Non-Moslems in the West are not fully aware of what Islam is all about

***
Fitzgerald: Clarifying my positions


from Jihad Watch

by Hugh Fitzgerald

A poster here at Jihad Watch recently made a series of statements in attempted rebuttal of my position, long available here, at the "Articles by Hugh Fitzgerald" link, from early 2004 -- a position from which I have not wavered, and which the news that arrives with each passing day convinces me, ever more deeply, that I have nothing to regret or to change.

I will number those statements, and answer them in turn.

#1. "So you are going to weaken the hold of Islam by directly telling the people who believe in it that it's a cult? And by insulting them? What's next - an inquisition? Convert of die?"

Infidels are not, in the West, fully aware of what Islam is all about. We cannot refrain from learning, ourselves or, still worse, refrain from disseminating to others, what Islam is all about, for fear that this will offend Muslims who in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere will eavesdrop on our own, internal discussions of what Islam is all about.

There are two different audiences. You apparently care more about the sensibilities of Muslims. I care about the understanding of non-Muslims, especially in Western Europe and North America. If one is too solicitous of the former, one does great harm to the latter.

Furthermore, you misunderstood me. I did not say that I think Americans or other Infidels should go out of our way to tell the inhabitants of Dar al-Islam that Islam bears all the hallmarks of what we would consider a cult, with its collectivism, and the fierce punishment it imposes on those who dare to decide for themselves what beliefs they wish to accept, and what to reject. We are the ones who should take Islam's measure, and be sure of it. Whether Muslims overhear us or not, as we start to learn more, should not inhibit us in the slightest.

You then write the following, like a fanatical civil libertarian who claims, as if it is an argument, that the slightest enlargement of investigative powers will inevitably lead to the Gestapo knocking on all our doors at night and that sort of thing: "What's next -- an inquisition? Convert or die?" This is too absurd to warrant a reply. I do hope that others will not have failed to notice it, and will, as I did, draw the appropriate conclusions.

#2.

"There is no doubt that this site is doing a valuable service by instructing Westerners that the fundamentalists/extremists are inspired directly by the Koran. But that doesn't mean that we need to ram it down the throats of the people we mean to turn to our side.”

This site is not so much "instructing Westerners that the fundamentalists/extremists are inspired directly by the Koran" as it is instructing Westerners that Islam itself, orthodox mainstream Islam, inculcates -- on the basis of the contents of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira -- a world view that makes it impossible for more than a handful of Muslims, the lapsed or unobservant or casual or "bad" ones, to ever be truly friendly with Infidels.

This site is about "instructing Westerners" that the Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then dominance, of Islam is a central, not tangential duty, of Muslims.

This site instructs Westerners that the instruments of Jihad include, in addition to "terrorism" which is merely one tactic, and not in the Western world at this time a very effective one, there is the Money Weapon (which pays for mosques, madrasas, armies of Western hirelings, and so on), and campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest. And not one of these instruments of Jihad would be rendered less effective in the slightest by whatever our military does or does not do in Iraq. But an Iraq that establishes a permanent fault-line between Sunni and Shi'a, an Iraq that requires the constant attention and worry of its neighbors, an Iraq to which both Iran and such Sunni states as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia might feel compelled to send men, money, materiel, an Iraq where the example of a non-Arab Muslim people, the Kurds, achieving independence might appeal to the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs, and who need to recognize that Islam is, and has always been, a vehicle for Arab imperialism -- yes, that is the only "victory" that I understand could be claimed, if any can at this point be claimed, for the Camp of Infidels.

Some, by no means all, military men, suffer from professional deformation. They think of "war" solely and wholly as tanks and planes and boots on the ground, and do not grasp that this war is above all ideological, and that we must ourselves learn what Islam is all about and not rely on such words as "fundamentalists" and "extremists" (as you do). Such terms in their implications are comforting, no doubt, but inaccurate. And having learned ourselves, we must help other Infidels to learn, and only then will we be able not to squander resources -- as men, money, and materiel have been and are being hideously squandered in Iraq. Only then will we be able, cunningly and ruthlessly, to find ways to shake, in the first place, the loyalty of non-Arab Muslims who may be brought to view Islam as what it is -- a vehicle for Arab imperialism. Only then will we be able, for both Arab and non-Arab Muslims, to let them realize that we realize this. And then they too will have to take account of that realization by Infidels, that the political, economic, social, moral and intellectual failures of their societies (covered up, of course, by the many trillions of dollars that they receive because of an accident of geology, which should not, forever, hide those failures) are a result, direct and indirect, of Islam itself.

There are many who have left the service earlier than they intended because they grasp the failure of both the military and the civilian leadership to have fashioned a strategy that makes sense. There are those who, of course, are ill inclined to see "war" as anything other than military combat, and are missing the main point about the worldwide Jihad (especially in Western Europe). There are those who, having set out on a course, and perhaps worked diligently for certain goals, are unwilling to change course, and are unable to admit to themselves that the goals they have worked so hard for are, for our long-term interests, exactly the wrong goals -- this is too painful to contemplate.

I repeat what I have written here dozens of times before, since early 2004. The only definition of "victory" in Iraq that makes sense is to arrive at a situation that leaves the Camp of Islam and Jihad, not only in Iraq but everywhere, more divided and demoralized than it was before. And that can best be achieved, that can only be achieved, in Iraq, not by trying to prevent or to limit but to encourage, or at least to exploit, the pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, that Iraq so wonderfully presents if we are only unsentimental enough to exploit them -- as we would not have hesitated to exploit in any previous war. The spectacle of permanent fissures, and of rich Sunni states in the Gulf having to worry about their Shi'a populations (in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, in Bahrain, even in Dubai with its Iranian businessmen and agents), and the kind of sectarian strife that might be triggered by such strife in Iraq -- in Yemen, in Lebanon, in Pakistan -- is not one to deplore but to welcome.

#3.

"You discredit the armed services who are dealing with the situation on the ground by 1) saying they dont know what they are doing (I suspect they know exactly what they are doing) and 2) not understanding anything about the real-life situation. It's easy to be a critic when you are thousands of miles away."

No, I do not "discredit" the armed forces when I criticize, attack, mock the policy fashioned by Bush, Rice, and others -- civilians in Washington. Furthermore, when you write "the armed forces," which members of the armed forces do you mean? General Batiste, who retired? Other generals, and officers who are not nearly as impressed as some are with the Counterinsurgency Doctrine -- the one that was offered in a Field Manual, the product of General Petraeus, and Colonel Nagl, and others who apparently think such statements as "in general, insurgencies last ten years" are less ludicrous than writing "in general, civil wars last 4.7 years" or "in general, wars last 12.3 years"?

And of course, any generalizations -- by generals, or for that matter by colonels -- that do not take account of the nature of the situation in Iraq, are worthless. In Iraq there is not one government and one insurgency but many different groups within the Sunni and the Shi'a camps, with all kinds of shifting ties and alliances and attitudes, but with one constant: not one of them is a true and unshakable friend of the Infidels who have come to help them, all of them. There are stolid followers of policy, who never question, and there are others who do question, and try to make sense of what they have experienced in Iraq. It is the latter, who are leaving the army, who should stay and command; it is the former who have proven themselves too dumbly loyal to a policy that does not make sense.

And you also question whether I actually know anything about Iraq, about what our military have experience there? You apparently choose to believe I have no connections, know no one, least of all any of those 15,000 captains who have left the service? What makes you think I have not had close relatives serving in Iraq, relatives who before they went knew a good deal about Islam, and who on the spot, have seen the waste, seen the demoralization of the most intelligent officers and men, precisely because they are aware of how meretricious are most of the people, and understand exactly what Islam is all about, and why the policy in Iraq makes no sense? You have made a very big assumption. That assumption is flatly wrong.

Posted by Hugh at May 27, 2008 9:23 AM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us

Comments

Hugh, do you suppose anyone remembers what the OODA loop is?

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at May 27, 2008 9:46 AM

"Convert or die"?

Sorry, that's the Islamic position on faith.

If you're a not a "Person of the Book".

The "Abrahamic" peoples are allowed a third way: subjugation and serfdom under Muslim rule.

Judaism and Christianity also don't take the stance that if you leave their faiths you must be killed.

That's Islam's dogma.

Arguing from mistaken premises and positing "inquisition" hysteria leads logically to laughter.

Keep nailing the pinheaded poseurs, Hugh.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 27, 2008 9:53 AM


Hugh, if you are going to write a full post as a rebuttal to a discussion that has occurred elsewhere then please link to the the original discussion

I have rebutted you as much as I am going to do there and have no intention of doing so again here. Please note that I do not disagree with much of your observations about Islam, but strongly feel that some of your proposed actions based on your knowledge, particularly your advocacy of withdrawal from Iraq, are amoral and dangerous.

My comments are in the original discussion here

Posted by: madijihadi at May 27, 2008 10:09 AM

May 27, 2008

Fitzgerald: Clarifying my positions
A poster here at Jihad Watch recently made a series of statements in attempted rebuttal of my position, long available here, at the "Articles by Hugh Fitzgerald" link, from early 2004 -- a position from which I have not wavered, and which the news that arrives with each passing day convinces me, ever more deeply, that I have nothing to regret or to change.

I will number those statements, and answer them in turn.

#1. "So you are going to weaken the hold of Islam by directly telling the people who believe in it that it's a cult? And by insulting them? What's next - an inquisition? Convert of die?"

The premise of #1 is patently absurd. Hey everybody, let's go back to the 15th century and have a Spanish Inquisition! Next, doesn't this fool know that it's Mohammed who issued "Convert or die" edicts? Jesus never did, hello.

As for "insult?" Of course you can insult people and/or beliefs! Without the freedom to mock, insult, and disparage, a human society becomes oppressive and brutal beyond belief. Such as Nazi Germany. Such as Soviet Russia. Such as Islamic societies with their "Do Not Question Mohammed, Qur'an, Islam" under penalty of death! How pitiful is that?! Shar'ia Law - how brutal and pitiful is that? Belief systems SHOULD be challenged for a free society. We challenged Naziism, Fascism, and Communism. But, for some reason we can't challenge Islam? Why? Because it's a religion? Sorry, religions can be challenged, too.

*

"Whether Muslims overhear us or not, as we start to learn more, should not inhibit us in the slightest."

The more Muslims (and non-Muslims) who "overhear" my "DEFEAT JIHAD" bumper sticker, the better I feel. I have a number of friends who have turned down my offer of a free "DEFEAT JIHAD" bumper sticker! Why? Ironically, it's because they fear Jihad.
Posted by: darcy at May 27, 2008 10:10 AM

Newsflash: It's the Mohammedans, with their amoral and dangerous "religion", madijihadi, who are amoral and dangerous. Case closed.
Posted by: darcy at May 27, 2008 10:12 AM

From article: 'This is too absurd to warrant a reply'.
Yep...eight little words of wisdom...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 27, 2008 10:31 AM

"There is no doubt that this site is doing a valuable service by instructing Westerners that the fundamentalists/extremists are inspired directly by the Koran. But that doesn't mean that we need to ram it down the throats of the people we mean to turn to our side.”
--madijihadi --

This is indicative of the problem that the West has, regarding self-education to the true face of Islam. Islamists and Islamic apologists alike, when they actually concede the obvious association between current "terrorism" and the doctrine and texts of Islam, which is quite infrequent, there is often conditions attached to that admission.

"Ram it down their throats", "And by insulting them". These terms that called for "measured tones" are exactly what is not needed. The poster who these words are attributable to seems to think that somehow, quietly, through "measured tones" the West can inform the slaves of Islam that they should do what exactly?...Abandon Islam? Stop killing the infidels? What is your proposed result?

There is no quiet nudging in this situation. What needs to be "rammed down their throats" is that the West will no longer play pretend about what Islam is.

What also needs to be rammed through some people's skulls is that our sacrifice in Iraq should not be our's to bear. Iraqis should flock in unison to fight this "extremism" that we hear so much about, but alas, they do not and the US continues to weaken itself militarily and financially.

What also must be said to those who came to class a little late is that our presence in Iraq is a main propaganda point for the jihadists. This continuing "US imperialism" is a main talking point for Islamists and Islamic apologists.

Instead of winning a war, we got a democracy project and that is where the whole thing went awry, and no amount of memos issued by the State Department about what terms and phrases are off-limits when identifying the enemy of Islamic jihad, can offset that reality.
Posted by: awake at May 27, 2008 11:33 AM

Madijihadi and Hugh Fitzgerald are debating strategy. Madijihadi believes in the possibility that a divide and conquer strategy can work. Fitzgerald denies that possibility.

The division we need to foster is that between Islamic supremacists and those Muslims willing to let that go.

Muslims who are convinced that jihad no longer works for them are no threat to us. We must convince them that all forms of jihad, peaceful and otherwise, will not succeed.

Then they will be just another religion.

Posted by: janmcdaniel at May 27, 2008 11:41 AM


"and the US continues to weaken itself militarily and financially." --awake

How 'bout demographically?
Posted by: darcy at May 27, 2008 11:43 AM

"We must convince them that all forms of jihad, peaceful and otherwise, will not succeed" --posted above

Ha-Ha! Yeah, right. Also, what's with your oxymoron "peaceful jihad?" No such thing.

Posted by: darcy at May 27, 2008 11:49 AM


darcy--

Wahhabist mosques in America

Dubai operating our ports

Demographic invasion

These are peaceful forms of jihad. There are more and they are more threatening than war.

Posted by: janmcdaniel at May 27, 2008 12:10 PM


Hi Jan - yes, I know all about those. But, just because no blood is shed, does not mean they are "peaceful." Indeed, they are hostile as all-get-out, and done with the intention of spilling blood in the future.

Posted by: darcy at May 27, 2008 12:21 PM


darcy--

Wahhabist mosques in America

Dubai operating our ports

Demographic invasion

These are peaceful forms of jihad. There are more and they are more threatening than war.

Posted by: janmcdaniel at May 27, 2008 12:10 PM


Without the specific invitation, legislative encouragement, and financial backing of those who are supposed to be heads-of-state, there could be none of these.

We are a nation divided -- we will not stand against a dar-al-islam because it is united.

Our problem is not as simple as boots on the ground; withdrawal schedules from Iraq; "supporting the troops," or not.

Our problem is so much deeper than mere platitudes and it is exploited easily by those who seek our destruction -- and we as well as our leaders are all too eager to help them.

If Winston Churchill were alive today, warning us all of the dangers of islam he would be shouted down by the likes of blair, bush, kennedy, clinton, obama, mccain, and a seemingly unending list of contemporary leaders.

The masses would not understand a word he said if they bothered to listen to him at all.

The very Western Civilization that he sought to protect has rotted away, leaving in its place empty symbols, vestiges of what once was, putrid trinkets that stand in proxy for the once noble things that really did exist.

We have evolved past Judeo-Christianity into the humanist secular realm of relativism; and have evolved further from secular humanism into an amoral abyss from which we cannot extricate ourselves -- and we are too purblind to know the difference.

When we speak in high and lofty tones of the "morality" or "amorality" of war, we profane because we as a civilization no longer have the acumen to discern the one from the other.

In our stupidity as a people we have engineered a morass of death for ourselves and invited those who would kill us all, to sit at the table and dine on the fruits of the labors of our parents and grandparents who made Western Civilization.

No wonder the jihadists detest us, for we have become gluttons for folly and silliness of every kind and imagine that these things are somehow superior to the treasure handed down to us by generations of our betters.

Perhaps they would detest us as well for we are not merely spoiled brats of wealth and privilege -- we are arrogant fools gleefully entertaining our murderers before the moment of our slaughter.

God help us.

Posted by: witness at May 27, 2008 2:47 PM



There are more apsects l agree with Hugh than disagree, ie.. showing non muslims the dangers of islam. I fear more from our elites in the West than the islamists. I fear our PC attitude of lumping all religions the same.. all bad.. etc. l fear the far left elites of wanting to impose this muliculterism on our population. One article l read had showed how two people looking at the world with their own type of judging. the left would just all cultures the same, the right would judge the invidual on his merits. So before we can destroy islam as it is, we need to educate the "non-muslim".

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 27, 2008 6:18 PM


janmcdaniel said

Madijihadi and Hugh Fitzgerald are debating strategy. Madijihadi believes in the possibility that a divide and conquer strategy can work. Fitzgerald denies that possibility.

You said the same thing yesterday, to which Hugh responded. To wit, "Your comment is not merely wrong. It is completely backwards."

Your response, 24 hours later, is to merely repeat the same line. To what end, I do not know.

This is not a mere quibbling over details. Restating Hugh's position as "an inquisition... Convert of [sic] die" is not a minor disagreement.

Madhijihadi said:

When people are uneducated, poor, and without power they will turn to, or support, religious fundamentalism. Improve their conditions and they turn away.
You discredit the armed services who are dealing with the situation on the ground by 1) saying they dont know what they are doing (I suspect they know exactly what they are doing) and 2) not understanding anything about the real-life situation.

I am sure you are aware that we are actually winning the war. Al Qaeda is almost defeated and violence is at a new low. We are building a valuable ally in the region
Presumably [Hugh] would have just left the Jews, gypsies, catholics, homosexuals to their own devices, just as he presumes to leave the millions of moderate Muslims to enhanced oppression by the extremists too.

The definition of victory is not to destroy Islam - it never was. It was to neutralise political Islam that manifested itself in terrorism against the U.S....We have almost beaten Al-Quaeda, Iraqi forces have been trained to deal with extremists in their midst, and the rule of law has been restored.

And so on and so on. This is not a slight difference on tactics or strategy, this is a completely different view of the world, a completely different set of goals, a completely different understanding of reality.

This supposed difference between "political Islam", and I presume, the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims who believe that Islam merely pertains to quiet introspection about the delicate structure of flowers; this assumption that jihad comes from poverty and lack of education; this claim that we are "winning" in Iraq with no definition provided of what "winning" means. We've heard all this before, many times. It's like fingernails on blackboards. Just make a claim, no matter how disconnected from reality. And when Hugh patiently steps through the evidence against it, just repeat the original claim. And to top it off, restate Robert and Hugh's position as being "pro-kitten-killing".

Good G*d.

Posted by: special_guest at May 27, 2008 7:04 PM


“…this claim that we are "winning" in Iraq with no definition provided of what "winning" means. We've heard all this before, many times. It's like fingernails on blackboards. Just make a claim, no matter how disconnected from reality…”
Posted by: special_guest

Try this:

“…this claim that we are "loosing" in Iraq with no definition provided of what "loosing" means. We've heard all this before, many times. It's like fingernails on blackboards. Just make a claim, no matter how disconnected from reality…”

There, that’s much more “connected to reality”.

Please see the link to the “OODA loop” Posted by: Jewel Atkins above, BE SURE TO READ IT ALL. It provides a refreshing look at how victory is being achieved in Iraq. Yes, an AMERICAN victory, NOW.

Note the reference to U.S. helicopters leaving Saigon – reflect on how a similar scene today would affect our confidence as a nation, our ability to fight on, our ability to get any ally (or anyone) anywhere to trust us, our ability to believe in ourselves when faced with a determined enemy.

I know full well what an American defeat tastes like and I know the PRECISELY what the “definition of loosing means” even though Hugh and others believe that this will be of little consequence – it will not.

Victory will never be gained by partaking of the bitter fruit of defeat.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 27, 2008 8:55 PM


Davegreybeard, I respectfully disagree that a withdrawal from Iraq now is a "defeat".

If victory is (properly) defined as removing Saddam and the threat of WMD's that could be used against the West, then we achieved victory several years ago.

If victory is defined as weakening and sowing discord within Dar al-Islam, that was also (very marginally) achieved years ago.

If our definition of victory got a little off-kilter and away from what is best for the kufirs and somehow melded into what is best for the Iraqis, and is defined as installing a pro-Western (as much as can be expected for the region) government and allowing democratic elections, then we still achieved victory years ago.

If our definition of victory got even further askew and is defined as installing a new infrastructure of roads, bridges, power-plants, water-treatment plants, schools, etc., then we (unfortunately) still achieved victory.

If however, all four wheels fell off the wagon, and victory is defined as Iraqis living in peace with each other, Sunni and Shi'a and Kurds, following Western standards of democracy and freedom and equal rights for women, then we "lost" the moment we made that our goal.

That is not a goal that is within our power to make happen. That is a goal that can only be achieved (or not) by the Iraqis. Placing our "success" or "failure" in the hands of the Iraqis is a Very Bad Idea. Our soldiers did everything that was asked of them, and achieved victory in every way that they could possibly achieve it. The Iraqis have not done their part, nor will they, as they have proven to us time and again. Their goals and their values are not the same as ours. They are not headed in the direction we would like them to be headed, no matter how much we wish they were.

If we had a leader who was willing to clearly say, "We gave you your chance, and you blew it. Good luck and good bye", our withdrawal would not be seen as our "failure" but theirs. If we had a leader who was more focused on the security of the kufirs and alot less focused on the happiness of the Iraqis (and Saudis and Emirs and ...), we wouldn't have gotten ourselves into this position in the first place.

We are not fighting a determined enemy, we are handing out candy to children and getting blown up by IED's. Look at any of the lists of casualties, it's almost all from IED's. It's not well-disciplined army against well-disciplined army, slugging it out in the battlefield. It's a bunch of pieces of @&#^ hiding and remotely detonating explosives, and using women and children as shields when discovered. Whatever you want to call what is happening in Iraq, it's not a "war".

It is said that Generals are always fighting the previous war, which in this case would arguably be Vietnam. This is not Vietnam.

Posted by: special_guest at May 27, 2008 10:58 PM


The only way to "win" against Muslims is to defeat them so totally that it will 500 years before they even think about trying to rise again. We will never, ever, be able to turn them around to our civilized way of life, but we can show them that we will not just roll over and let them take over the world.

This is the kind of comment that you don't like at Jihad Watch, but I'm going to post it anyway and if you want to delete it and ban me, go right ahead.

Muslims understand and respect strength. They despise, and are emboldened by, weakness. We've got generals kissing Korans. Unbelievable.

When the town of Fallujah attacked and murdered the contractors, our response should have been swift and brutal. Twenty four hours warning and then the entire town should have been leveled. Bombed to rubble.

When our boys were abducted, tortured, killed, mutilated, and dumped in a vacant lot like so much garbage, that town, too, should have been raised. Obliterated. Salt the Earth.

Instead? We apologize and go out of our way to not "offend" people who hate our very existence and will never stop trying to kill us all.

And we're the bad guys anyway, no matter what we do, and it will never end.

Wars need a clear winner and loser. Until the losers know they lost, we will never win. It'll be a perpetual state of war because we don't have the guts to do what should be done to let the losers know they lost.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at May 28, 2008 8:36 AM



Hugh Fitzgerald:

Your definition of divide and conquer is to encourage the long-standing internecine struggles inside Islam.

They will continue with or without us.

The main product of this strategy is a Muslim state in which the most brutal rule.

Our strategy should aim to produce a different result.

Posted by: janmcdaniel at May 28, 2008 12:06 PM
Hugh Fitzgerald:

Religions change over time and Islam is in the beginning of a big change. The Salafis see the writing on the wall and are trying to reverse the flow of history by calling for jihad. There is no point in trying to appease these people. They must be defeated. Killing them is good, but making them look pathetic is better. We want to stop them from creating a real war between Islam and the West.

Killing jihadis and encouraging reformers is our best strategy.

Your strategy—“…the best thing that can be done for Muslims is to weaken the hold of Islam on their minds.” – takes on a bigger target than is necessary. First, let’s attack the militant part of Islam. We can always enlarge the target.

While attacking the militants we need to defend ourselves at home. Islamists have the same strategy we have.

Bernard Lewis is right—we are involved in a clash of civilizations. Both civilizations will survive the clash, but only one will emerge fundamentally unchanged. Islam is changing and will change more. The seeds of change have been deposited deep inside Islam. They are the thinkers who have been raised in Islam but have also lived in the West and cannot avoid making a comparison. Some jettison Islam entirely like Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and Walid Phares. Others, like Tariq Ramadan, try to put a modern face on desert Islam and become duplicitous.

But some stay and fight jihadist, supremacist elements from inside. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy seems to be such a person.

If the presently feeble efforts at reform do not get assassinated, as they routinely do in Muslim dominated countries, Islam will eventually be just another religion.

You and I disagree on what it means to divide and conquer.

Who are we wanting to divide and what is the definition of conquering?

It is not sufficient to divide rich from poor, Sunni from Shiite, Arab from Persian. We want to divide supremacist from non-supremacist, jihadi from non-jihadi.

Conquering is defined as reshaping Islam so it is no threat to us. The process is the same one that reshaped America from a slave-owning state with limited rights for women to the free and just society we live in.
posted by: janmcdaniel at May 29, 2008 3:57 PM


Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021181.php