27/06, 10:41 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Moving forward in the face of doubt and fear is all we can do. I wonder how our parents got throught WWII or how the British in London got through it all. But they did. Good night, AOW.

1/27/06, 10:54 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Leelion. It so hard to tell. The Eastern Orthodox regions didn't thrive like Western Christian regions. A lack of Islam isn't enough. However, maybe if there was no Islam, thinkers like Averroes, Maimonides, al-Razi, and other might have had a greater effect.

1/27/06, 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anna Doe said...

I think arabs were normal guys before islam, like the persian were, and the egyptians, and the phoenicians, and the assyrians and so on before islam fanaticalized them...

They were not less or more peaceful than many others, and they would have modernized like others with the centuries.

If I understand well, they were polytheists and marchanders. And they didn't accept mohamed violent cult until they had no choice "convert or die", like all the others islamized victims of this word.

It is like a german nazi, is he worst than a french nazi? Maybe more proud of his madness?

Arabs were the first victims and became the first perpetrators of the evil islam.

Christians arabs are no failure, are they? So i would presume it is not the race, but the religion that is to be blamed, i.e. not their genetics! I think an adopted kid who is not told he was a palestinian will not turn to violence more than another.

The question is even if we eradicate islam and most muslims leave their religion, will they turn bitter or will they like most germans turn better?

1/28/06, 1:56 AM  
Blogger beakerkin said...

Jason

You know I am a big fan as well as one of your earliest readers.

I wonder how we seriously could tell if a Civil war broke out in Gaza. There is so much random violence and anarchy that it would be hard to notice.

The message about Fattah and the far left is clear. The far left is just a scheeme for theft with good
PR.

1/28/06, 7:47 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Yes, the religion is the key. The difference between Pakistan and India is the religion. They have the same ancestry and have lived in the same region experiencing the same colonial history. India has had a stable democracy for 60 years and is now embracing free markets & wealth-creation. Pakistan has repeatedly turned towards dictatorship and is currently plagued with the growth of fundamentalist Islam. I see hope in India but Pakistan teeters on the brink. The big difference is the religion.

Turkey, which suppressed Islam, is fairing somewhat better than their Arab neighbors but it too is in danger of a relapse with the revival of Islam. If only the Persians could get rid of Islam. They could have a vibrant culture again. Christian Arabs did embrace the socialism/fascism like their Muslim brothers. But as bad as that was, the revival of Islam is worse. We have to remember that most countries that got their independence 60 years ago flirted with socialism. Now the revival of Islam is the problem.

1/28/06, 7:56 AM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

I heard on the news this morning "Hamas remains defiant in the face of the world," or something very like that.

Here is Hamas's charter, from this source:

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times...

It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kassam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after...

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...’


Guess they're going to stand by their charter.

1/28/06, 8:01 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I don't have a solution for Gaza and PA areas in the West Bank, beak. It looks like civil war can break out any day. It's a result of decade’s disintegration. Remember in the 1980s when any Arab who wanted peace with Israel was killed? I remember there was an editor who was killed. Anyone who proposed living in peace next to Israel was called a collaborator and they left the region, were killed, or lived in silence only to see their children taught jihad at school.

There needs to be a de-Nazification and re-education that will take decades. Who’s going to do that?

As I write I see AOW has the Hamas charter. This is what they believe. They many not have the means at present but if they did I have no doubt they would act on it. We have to stop supporting them, indirectly or now directly. We can't solve their problem but they are a problem to others as well. And we shouldn't fuel the problem or be complicit in it.

1/28/06, 8:06 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Let me add:

Let remember the role we play by giving the Palestinian terror state $500 million a year. We shield them from their failure; we allow them to fantasize that Islam works.

If we stop that aid, shun them, and single them out as the embodiment of barbarity, the message will be clear to Muslims everywhere. 1. We take seriously the threat of Islamism. 2. We mean what we said about not dealing with terrorism. 3. The disintegration of Gaza (for example), now that we don’t fund it and Israel has disengaged, proves the bankruptcy of Islam. 4. Your oil-rich Muslim brothers aren’t there for you. (So much for that pillar of Islam.)

1/28/06, 8:19 AM  
Blogger John Sobieski said...

jason wrote...'by giving the Palestinian terror state $500 million a year. We shield them from their failure; we allow them to fantasize that Islam works.'

This is it exactly. That is what the jizya is all about. We, unbelievably, are propping up Islam! This is so obvious and you know what the politicians say, 'well, if we didn't it would be worse!.' Tell me how. I want to know it would be worse if we cutoff the jizya. This is the same kind of fallacy as the pro-illegals use when they say 'we can't deport them, there's too many of them.' Tell me how. Yet everyone says that as though it is fact, not a single viewpoint.

If only Bush and Condi would crack open that Quran they oohed and aaahed over at those insipid Mohamedan dinners. If only.

1/28/06, 1:49 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Jason said: "If only the Persians could get rid of Islam. They could have a vibrant culture again."

Yes, Sir! The Persians have always been a very clever people. Islam numbs their intelligence, their creativity, their inherent cleverness. Islam is their opium; and like all opium, it numbs the senses!

1/28/06, 2:06 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

John Sobieski said: "If only Bush and Condi would crack open that Quran they oohed and aaahed over at those insipid Mohamedan dinners. If only."

Yes, John, if only! They must be afraid of what they'll learn! They obviously don't want to be confused by the facts, either! Were they ever to find the courage to do so, it would be a rude awakening for them!

John said: " We, unbelievably, are propping up Islam!"

Yes, and we should not do so for one month, nay one day, longer. We should pull the carpet from under their feet forthwith, and let the whole pack of cards come tumbling down!

As I stated in my book, The Dawning of a New Dark Age, we need to starve the Islamic world of the oxygen it needs to survive and thrive.

1/28/06, 2:16 PM  
Blogger kevin said...

Right on as always Jason, BTW i've added you to my Blogroll if it's ok with you.

1/28/06, 2:38 PM  
Blogger zama202 said...

Thanks Jason for your excellent replies. I often forget that before military boldness there will have to be first a philosophical change in the culture and then the moral stances you described. Your an even tempered and clear thinking man. I'm thankful for your blog.

1/28/06, 4:01 PM  
Blogger shergald said...

It's four years after 9/11, and people are still ignorant about Islam. That’s the real shock!

And this article certainly substantiates that ignorance.

1/28/06, 4:05 PM  
Blogger zama202 said...

I'm sorry but this song is just too funny. I found on LGF. There's nothing like good'ol American humor.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18987_Song_for_the_Ages&only

1/28/06, 5:00 PM  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

I cannot describe to you the mortification I feel in having voted for Mr. Carter, a FOOL, the last democrat I voted for in a national election.

He is beneath contempt for pure failure to learn history's lessons. Those who DO fail in this way ARE FOOLS!

Meanwhile, Hamas as THE muslim brotherhood in palestine, is simply a slightly different version of the main enemy. SLIGHTLY.

It's salafi jihadism, whether it's the Ikhwan, King ABdul Aziz U, Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, Rantissi, Yassin, Al Qaeda, Qaradawi, Hamza, Jamiat al Islamiyah, MMA, Taliban, CAIR, WAMY, Al Muhajiourn, Lakshar y Taiba..it's the same playbook.

It is OUR individual moral responsibility as free men and women to ensure that our pooulations understand the issue. Understand that it is possible for a religion to be construed into hate speech, racism and be a danger to the society (Dutch Reformed Church). Understand that the dialectic of Islam is NO DIFFERENT in effect and object from that of Marx. Understand that men who make up their own laws cannot be following god's in their eyes.

We have to bring to a head the very issue that Hamza's defense lawyers did.
All he was doing was preaching verbatim what the Quran says.

1/28/06, 9:13 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

The full version of the charter is here.

I don't think that the talking-head idiots have read the document, yet on they spew conciliatory words. I'm sick of it.

1/28/06, 10:52 PM  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Jason,
Off topic. Would you turn your comment on what we will do about Iran (over at IBA) into a post. I like you analysis. It's very thorough. I don't agree that Bush will push an attack off on the next Admin., but it doesn't matter that I agree with you. Your comment is food for thought.

1/29/06, 12:34 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I’m thinking out load over at IBA. I don’t know enough to say what is the best course of action and while I worry about Bush going wobbly, he’s surprised me before just when I’ve given up on him.

I’m more worried about his finding an excuse to keep funding the Palestinians. I’ve written him and my representatives to stop all aid to the Palestinians. And I’ve said that we must not ask Hamas to renounce anything … that would be only asking them to lie. Even by asking them, we suggest that we are willing to believe a lie.

Oddly enough, with the mask removed it may be harder for our politicians to continue funding the terrorists in the West Bank. But we have to make sure that’s the case. Everyone should write their representatives and ask for a unconditional unilateral cessation of aid to the Palestinians.

I’ll be out today, but I’ll try to talk more on IBA. I enjoy the difference in opinion.

1/29/06, 1:09 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
Thanks for coming by my site tonight. Your comment lifted my spirits.

I learned late last night that on Friday night a swastika was painted on the house directly across the street from me. I learned about that swastika when I was already feeling bad enough.

Every time I think that I can't be shocked, I get a nasty surprise.

1/29/06, 10:34 PM  
Blogger American Crusader said...

we need a major effort to make sure our representatives know that we don't support recognizing Hamas nor do we support sending aid to Palestine. I've let my congressman and both senators know my feelings. Unfortunately, Nita Lowry, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton probably don't give a damn what I think.

1/30/06, 10:12 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

That’s terrible, AOW, what happened to the house across the street. In our country, people generally ban together to denounce such actions.

Those things happen a lot in France and they try to hide it.

1/30/06, 12:19 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

AC, I wrote to Chuck and Hillary. Chuck may appreciate the message but Hillary, at best, might keep quiet if she sees appeasement of Hamas is unpopular.

1/30/06, 12:21 PM  

<< Home