CAIR = Council on American Islamic Relations
Article via Act for America: Radio Host Drops Lawsuit Against Islamic Group
Radio Host Drops Lawsuit Against Islamic Group
San Francisco Chronicle
Radio host drops lawsuit against Islamic group
Bob Egelko, Staff Writer
Friday, August 15, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO -- Conservative talk show host Michael Savage has changed his mind and is reluctantly dropping his lawsuit against an Islamic rights group that launched an advertisers' boycott after he attacked Islam and the Quran on the air, his lawyer said Thursday.
A San Francisco federal judge threw out Savage's earlier copyright and racketeering suit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations last month but gave him a chance to file an amended suit by today. In an unusual court filing, attorney Daniel Horowitz, who had earlier promised a new suit that would pass legal muster, said Thursday that Savage has a legitimate case but has decided not to pursue it.
Insisting that Savage can prove the Islamic organization engaged in a conspiracy that harmed him financially, Horowitz said the talk show host is reluctantly dismissing the suit because of "factors arising out of this litigation," which he did not specify.
Later Thursday, Horowitz said he feared his client would be in danger if he continued the case. The attorney said he has no evidence that CAIR commits violent acts but alleged that the Islamic group is out to silence Savage and conducts campaigns that may stir up violence by others.
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, said Savage was "cutting his losses" by dropping the suit.
"They realized they had no case whatsoever but wanted to get one more smear in before they headed for the bushes," Hooper said.
Savage, who has about 8 million listeners a week on 400 stations for his syndicated "Savage Nation" talk-radio program, said in a broadcast last Oct. 29 that Muslims were "screaming for the blood of Christians or Jews or anyone they hate." He called the Quran a "hateful little book" and a "document of slavery."
CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., posted four minutes of excerpts from the broadcast on its Web site and called for an advertiser boycott. The group says Savage has since lost $1 million in advertising.
Savage's lawsuit, filed in September, accused CAIR of copyright infringement, saying the group had misappropriated his words and used them for fund-raising. He also claimed the group was engaged in racketeering, describing it as a "mouthpiece of international terror" that had helped to finance the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. CAIR called those allegations preposterous and denied any connection to terrorism.
In a July 25 ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said anyone who listens to a public broadcast is entitled to take excerpts and use them for purposes of comment and criticism without violating copyright.
In dismissing the racketeering claim, Illston said that even if Savage could prove CAIR was part of a worldwide terrorist conspiracy, he hadn't shown how it affected him or his broadcast. She noted that his allegations were largely focused on activities - such as lawsuits, boycotts and criticism of his broadcasts - that are protected by free speech, but said he could try to rewrite the claim to cure its legal defects.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/BAPR12BDPO.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Posted August 15, 2008 at 6:01 PDT
Article via Radio Host Drops Lawsuit Against Islamic Group
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Lionheart UK, Crusading Blogger, Several Times Visciously attacked by Islamics and UK Police, Posts Views About Russian-Georgian Conflict
Round Two of East v West at The Ossetia cross roads
[Not to be Counted Out Are The Islamics, Always Hankering To Conquer And Subjugate All Non-Islamics]
Daily Mail: Russia 'goes to war' with Georgia
Daily Mail: The most dangerous flashpoint since the Cuban crisis'
Daily Mail: Mass Exodus as 50,00 flee
Daily Mail: The pipeline War
Is this a case in modern times of old rivalries die hard between America and Russia when we look down upon the Earths geopolitical scene of global affairs.
It is true that Earths resources are running dry with oil and gas reserves now being a critical International political issue for every First World Nation on Earth because if you cannot provide fuel for your Nation and its economy then you are no longer a First World Nation, you become a Third World Nation over night and in reality no First World Nation on Earth wants that do they, so what precautionary and preventative measures must be taken and how far are you willing to go for the sake of National interests are the questions.
No energy amongst other things means no transport, no electricity, no running water, no lights and no TV’s. Just imagine what life would be like for our Western Nations if we no longer had that life blood, the oil and gas that power them. Life as we know it now would be gone, with most of us taken back into a pre-modern energy environment where we would be struggling for food and water which would lead to vicious fighting amongst people on the ground, with a clan mentality and only the strong or the prepared would survive in that environment.
Maybe this is a glimpse into our future because the destruction of our Western way of life is well and truly on the agenda of our enemies, but if we fall so will they as we carry enough Nuclear weapons to destroy mankind several times over.Conflict and rivalries between leaders and peoples is inherent in man and has become an integral part of humanity. Nations have arisen and fallen throughout our history upon planet Earth, and if you take a close inspection of World events today you will see that same thing occurring, only something a little different, something foretold by God’s prophets of old. Revelation unfolding before your eyes as Nations rise against Nations, Kingdoms against Kingdoms, with Wars and rumors of Wars spreading from one end of the Earth to the other.
Those alive today who are awake to the reality of God and His Word are blessed to be living through such times, to see prophetic Biblical events unfolding before their very eyes because we can look up and know that the end draws near, and those who are not, who are asleep to global events will awaken soon enough once a higher level of spiritual truth is revealed.
Armageddon and the coming Apocalypse unfolds as Earths human powers and Kingdoms align themselves for the final conflict, with the conditions set before the foundations of the World within the life story of mankind on Earth like with the present need for oil and gas in today’s time frame of history being just one of the factors that is unwittingly forcing the hands of Global Nations to rise against other Nations and Kingdoms against other Kingdoms exactly as the Living God said it would happen in the end times.
People will deny the reality of end time Biblical prophecy, they will say that throughout history man has thought that their time was the time of the end which is true but never before have all the conditions been met not only from a spiritual perspective but also from a physical perspective. Ancient Biblical prophesy is being fulfilled just as God said it would, like with the Jewish people being gathered from the four corners of the World and establishing their homeland ‘Israel’ the apple of God’s eye, with many more other global events transpiring that are fulfillment of Biblical prophesy written into the pages of the Holy Bible by the Living God, the Lord God of Israel.
The world is becoming over-populated, with all of its natural resources running dry with Nations now going to war over these depleting resources like we see with many regional conflicts around the World over oil and gas with the most serious one now being Ossetia with Russia actually going to War over this region, a region that we in the West have a political stake in because there is an oil pipeline running through that Country to our part of the World. We are also living in the Nuclear age where we have the power do destroy the whole of mankind at the switch of a button, and as you are reading this there ‘is’ a global War unfolding upon the Earth – East v West – And there can only be one winner at the end just like with every single war in the past, and it is a case now of them or us, no middle ground.
Round Two of Russia v America plying for World supremacy in the 21st Century, Nation against Nation, and the Islamic World seeking to destroy the Western Judeo/Christian World so that it can establish its religious Kingdom rule upon the Earth, Kingdom against Kingdom, with rumours of Wars around the whole World.
Two serious Wars with unimaginable future consequences unfolding upon the Earth within the fabric of humanity in our lifetime, and two wars aimed at the destruction of our Western Civilisation.
What makes things worse with the military force against us is that the Islamic Kingdom believes it is on a mission from god to take over the whole world and will stop at nothing not even death to achieve its aim, an aim that is targeted against us living in the West and our way of life. The Islamic World believes in its own ‘end time’ scenario where there will be a great war with the Islamic religion winning and the whole World converting to Islamic rule, and there are many many Moslems from around the World who believe that now is that time. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran believe that as a Nation they are going to be the ones to trigger that final conflict of Islam’s Armageddon, they say that to lose a third of their Nation is a price worth paying to wipe Israel from the map, and they are seeking the Nuclear capability to make that vision a reality. If you look at the scenario that is being played out with Russia, Iran, America and Israel you will see that Iran is going to be that trigger because that inevitable military cross roads with Iran reaching the Nuclear threshold is coming up in our not too distant future. Today’s Ossetia cross roads for the oil resource is just one situation that will heighten the animosity between the two great rival Superpowers, and push the boundaries of both sides International political affairs, with Russia being even more willing to support the Islamic World against America, just like America did themselves against Russia during the Cold War, the thing now though is where will it all end?
The Islamic World throughout history has also been waiting for the Mahdi who they believe will arise onto the World stage at the end times when Moslems from around the World are being oppressed, and that he will unite the Islamic World to fight the oppressors. The Mahdi will be the present day’s example of the prophet Mohamed and there are many Moslems who are traveling from all over the World today to train and fight for Osama Bin Laden because they believe he is the Mahdi ‘the long awaited enlightened one’ and it seems that since his declaration of War against America the Great Satan, the perceived oppressor of the Islamic World, and the wars that have followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been able to unite the Sunni and Shiite strains of the Islamic religion to fight their mutual enemy America the Great Satan, rather than each other, thus putting away 14 hundred years of rivalry and conflict.
Pretty powerful figure within the psyche of the Islamic World to unite them for the global Jihad against the infidel that is taken directly from the pages of their holy books do you not think? And the majority of the Islamic World must also believe that this generation is the precursor to the closing of their book when they look around them, just like many within the Christian World do.
If you look around you, you cannot escape the signs.
Whether people believe in religion or not it doesn’t matter, the two largest religions on Earth both have an end time Apocalypse written into the pages of their Holy books that nobody can escape from, and you only have to take a close inspection of World events to see that what is unfolding on the Earth today in our life times could definitely fit both religions end time scenarios.
We as Christians know how the story ends though. Islam is the devil’s counterfeit so its end time scenario is close but not the perfect fit for mankind and the end time scenario that will close up the last chapter and story of life on Earth as we know it.
If you do not understand religion then you should take a look at what the end time’s mean because you cannot escape it even though you do not believe in religion. Ignorance of the truth is not going to save you from the inevitable eternal plan for mankind on Earth as laid down by Almighty God the one who created life and all things that you can see and that are unseen, you cannot pull the bed sheets over your head and hope that it will all go away.Just because you do not believe in Him does not mean He is not real, it just means that you have chosen to reject Him, or rejected those who come to you speaking of Him so that you can carry on living in your world of ignorance over this one aspect of the human experience, which is the interaction between mortal man and Almighty God his Creator.
The folly of the lost and blind within mankind when the eternal salvation of their souls that will live on forever is in question, rejected because of earthly pride because believing in Almighty God and accepting His Son Jesus Christ into your life does not fit into your day to day living (What would the neighbors say). The day to day life that is like a twinkling of an eye in the scale of eternity, the life that ended the day you were born into humanity because of the clock that started ticking towards the death of you mortal body. Those of us who have been blessed to be born into this life have a choice whilst we are here to accept the eternal salvation of our souls that comes through the message of the cross, thus being born again, or reject it, the choice is ours to consciously make.What will God say to those who reject the message out of pride?
Enter into the Kingdom I have prepared for those who knew and loved me, or enter into the place I have prepared for those who rejected me, choosing ignorance over truth?
The eternal dwelling place of your soul is in your hands, Heaven or Hell you decide, because you cannot have it both ways.
The Bible teaches us in Revelation and in other books of the prophets of how the end times will unfold, and it is my personal opinion based upon the facts in my reality that we are now in that time.
In human physical terms we only have to look at the events unfolding upon the Earth to draw a picture from them with the Earths geopolitical scene showing like in every other era we have lived through, that Nation States around the World are each aligning themselves for the current climate upon mankind and the days that lay ahead. The background of the picture of reality that all other pieces are painted onto is that Osama Bin Laden, his Al Qaeda network, and the military wing of the Islamic World have declared War upon America, and America the most powerful Nation on Earth have replied with ‘The War on Terror’. This is the base picture behind our daily reality that our Western World faces, and after the events of 9/11 President Bush said you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. The World was split into two, them or us no middle ground, with Alliances on both sides then being painted onto the canvas of life and reality that speak to those who are willing to listen, telling us what is happening in our World today and what is to come. There are Nations seeking to take a neutral stance and Nations forced into active military alliances, this is the consequences of a World War.
With the stakes being so high because there can only be one winner at the end of war, and with so many different strategic situations being played out to win the war at the same time, it is like a giant game of chess where different strategic moves each have their own consequences and effect geo-political strategies and alliances on both sides. No longer are we small lone tribes fighting for the campsite over the hill near the lake, or the corn field at the base of the mountain to grow wheat for the clan. We now live in a global village with Nation States that are comprised of millions of people and their 21st Century technology, now fighting other Nation States for Earths resources anywhere on the globe to feed their clans. This is the progression of mankind from small localised camp dwellers thousands of years ago to Global Nation States and everything that entails in the modern era.
It is pretty logical that eventually mankind would reach a point of destruction, and the question is; are we now at that point?
The other picture that has emerged on the background of the canvas of life and reality is a revived Russian Superpower dusting itself down from its defeat at the hands of America after the Cold War. An arch nemesis with a grudge to bear who can see the weakness and decadence of its Western enemy at the hands of the revived Islamic World that is on fire for Jihad (Holy War) against America, and is making strategic partnerships with certain parts of the Islamic World aligning itself for the days that lay ahead against its old enemy.
I am not a Biblical scholar but I picked up information along the way and it is a known fact within Bible prophecy that in the ‘end times’ there will be a great battle, the last battle of planet Earth at a place Armageddon in Israel. It is widely believed, as a common consensus throughout the Church that Russia will play a part in this last great battle.
If we look at what is happening around the trigger of the coming Apocalypse which is the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Nuclear ambitions that could bring on all out Nuclear War and take the present World War to the next level then we can see very clearly a pivotal point of global affairs and geo-political strategic alliances between the Earths Superpowers of East and West.
Russia knows America is in a weak position because of its War against the global guerilla army of Al Qaeda and its frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan so it is not in a position to directly confront Russia about anything. Iran is at War with America in Iraq which is an open secret; it wants to wipe the Nation of Israel from the face of the Earth and is receiving much of its Nuclear technology to go Nuclear from Russia. America have said that they will support Israeli interests in the region with the whole America’s military might, and Israel have recently conducted training sessions on blowing up Iran’s Nuclear programme over the Mediterranean sea.
At the same time Russia have supplied Iran with much of its latest weaponry with which to defend itself from any attempts by Israel or America to destroy the Iranian Nuclear programme, so here we see a pivotal conflict and trigger to the Apocalypse that will inevitable lead the current War raging on the Earth to its next stage, with America supporting Israel and Russia supporting Iran, exactly the same type of scenario that played out during the Cold War where as Nation States they never went to War with each other because of the M.A.D factor but went to War through other conflicts.
Listen carefully to President Bushes speech to the Israeli Knesset: Happy 60th
This is geo-political military chess game between the Earths Superpowers, but with the stakes being unquantifiably higher this time than the last, with what is at stake being not just our Judeo/Christian Western way of life, it now includes the last of the Earths natural resources.
How far will both sides of this present World War go in the Nuclear age, and what are we as mankind going to pass through? Before the Second World War our forefathers didn’t want what was coming, denied what was coming, and then were forced to endure what befell them, exactly as today in our generation.
The lessons of modern warfare were learnt on both sides of East v West during the Cold War with the M.A.D factor being what came out of it. You bomb me ill bomb you are were all gone.
Now though America faces an invisible enemy on the ground that is driven by religion and death which seeks to destroy her at all costs no matter how long it takes. This enemy is not a Nation State it is a global guerilla army of Moslems from around the World who are all joined by their ideology and desire to destroy America so the M.A.D factor does not come into the equation. If you were Russia and wanted to see you arch nemesis America destroyed then would you allow some of your rouge Nuclear scientists and stolen Nuclear technology somehow find its way into the hands of this global guerilla Islamic army and then into the backpack or suitcase of some crazed Moslem suicide bomber?
A powerful strategic alliance for Russia to destroy her enemy do you not think?Just like the Islamic World was a strategic partner for America during the Cold War.
The War is the same which is for global supremacy and for the future survival of each Nation it is just the conditions in which the war is being fought are different.
Now that Russia have openly gone to War with Georgia over Ossetia which houses an oil pipeline to the West, the stakes between the Earths two great Superpowers have just risen, with the stakes in all the other geo-political scenarios rising too. Each step taken on both sides leads us closer to the inevitable.
The Chess game between East v West has begun with the butterfly effect on our futures.
For me personally I am just thankful that my life is in Christ, with my mind fixed upon heaven. He has told me how the story of creation will end, He will be victorious over His enemies and the enemies of His people, and that when I personally die I will go to the place He has prepared for those who know Him and love Him – ParadiseLife does have a higher meaning and a purpose than you live and die, its just whether you chose to learn about that higher meaning and purpose whilst your alive or you choose to reject it, it is a personal decision, one thing we cannot escape from are the facts pertaining to the world in which we live and the reality that it creates for our present moment and for our futures.
The darkness of our times approaches, and the defenders of our present Civilisation America are about to elect a new President: The Coming Commander
Will they swap an American King for an American King or will the American people end up with a pawn?
Further reading: Russia’s view of America
Further reading: Armageddon
Further reading: Nuclear terror in London
http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2008/07/end.html
see the "Links" at the above post
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/07/this-is-how-they-will-try-to-defeat-us.html
Thursday, July 31, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
CAN WE WIN THIS WAR STARTED AGAINST US BY ISLAM
CAN WE WIN THIS WAR AGAINST ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM AND THE MOSLEM DRIVE TO MAKE US SUBMIT TO A STIFLING IDEOLOGY OF SEXUAL REPRESSION AND DICTATORIAL ASCETICISM*?
CAN THE EUROPEANS (NON-MOSLEMS) RECOVER THEIR HERITAGE OF SAVAGE WARFARE, AND AGAIN BECOME WARRIORS?
AND HOW ABOUT THE AMERICANS? CAN AMERICA RECALL ITS NO-NONSENSE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THOSE WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE IT?
CAN WE RID OURSELVES OF THE CREEPING DESIRE TO PLEASE, TO INCORPORATE THE UNINCORPORABLE INTO OUR SOCIETIES THAT HAVE ADVANCED FAR BEYOND THE STAGNANT, STALE IDEOLOGY OF DEATH AND INTOLERANCE THAT THREATENS US?
WE DESCEND FROM WARRIOR TRIBES AND CIVILIZATIONS WHOSE SAVAGERY, CRUELTY AND BARBARITY FAR EXCEEDS THAT OF THOSE WHO FOR THE SAME MILLENIA ROAMED PARCHED DESERTS ON DROMEDARIES IN BARE-EXISTENCE MISERY.
AND WE HAVE FAR OUTSTRIPPED THE IDEOLOGY-TRAMMELED SAND-DWELLERS THAT HAD LONG AGO BEEN FORCED TO REMAIN OUTSIDE THE FERTILE PORTIONS OF THE WORLD TO EKE OUT A MISERABLE EXISTENCE ON THE MOST INHOSPITABLE PARTS OF THE EARTH.
YET THEY HAVE TRIED AND TRIED AGAIN TO CONQUER US, TO TAKE WHAT WE HAVE BUILT AND ACCOMPLISHED MAKE US THEIR SLAVES TO SUPPORT THEIR INDOLENCE WITH OUR BRAINS AND MUSCLE. THIS IS THE HISTORY OF THE FOLLOWERS OF THIS IDEOLOGY THEY CALL "ISLAM."
THEY HAVE APPROPRIATED WHAT OTHERS HAVE WROUGHT AND BOASTED IT AS THEIR OWN ACCOMPLISHMENTS. THEY HAVE OBLITERATED ALL HISTORY OF THEIR OWN BEFORE THE IDEOLOGY CALLED ISLAM WAS INVENTED AND THAT OF EVERY CULTURE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUBJUGATE.
THEIR ARROGANCE HAS NO BASIS, FOR THEY CAN BOAST OF NOTHING BUT A DRIVE TO SUBJUGATE AND FEED OFF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF OTHERS.
YET THEY THREATEN US AGAIN. AND THE METHODS THEY USE ARE THE SAME ONES THAT HAD PROVEN SUCCESSFUL FOR THEM 13 CENTURIES AGO:
INSTILLING FEAR
OFFERING CONVERSION TO THEIR IDEOLOGY
OR
"PROTECTION" IN RETURN FOR HEAVY TAXATION
AND SUBHUMAN STATUS AS THEIR INFERIORS
ALL THESE OFFERS ARE UNACCEPTABLE TO US
HENCE
WE MUST USE FORCE
TALK: ARGUMENT, DEBATE, DIPLOMACY
WILL NOT WORK
BECAUSE THE ISLAMICS LIE, DECEIVE, CHEAT, ARE UNTRUSTWORTHY
BUT, CAN WE OF THE WEST, PEEL OFF THE VENEER OF
"NICENESS," FAIRNESS, HUMANITARIANISM, COMPASSION, PITY, AND
OTHER STRENGTH-SAPPING CULTURAL AMELIORATION
THAT WE HAVE DEVISED TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH EACH OTHER
TO DEFEAT THE DECEITFUL ISLAMICS?
WE WILL HAVE TO.
WE MUST GET BACK TO THE BASICS OF WARFARE.
_______________________________
*asceticism: Practice of the denial of physical or psychological desires in order to attain a spiritual ideal or goal.
CAN THE EUROPEANS (NON-MOSLEMS) RECOVER THEIR HERITAGE OF SAVAGE WARFARE, AND AGAIN BECOME WARRIORS?
AND HOW ABOUT THE AMERICANS? CAN AMERICA RECALL ITS NO-NONSENSE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THOSE WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE IT?
CAN WE RID OURSELVES OF THE CREEPING DESIRE TO PLEASE, TO INCORPORATE THE UNINCORPORABLE INTO OUR SOCIETIES THAT HAVE ADVANCED FAR BEYOND THE STAGNANT, STALE IDEOLOGY OF DEATH AND INTOLERANCE THAT THREATENS US?
WE DESCEND FROM WARRIOR TRIBES AND CIVILIZATIONS WHOSE SAVAGERY, CRUELTY AND BARBARITY FAR EXCEEDS THAT OF THOSE WHO FOR THE SAME MILLENIA ROAMED PARCHED DESERTS ON DROMEDARIES IN BARE-EXISTENCE MISERY.
AND WE HAVE FAR OUTSTRIPPED THE IDEOLOGY-TRAMMELED SAND-DWELLERS THAT HAD LONG AGO BEEN FORCED TO REMAIN OUTSIDE THE FERTILE PORTIONS OF THE WORLD TO EKE OUT A MISERABLE EXISTENCE ON THE MOST INHOSPITABLE PARTS OF THE EARTH.
YET THEY HAVE TRIED AND TRIED AGAIN TO CONQUER US, TO TAKE WHAT WE HAVE BUILT AND ACCOMPLISHED MAKE US THEIR SLAVES TO SUPPORT THEIR INDOLENCE WITH OUR BRAINS AND MUSCLE. THIS IS THE HISTORY OF THE FOLLOWERS OF THIS IDEOLOGY THEY CALL "ISLAM."
THEY HAVE APPROPRIATED WHAT OTHERS HAVE WROUGHT AND BOASTED IT AS THEIR OWN ACCOMPLISHMENTS. THEY HAVE OBLITERATED ALL HISTORY OF THEIR OWN BEFORE THE IDEOLOGY CALLED ISLAM WAS INVENTED AND THAT OF EVERY CULTURE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUBJUGATE.
THEIR ARROGANCE HAS NO BASIS, FOR THEY CAN BOAST OF NOTHING BUT A DRIVE TO SUBJUGATE AND FEED OFF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF OTHERS.
YET THEY THREATEN US AGAIN. AND THE METHODS THEY USE ARE THE SAME ONES THAT HAD PROVEN SUCCESSFUL FOR THEM 13 CENTURIES AGO:
INSTILLING FEAR
OFFERING CONVERSION TO THEIR IDEOLOGY
OR
"PROTECTION" IN RETURN FOR HEAVY TAXATION
AND SUBHUMAN STATUS AS THEIR INFERIORS
ALL THESE OFFERS ARE UNACCEPTABLE TO US
HENCE
WE MUST USE FORCE
TALK: ARGUMENT, DEBATE, DIPLOMACY
WILL NOT WORK
BECAUSE THE ISLAMICS LIE, DECEIVE, CHEAT, ARE UNTRUSTWORTHY
BUT, CAN WE OF THE WEST, PEEL OFF THE VENEER OF
"NICENESS," FAIRNESS, HUMANITARIANISM, COMPASSION, PITY, AND
OTHER STRENGTH-SAPPING CULTURAL AMELIORATION
THAT WE HAVE DEVISED TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH EACH OTHER
TO DEFEAT THE DECEITFUL ISLAMICS?
WE WILL HAVE TO.
WE MUST GET BACK TO THE BASICS OF WARFARE.
_______________________________
*asceticism: Practice of the denial of physical or psychological desires in order to attain a spiritual ideal or goal.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
the surest path to victory is in fighting, not appeasing, terrorists
A McCain Effect In Colombia Rescue?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Colombia's rescue of 15 hostages from FARC is more than just good news. It signals that the surest path to victory is in fighting, not appeasing, terrorists. Colombia's path is now clear to end the scourge for good.
[in] 1980 . . . innocent Americans were held hostage for 444 days in Tehran [Iran] as bids to bargain with their Iranian captors went on and on and on. Then, on the day of Ronald Reagan's swearing-in as the 40th U.S. president, the hostages were suddenly released — not as a result of peace talks or negotiations but because they knew Reagan was no Jimmy Carter
[QUESTION (from lw): Between the two candidates for the U.S. Presidency, who is the "Ronald Reagan" and who is the "Jimmy Carter?" You get one guess! Hint: The "dhimmi Jimmy" of the candidates belongs to the same party as the vacillating, "didn't really know what to do 'do-gooder'" the original, paid-off by the musulmans, Jimmmy Carter.]
Still puzzled? Hint No. 2: He keeps orating about "change,' but the "change" he is touting is vague--perhaps back to Chamberlainian appeasement, to palavering with those who are laughing behind his back, only intent on getting the better of him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: Latin America & Caribbean Election 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299891311166249
Coming on the heels of a visit by John McCain, the surprise rescue of three American contractors plus Franco-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt and 11 Colombian troops and police, was Magical Realism, the Colombian literary genre, come to life.
First, America's most famous former prisoner of war flies to Colombia on Tuesday to stand by the country in its 45-year war against the communists. Then on Wednesday, Keith Stansell, Marc Goncalves and Thomas Howes are rescued after spending the past 6 1/2 years in jungle tiger cages.
Flash back to 1980, when innocent Americans were held hostage for 444 days in Tehran as bids to bargain with their Iranian captors went on and on and on. Then, on the day of Ronald Reagan's swearing-in as the 40th U.S. president, the hostages were suddenly released — not as a result of peace talks or negotiations but because they knew Reagan was no Jimmy Carter.
The facts of the Colombian rescue are sketchy for now. But FARC may have surrendered the hostages as a massive force of 10,000 Colombians encircled them like an anaconda in an operation that began about three weeks ago.
It's not absurd, however, to also think that FARC let go of its hostages knowing that Colombia was getting support from a fiercely committed potential U.S. president such as McCain, one who cared enough to visit the country and who knew firsthand what it was like to be held hostage in the jungle for many years by brutal communist guerrillas? It raises questions of a McCain Effect.
Coincidence or not, it underlines that massive force, even the threat of it, is the most effective way to deal with terrorists.
It also changes everything. For too long, the Colombia hostage situation has provided ample fodder for those who would prefer to appease terrorists. Some, such as the families of hostages, had understandable motives.
Others, such as Colombian negotiator Piedad Cordoba, had political motives: FARC computer records show that she secretly urged FARC to keep holding the hostages as leverage.
The French also were somewhat problematic, offering hundreds of terrorists a comfy retirement in Paris along with other incentives if they would just release Betancourt. In the end, however, U.S. officials said France's role was constructive and did no harm.
In the realm of questionable were congressional junketeers such as Massachusetts Reps. Jim McGovern and Bill Delahunt and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. They used the hostage issue to get face time with Hugo Chavez, loudly claiming that the Venezuela dictator was key to any hostage rescue, thereby boosting his capacity to meddle.
[NOTE: useful idiots those three. lw]
In fact, Chavez was the worst player in this whole affair. Along with Ecuadorean cabinet members, he used the pretense of mediating with the FARC to rescue hostages to support FARC and aid its effort to overthrow the Colombian government. This rescue slaps that weapon — along with his pretenses to meddle and encourage appeasement — right out of his hand.
Although FARC still holds some 700 other hostages in the jungle, this victory demonstrates the importance of force and the political courage to defy pressure from appeasers. It's what McCain stands for, and it's what Colombia has shown in the wake of his visit.
FARC now has lost the human bargaining chips it used to exert leverage, demand concessions and otherwise manipulate its enemies. With the rescue of these 15, FARC has only two options: surrender or run.
---------------------
For more information about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Islamic inroads in Latin America, see
TROUBLE FROM THE SOUTH - LATIN AMERICAN DANGER
http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2007/12/trouble-from-south-latin-american.html
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Colombia's rescue of 15 hostages from FARC is more than just good news. It signals that the surest path to victory is in fighting, not appeasing, terrorists. Colombia's path is now clear to end the scourge for good.
[in] 1980 . . . innocent Americans were held hostage for 444 days in Tehran [Iran] as bids to bargain with their Iranian captors went on and on and on. Then, on the day of Ronald Reagan's swearing-in as the 40th U.S. president, the hostages were suddenly released — not as a result of peace talks or negotiations but because they knew Reagan was no Jimmy Carter
[QUESTION (from lw): Between the two candidates for the U.S. Presidency, who is the "Ronald Reagan" and who is the "Jimmy Carter?" You get one guess! Hint: The "dhimmi Jimmy" of the candidates belongs to the same party as the vacillating, "didn't really know what to do 'do-gooder'" the original, paid-off by the musulmans, Jimmmy Carter.]
Still puzzled? Hint No. 2: He keeps orating about "change,' but the "change" he is touting is vague--perhaps back to Chamberlainian appeasement, to palavering with those who are laughing behind his back, only intent on getting the better of him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: Latin America & Caribbean Election 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299891311166249
Coming on the heels of a visit by John McCain, the surprise rescue of three American contractors plus Franco-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt and 11 Colombian troops and police, was Magical Realism, the Colombian literary genre, come to life.
First, America's most famous former prisoner of war flies to Colombia on Tuesday to stand by the country in its 45-year war against the communists. Then on Wednesday, Keith Stansell, Marc Goncalves and Thomas Howes are rescued after spending the past 6 1/2 years in jungle tiger cages.
Flash back to 1980, when innocent Americans were held hostage for 444 days in Tehran as bids to bargain with their Iranian captors went on and on and on. Then, on the day of Ronald Reagan's swearing-in as the 40th U.S. president, the hostages were suddenly released — not as a result of peace talks or negotiations but because they knew Reagan was no Jimmy Carter.
The facts of the Colombian rescue are sketchy for now. But FARC may have surrendered the hostages as a massive force of 10,000 Colombians encircled them like an anaconda in an operation that began about three weeks ago.
It's not absurd, however, to also think that FARC let go of its hostages knowing that Colombia was getting support from a fiercely committed potential U.S. president such as McCain, one who cared enough to visit the country and who knew firsthand what it was like to be held hostage in the jungle for many years by brutal communist guerrillas? It raises questions of a McCain Effect.
Coincidence or not, it underlines that massive force, even the threat of it, is the most effective way to deal with terrorists.
It also changes everything. For too long, the Colombia hostage situation has provided ample fodder for those who would prefer to appease terrorists. Some, such as the families of hostages, had understandable motives.
Others, such as Colombian negotiator Piedad Cordoba, had political motives: FARC computer records show that she secretly urged FARC to keep holding the hostages as leverage.
The French also were somewhat problematic, offering hundreds of terrorists a comfy retirement in Paris along with other incentives if they would just release Betancourt. In the end, however, U.S. officials said France's role was constructive and did no harm.
In the realm of questionable were congressional junketeers such as Massachusetts Reps. Jim McGovern and Bill Delahunt and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. They used the hostage issue to get face time with Hugo Chavez, loudly claiming that the Venezuela dictator was key to any hostage rescue, thereby boosting his capacity to meddle.
[NOTE: useful idiots those three. lw]
In fact, Chavez was the worst player in this whole affair. Along with Ecuadorean cabinet members, he used the pretense of mediating with the FARC to rescue hostages to support FARC and aid its effort to overthrow the Colombian government. This rescue slaps that weapon — along with his pretenses to meddle and encourage appeasement — right out of his hand.
Although FARC still holds some 700 other hostages in the jungle, this victory demonstrates the importance of force and the political courage to defy pressure from appeasers. It's what McCain stands for, and it's what Colombia has shown in the wake of his visit.
FARC now has lost the human bargaining chips it used to exert leverage, demand concessions and otherwise manipulate its enemies. With the rescue of these 15, FARC has only two options: surrender or run.
---------------------
For more information about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Islamic inroads in Latin America, see
TROUBLE FROM THE SOUTH - LATIN AMERICAN DANGER
http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2007/12/trouble-from-south-latin-american.html
A News story deemed "insulting to Moslem Arabs"
the sensitivity of Moslem Arabs exceeds their competence. Get a load of this News story:
THE TALE OF THE ARAB FLIGHT CREW
from To The Point News
Posted by shield
The brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest passenger airplane ever built, sat in its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of airtime. Enter the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies (ADAT) to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground, such as engine runups, prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi. The date was November 15, 2007.
The ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area. Then they took all four engines to takeoff power with a virtually empty aircraft. Not having read the run-up manuals, they had no clue just how light an empty A340-600 really is.
The takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit because they had all 4 engines at full power. The aircraft computers thought they were trying to takeoff but it had not been configured properly (flaps/slats, etc.) Then one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit breaker on the Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the alarm.
This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.
The computers automatically released all the brakes and set the aircraft rocketing forward. The ADAT crew had no idea that this is a safety feature so that pilots can't land with the brakes on.
Not one member of the seven-man Arab crew was smart enough to throttle back the engines from their max power setting, so the $80 million brand-new aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totaling it.
The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown, for there has been a news blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere. Coverage of the story was deemed insulting to Moslem Arabs. Finally, the photos are starting to leak out.
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3207/85/
[NOTE: An $80 million dollar loss ain't so bad, when you can make it up quickly with the skyrocketing price of crude oil*.]
__________________________
*State-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) spreads its wings over the United Arab Emirates (UAE), accounting for 94% of its 97.8 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the fourth-largest national reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. It also has proved reserves of 196.1 trillion cu. ft. of natural gas. The ADNOC group includes exploration and production companies, support companies, maritime crude oil transport companies, and a refined-product distribution company that operates more than 200 UAE service stations. In 2007 the company acquired international power assets worth $1.4 billion from ABB and CMS Energy.
Officers:Chairman of Supreme Petroleum Counsel: His Highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan. CEO and Secretary General to the Supreme Petroleum Council: His Excellency Yousef Omair Bin Yousef. Deputy CEO and Director Exploration and Production: Abdulla Nasser Al-Suwaidi
http://www.answers.com/topic/abu-dhabi-national-oil-company?cat=biz-fin
THE TALE OF THE ARAB FLIGHT CREW
from To The Point News
Posted by shield
The brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the largest passenger airplane ever built, sat in its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of airtime. Enter the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies (ADAT) to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground, such as engine runups, prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi. The date was November 15, 2007.
The ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area. Then they took all four engines to takeoff power with a virtually empty aircraft. Not having read the run-up manuals, they had no clue just how light an empty A340-600 really is.
The takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit because they had all 4 engines at full power. The aircraft computers thought they were trying to takeoff but it had not been configured properly (flaps/slats, etc.) Then one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit breaker on the Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the alarm.
This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.
The computers automatically released all the brakes and set the aircraft rocketing forward. The ADAT crew had no idea that this is a safety feature so that pilots can't land with the brakes on.
Not one member of the seven-man Arab crew was smart enough to throttle back the engines from their max power setting, so the $80 million brand-new aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totaling it.
The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown, for there has been a news blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere. Coverage of the story was deemed insulting to Moslem Arabs. Finally, the photos are starting to leak out.
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3207/85/
[NOTE: An $80 million dollar loss ain't so bad, when you can make it up quickly with the skyrocketing price of crude oil*.]
__________________________
*State-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) spreads its wings over the United Arab Emirates (UAE), accounting for 94% of its 97.8 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the fourth-largest national reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. It also has proved reserves of 196.1 trillion cu. ft. of natural gas. The ADNOC group includes exploration and production companies, support companies, maritime crude oil transport companies, and a refined-product distribution company that operates more than 200 UAE service stations. In 2007 the company acquired international power assets worth $1.4 billion from ABB and CMS Energy.
Officers:Chairman of Supreme Petroleum Counsel: His Highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan. CEO and Secretary General to the Supreme Petroleum Council: His Excellency Yousef Omair Bin Yousef. Deputy CEO and Director Exploration and Production: Abdulla Nasser Al-Suwaidi
http://www.answers.com/topic/abu-dhabi-national-oil-company?cat=biz-fin
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Towards the end of the colonial arabic islamic tyranny in North Africa
by Zorro
from
http://www.kabylia.info/observer/spip.php?article112
The Arabic Islamists terrorists invaded North Africa and succeeded to control and oppress the Berbers to make of their land a new home of terrorism and terror since the 7th century. The Islamic fascism and antihuman ideology startled the entire world since then. Today, especially after the Ben Laden’s terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the American Twin Towers, the Berber North African populations have decided to win back both their honour, dignity and independence which have always been being raped by the followers of the satanic Mahomet since the 7th century. Here is a shameful story of these fascist Islamists which occurred in North Africa, over two centuries ago. The reader has to keep in mind that this story has nothing to do with the Berbers who were/are colonised by the Arabs who were/are still raping and terrorising North Africa.
Juba
Victory in Tripoli: Lessons for the War on Terrorism
by Joshua E. London
Over two centuries ago, the United States was dragged into the affairs of the Islamic world by an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim pirates, the terrorists of the era. These pirates preyed on unsuspecting trade ships. The hulking merchant vessels of the period were no match for the Muslim pirate ships, which were built for speed and lightning strikes. It was simply a fact of life that— over the centuries—took its toll on countless merchant ships and their crews.
Contemporary scholars estimate that over 1 million white Christians from France and Italy to Spain, Holland, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland were captured between 1500 and 1800. The bloodcurdling tales of brutality and horror that awaited Christians unlucky enough to fall victim to the Barbary Pirates were widely known, although sometimes wildly exaggerated.
The reality was often much more prosaic, although no less cruel. After seizing the cargo and scuttling the vessel, the pirates would strip the crew of anything deemed remotely valuable. The shaken, naked, terrified crewmen would then be dragged back to North Africa. There, they would be imprisoned and enslaved or, if they were lucky, ransomed back to their sovereign or their family or the company they worked for.
Often enough, however, the victims of these maritime hijackings would languish in fetid prisons, unsure of when, or even if, they would ever be redeemed. Many perished or simply disappeared in the White Slave trade. The only other escape was conversion. Embracing Islam—“turning Turk”—instantly changed one’s status and prospects. Indeed, from time to time, some of these victims would prove rather able-bodied adventurers and mercenaries, considering their national identity, their religion, and their foreskins a small price to pay as compared with life as a Muslim pirate in North Africa.
Rogue States: The Maghrib
Known as the Barbary Pirates, these Muslim terrorists operated under the protection and sponsorship of rogue Arab states. The Barbary States— modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya—are collectively known to the Arab world as the Maghrib (“Land of Sunset”), denoting Islam’s territorial holdings west of Egypt.
With the advance of Mohammed’s armies in the Christian Levant in the seventh century, the Mediterranean was slowly transformed into the backwater frontier of the battles between Crescent and Cross. Battles raged on both land and sea, and religious piracy flourished. It was also a lucrative business, one that yielded great riches to the pirates and to the regimes that gave them refuge.
In contemporary terms, this system of piracy was simply state-sponsored terrorism, an extortion racket in which the pirates and the petty North African states were all complicit—as was the Ottoman Empire, to which three of the four states owed at least nominal allegiance.
The European states disapproved of all this, despite their own robust tradition of piracy and privateering. After all, such practices were increasingly considered incompatible with a globalized world that was increasingly dependent on overseas commerce. Nonetheless, these mercantilist nations remained more or less content to pay the extortion and appease the pirates, deciding that it was cheaper and easier than trying to defeat them. Also, the stronger nations of Europe quickly realized the benefits of manipulating the pirates to stave off commercial competition.
Pursuing Peace Through Appeasement
America’s struggle with the terrorism of Muslim piracy from the Barbary States began soon after the 13 colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776 and continued for roughly four decades.
After the War of Independence, America lost British protection in the Mediterranean and began worrying about Barbary depredations. In very short order, the precariousness of American interests abroad was brought into sharp focus when the American merchant vessel Betsey was taken by Morocco in October 1784.
Soon thereafter, two ships with a combined crew of 24 men fell to the pirates of Algiers—the Maria of Boston was captured on July 25, 1785, and five days later the Dauphin of Philadelphia was taken. The hostage crisis was significant, and Congress became greatly alarmed. Destitute of finances and military might, however, the United States pursued a multilateral diplomatic effort at peace. Consequently, between 1785 and 1793, a total of 13 ships and 119 men were taken by Algiers.
Obviously, the way forward was deemed to be the pursuit of peace treaties—appeasing terrorism. In 1792, for instance, Congress hoped for a peace treaty with Algiers that was to cost upwards of $40,000, with up to $25,000 to be paid in annual tribute. Ransoming enslaved Americans, it was thought, would cost an extra $40,000. Unsurprisingly, these terms were unacceptable to the pirates—why, after all, should they settle so cheaply?
The peace treaty was finally concluded with Algiers only in 1796, and the terms were far from appealing—$642,500 in cash up front, followed by a pledge of healthy annual tribute and sundry naval stores. The total cost of this transaction, Congress later determined, was $992,463.25, or about $14,300,000 in today’s terms: By way of comparison, the entire federal budget for FY 1796 was $5.7 million.
Washington Warns Congress: Be Ready for War
Then, as would happen with some frequency, the situation in Barbary changed as new rulers came to power, resulting in new realities and forcing new deals. President Washington warned Congress in December 1793: “If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace…it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”
Suitably moved, the House of Representatives on March 10, 1794, passed, and on March 19 the Senate ratified, a bill that gave birth to the United States Navy. As the legislation states: “Whereas the depredations committed by Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States render it necessary that a naval force should be provided for its protection….” Six ships were authorized at a cost of just under $700,000. Unfortunately, the birth of the U.S. Navy was no more exempt from the laws of politics than are mortals from the laws of physics. Thus, in an early example of pork-barrel politics, the ships were to be built in six different states.
As is the case today, party politics played a role in devising a national defense policy. The Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, were pro-Navy, while the Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, were anti-Navy. The pro-Navy party wanted to castigate the pirates, protect U.S. commerce and foreign interests, and assert American strength abroad to secure international respect and influence. Their opponents preferred spending money on westward expansion rather than on ships and distant enemies in foreign lands.
This was somewhat ironic, as Jefferson was otherwise a hawk when it came to the pirates and had previously argued at great length for a robust naval and military response. Jefferson even envisioned an international force, somewhat like what NATO is supposed to be today, that would be called into being expressly to deal with the Muslim pirates. No one ever took this idea particularly seriously.
Before long, however, national politics gave Jefferson his chance for hawkishness. Soon after he became President, the situation in Barbary degenerated.
The Coming of War with Tripoli
President Adams, before him, had been constrained by the early peace efforts, and so was forced to comply with treaty obligations. These included the establishment of American consulates in the Barbary States and sending those regimes cash, armaments, warships, and naval supplies as well as sundry bribes. As the demands of the Barbary Nations increased, the inevitability of war loomed ever larger. This was particularly so with the Regency of Tripoli.
In late May 1801, Jefferson, using his executive powers, sent a squadron under Commodore Richard Dale to deal with Tripoli’s ruler, Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli. Attempts to pacify him with money and bribes had already failed. Indeed, unbeknownst to the Administration, a couple of weeks earlier Qaramanli had beaten Jefferson to the punch. On Thursday, May 14, 1801, Qaramanli sent word to the American consulate that he was sending men over to chop down the American flagpole—the traditional method of declaring war in Tripoli.
Congress didn’t respond to Qaramanli’s actions until February 1802, when it empowered Jefferson to use the Navy in any way he deemed fit to protect “the commerce and seamen of the United States against Tripolitan cruisers.” Jefferson’s instructions to naval officers were explicit: “subdue, seize and make prizes of all vessels, goods and effects belonging to the Dey of Tripoli” and proceed with whatever measures “the state of war will justify.” Note, however, that war had not been officially declared.
Barbary naval warfare was to prove as frustrating as the earlier diplomatic dealings with its perfidious tyrants. So frustrated was Commodore Dale that upon returning home from the Mediterranean in April 1802, he resigned his commission and, glad to be rid of the burden of Barbary, retired to Philadelphia.
Jefferson then sent another squadron under Commodore Richard Morris. This effort proved even more ineffectual, however, and Morris demonstrated a rather thorough incompetence. He was relieved of command in August 1803. For his exertions, such as they were, Morris was rewarded with a court of inquiry into his conduct. Adjudged “not competent to the command of a squadron,” Morris was dismissed from service in the United States Navy.
“The Most Bold and Daring Act of the Age”
Another squadron was dispatched under Commodore Edward Preble. Though he too would end up frustrated, the fighting officer from Maine believed naval force was the answer to Barbary maritime terrorism and was determined to chastise Tripoli.
Preble’s chief frustration was the loss, early in his tenure, of the USS Philadelphia under the command of Captain William Bainbridge. While chasing a small, insignificant pirate vessel on October 31, 1803, Bainbridge grounded the mighty frigate on an uncharted reef. This blunder was compounded by the fact that Bainbridge failed to destroy his personal papers after surrendering and abandoning his ship—without a fight—just outside of the harbor of Tripoli.
Consequently, Yusuf Qaramanli now had a magnificent warship—renamed the “Gift of Allah” — 307 American hostages, and invaluable intelligence about the American squadron and Preble’s intentions. As the news quickly spread, American prestige plummeted to new depths.
While maintaining the naval blockade of Tripoli, Preble set aside his plans for a robust campaign and pondered his only two options for the Philadelphia: to recapture her or destroy her. The impracticability of retaking the mighty frigate forced the latter option. The plan called for Lieutenant Stephen Decatur to sail into the fortified harbor of Tripoli aboard the USS Intrepid, a captured enemy ketch, and come alongside the Philadelphia. At his signal, the nighttime raid would commence and his men, hidden below-deck, would swarm aboard Philadelphia and burn her.
On the night of February 16, 1803, the Intrepid came alongside the Philadelphia. As enemy guards, suddenly suspicious, raised the alarm, Decatur yelled “Board!” while leaping over the side. His men rushed the ship and overwhelmed the guards with their sabers and tomahawks. Combustibles were placed at key spots around the ship and ignited at Decatur’s command. The fire spread rapidly and uncontrollably.
Just then, the enemy’s gunboats and shore batteries came alive. Waiting until all his men were safely back aboard the Intrepid, Decatur leapt into her rigging as she pulled away. The successful 20-minute mission was over, and Decatur suddenly became an American naval hero. The mission had been styled “the most bold and daring act of the age” by Admiral Horatio Nelson. Indeed, Pope Pius VII said the Americans by this action “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.”
Preble also launched several attacks against Tripoli, but to no great effect. Frustrated with the lack of positive results and the growing costs of the war, Jefferson replaced Preble with Commodore John Barron.
“General” William Eaton and the Fall of Derna
In an historic and unconventional move, Jefferson also sent an odd, obsessed, and self-destructive man to the Mediterranean to lead what amounted to the nation’s first covert operation. William Eaton, formerly America’s consular agent in Tunis, had developed a pet scheme to overthrow Yusuf Qaramanli. Named Naval Agent for the Barbary Regencies in 1804, Eaton, a veteran of the Revolutionary War and Indian fighter, sailed with Commodore Barron’s squadron to Barbary.
The scheme was ridiculous. Eaton was to find Yusuf’s exiled brother Ahmad, raise an army, march to Derna (the second largest city in the Regency of Tripoli), capture it, secure its harbor, foment rebellion, and then proceed to Benghazi and then on to the city of Tripoli. There, Yusuf was to be ousted and replaced by the U.S.-friendly Ahmad.
Eaton had managed to convince Jefferson that the mission was worth a shot and that it could be done cheaply. That was more than enough for Jefferson, but almost from the moment Jefferson gave Eaton the green light, he started to have his own doubts about it.
The expedition began on November 26, 1804, when Eaton landed in Alexandria, Egypt. Accompanying him was a small detachment of United States Marines led by Lieutenant Neville Presley O’Bannon.
Eaton steamrolled ahead to Cairo, picking up Ahmad and assorted “warriors,” and then embarked on a roughly 500-mile march westward across the desert. The newly self-appointed “General” Eaton was able to muster a roughly 400-man army of European mercenaries and disaffected Arab fighters. Due principally to religious tension and mistrust, this motley army nearly collapsed into mutiny and bloodshed at nearly every turn. The only binding element was Eaton and his Marines.
William Eaton overcame odds that might have stopped a saner man. At the fortified city of Derna, in April 1805, Eaton confronted a force much larger than his own. His strategy was to lead a charge straight into the enemy’s guns and, with the support of U.S. Navy gunboats offshore, capture the city. The effort was a smashing success. When Eaton’s Marines flew the Stars and Stripes at Derna, it was the first time a U.S. flag had been raised in conquest in a foreign land.
It is this action, and the valor and conduct of the Marines, that is forevermore enshrined in the opening lines of the Marine Corps hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.” The action at Derna also gave us the Mameluke sword that is worn on parade and formal occasions by Marine commissioned and warrant officers. The sword is patterned after the sword worn by Ahmad Qaramanli, which he carried while a refugee with the Mameluke in Egypt. Ahmad presented his jeweled sword to Lieutenant Neville Presley O’Bannon as a tribute to the Marine’s bravery and valor. It is also the oldest weapon in continuous use by the United States Armed Forces.
The fall of Derna shook Pasha Qaramanli to his core. It also gave Eaton the momentum he had hoped for. The Pasha envisioned the forthcoming reckoning, Eaton the vindication and glory.
Unknown to Eaton, however, Jefferson had authorized U.S. diplomat Tobias Lear to negotiate a peace treaty at the same time that Eaton was undertaking his daring and dangerous mission. It was Jefferson’s way of hedging his bets. Whichever effort succeeded first, the President would be able to declare victory.
While Eaton planned his westward advance in his head, an enormously relieved Pasha Qaramanli was busy cutting a sweet deal to end the conflict and retain his position. Consul General Tobias Lear negotiated a peace treaty with Tripoli. The United States agreed to pay $60,000 for all American prisoners; agreed to withdraw all U.S. forces and support from Derna; and granted a secret stipulation that the Pasha be allowed to keep Ahmad’s family hostage to prevent future mischief. The Americans were freed, peace was declared, and Ahmad Qaramanli was betrayed without a moment’s hesitation.
An Elusive “Peace”
Jefferson declared “victory,” but the “peace” proved rather political. The Senate ratified the peace treaty with Tripoli, and it was proclaimed on April 22, 1806. The Federalists did not manage to derail the peace treaty, although they did manage to embarrass and, at junctures, discredit President Thomas Jefferson and forever tarnish the career of Tobias Lear. Five years later, the now alcoholic, 47-year-old William Eaton died in anonymity. For what it is worth, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison saw to it that Lear continued in government employ until his death. He committed suicide in 1816 and left no note.
The piracy didn’t actually end there, however. America simply chose to ignore it as more pressing matters took center stage.
Finally, in 1815, Barbary piracy once again emerged atop the country’s national priorities. The War of 1812 finally over and the Treaty of Ghent ratified, President James Madison was at last able to concentrate on the situation in the Mediterranean. Once again, diplomacy had failed. Again, bribery had also failed—the money was never enough.
Unlike Thomas Jefferson, Madison was eager to pursue the war against the Barbary terrorism with real gusto. On March 2, 1815, Madison secured a declaration of war from Congress. He sent two squadrons under Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur to deal with the Barbary tyrants.
Decatur reached Barbary first. He quickly defeated the enemy at sea and forced tough new peace treaties on American terms, “dictated at the mouths of our cannon.” These new terms finally spelled victory. This was the first time any nation had successfully stood up to the Barbary Pirates. It was sufficient to ignite the imagination of the European powers to rise up against Barbary and take action.
In late August 1816, a combined British and Dutch fleet under the command of Lord Exmouth unleashed hell upon Algiers, effectually ending piracy against most of Europe—excepting France. The French eventually grew tired of Barbary as well and sent an invasion force in May 1830. France conquered the city and regency of Algiers and remained there until they were finally chased out in 1962.
Lessons for the War on Terrorism
Although there is much in the history of America’s wars with the Barbary pirates that is of direct relevance to the current global war on terrorism, one aspect seems particularly instructive to informing our understanding of contemporary affairs. Very simply put, the Barbary pirates were committed, militant Muslims who meant to do exactly what they said.
Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.
These future United States Presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Sound familiar?
Note that America’s Barbary experience took place well before colonialism entered the lands of Islam, before there were any oil interests dragging the U.S. into the fray, and long before the founding of the state of Israel.
America became entangled in the Islamic world and was dragged into a war with the Barbary States simply because of the religious obligation within Islam to bring belief to those who do not share it. This is not something limited to “radical” or “fundamentalist” Muslims—which is not to say that such obligations lead inevitably to physical conflict, at least not in principle. After all, peaceful proselytizing among various religious groups continues apace throughout the world; but within the teachings of Islam, and the history of Muslims, this is a well-established militant thread.
The Islamic basis for piracy in the Mediterranean was an old doctrine relating to the physical or armed jihad, or struggle. To Muslims in the heyday of Barbary piracy, there were, at least in principle, only two forces at play in the world: the Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or House of War. The House of Islam meant Muslim governance and the unrivaled authority of the sharia, Islam’s complex system of holy law. The House of War was simply everything that fell outside of the House of Islam—that area of the globe not under Muslim authority, where the infidel ruled. For Muslims, these two houses were perpetually at war—at least until mankind should finally embrace Allah and his teachings as revealed through his prophet, Mohammed.
The point of jihad is not to convert by force, but to remove the obstacles to the infidels’ conversion so that they shall either convert or become a dhimmi (a non-Muslim who accepts Islamic dominion) and pay the jizya, or poll tax. The goal is to bring all of the Dar al-Harb into the peace of the Dar al-Islam and to eradicate unbelief. The Koran also promises rewards to those who fight in the jihad: plunder and glory in this world and the delights of paradise in the next.
Although the piratical activities of Barbary genuinely degenerated over the centuries from pure considerations of the glory of jihad to less grandiose visions of booty and state revenues, it is important to remember that the religious foundations of the institution of piracy remained central. Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crews to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea.
In fact, the peoples of Barbary continued to consider the pirates as holy warriors even after the Barbary rulers began to allow non-religious commitments to command their strategic use of piracy. The changes that the religious institution of piracy underwent were natural, if pathological. Just as the concept of jihad is invoked by Muslim terrorists today to legitimize suicide bombings of noncombatants for political gain, so too al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, served as the cornerstone of the Barbary States’ interaction with Christendom.
The Barbary pirates were not a “radical” or “fundamentalist” sect that had twisted religious doctrine for power and politics, or that came to recast aspects of their faith out of some form of insanity. They were simply a North African warrior caste involved in an armed jihad—a mainstream Muslim doctrine. This is how the Muslims understood Barbary piracy and armed jihad at the time—and, indeed, how the physical jihad has been understood since Mohammed revealed it as the prophecy of Allah.
Conclusion
Obviously, and thankfully, not every Muslim is obligated, or even really inclined, to take up this jihad. Indeed, many Muslims are loath to personally embrace this physical struggle. But that does not mean they are all opposed to such a struggle any more than the choice of many Westerners not to join the police force or the armed services means they do not support those institutions.
It is very easy to chalk it all up to regional squabbles, economic depression, racism, or post-colonial nationalistic self-determinism. Such explanations undoubtedly enter into part of the equation: They are already part of the propaganda that clouds contemporary analysis. But as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams came to learn back in 1786, the situation becomes a lot clearer when you listen to the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists and take them at face value.
Joshua E. London is Deputy Director for Public Affairs with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and author of Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2005). He has written on politics and public policy for the American Spectator, Human Events, National Review Online, and Details: Promoting Jewish Conservative Values and holds an M.A. in Social Science from the University of Chicago and a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Davis.
Thursday 29 November 2007,
http://www.kabylia.info/observer/spip.php?article112
More about the the fledgling United States and the Moslem Barbary Pirates: http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/02/to-shores-of-tripoli.html
by Zorro
from
http://www.kabylia.info/observer/spip.php?article112
The Arabic Islamists terrorists invaded North Africa and succeeded to control and oppress the Berbers to make of their land a new home of terrorism and terror since the 7th century. The Islamic fascism and antihuman ideology startled the entire world since then. Today, especially after the Ben Laden’s terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the American Twin Towers, the Berber North African populations have decided to win back both their honour, dignity and independence which have always been being raped by the followers of the satanic Mahomet since the 7th century. Here is a shameful story of these fascist Islamists which occurred in North Africa, over two centuries ago. The reader has to keep in mind that this story has nothing to do with the Berbers who were/are colonised by the Arabs who were/are still raping and terrorising North Africa.
Juba
Victory in Tripoli: Lessons for the War on Terrorism
by Joshua E. London
Over two centuries ago, the United States was dragged into the affairs of the Islamic world by an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim pirates, the terrorists of the era. These pirates preyed on unsuspecting trade ships. The hulking merchant vessels of the period were no match for the Muslim pirate ships, which were built for speed and lightning strikes. It was simply a fact of life that— over the centuries—took its toll on countless merchant ships and their crews.
Contemporary scholars estimate that over 1 million white Christians from France and Italy to Spain, Holland, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland were captured between 1500 and 1800. The bloodcurdling tales of brutality and horror that awaited Christians unlucky enough to fall victim to the Barbary Pirates were widely known, although sometimes wildly exaggerated.
The reality was often much more prosaic, although no less cruel. After seizing the cargo and scuttling the vessel, the pirates would strip the crew of anything deemed remotely valuable. The shaken, naked, terrified crewmen would then be dragged back to North Africa. There, they would be imprisoned and enslaved or, if they were lucky, ransomed back to their sovereign or their family or the company they worked for.
Often enough, however, the victims of these maritime hijackings would languish in fetid prisons, unsure of when, or even if, they would ever be redeemed. Many perished or simply disappeared in the White Slave trade. The only other escape was conversion. Embracing Islam—“turning Turk”—instantly changed one’s status and prospects. Indeed, from time to time, some of these victims would prove rather able-bodied adventurers and mercenaries, considering their national identity, their religion, and their foreskins a small price to pay as compared with life as a Muslim pirate in North Africa.
Rogue States: The Maghrib
Known as the Barbary Pirates, these Muslim terrorists operated under the protection and sponsorship of rogue Arab states. The Barbary States— modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya—are collectively known to the Arab world as the Maghrib (“Land of Sunset”), denoting Islam’s territorial holdings west of Egypt.
With the advance of Mohammed’s armies in the Christian Levant in the seventh century, the Mediterranean was slowly transformed into the backwater frontier of the battles between Crescent and Cross. Battles raged on both land and sea, and religious piracy flourished. It was also a lucrative business, one that yielded great riches to the pirates and to the regimes that gave them refuge.
In contemporary terms, this system of piracy was simply state-sponsored terrorism, an extortion racket in which the pirates and the petty North African states were all complicit—as was the Ottoman Empire, to which three of the four states owed at least nominal allegiance.
The European states disapproved of all this, despite their own robust tradition of piracy and privateering. After all, such practices were increasingly considered incompatible with a globalized world that was increasingly dependent on overseas commerce. Nonetheless, these mercantilist nations remained more or less content to pay the extortion and appease the pirates, deciding that it was cheaper and easier than trying to defeat them. Also, the stronger nations of Europe quickly realized the benefits of manipulating the pirates to stave off commercial competition.
Pursuing Peace Through Appeasement
America’s struggle with the terrorism of Muslim piracy from the Barbary States began soon after the 13 colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776 and continued for roughly four decades.
After the War of Independence, America lost British protection in the Mediterranean and began worrying about Barbary depredations. In very short order, the precariousness of American interests abroad was brought into sharp focus when the American merchant vessel Betsey was taken by Morocco in October 1784.
Soon thereafter, two ships with a combined crew of 24 men fell to the pirates of Algiers—the Maria of Boston was captured on July 25, 1785, and five days later the Dauphin of Philadelphia was taken. The hostage crisis was significant, and Congress became greatly alarmed. Destitute of finances and military might, however, the United States pursued a multilateral diplomatic effort at peace. Consequently, between 1785 and 1793, a total of 13 ships and 119 men were taken by Algiers.
Obviously, the way forward was deemed to be the pursuit of peace treaties—appeasing terrorism. In 1792, for instance, Congress hoped for a peace treaty with Algiers that was to cost upwards of $40,000, with up to $25,000 to be paid in annual tribute. Ransoming enslaved Americans, it was thought, would cost an extra $40,000. Unsurprisingly, these terms were unacceptable to the pirates—why, after all, should they settle so cheaply?
The peace treaty was finally concluded with Algiers only in 1796, and the terms were far from appealing—$642,500 in cash up front, followed by a pledge of healthy annual tribute and sundry naval stores. The total cost of this transaction, Congress later determined, was $992,463.25, or about $14,300,000 in today’s terms: By way of comparison, the entire federal budget for FY 1796 was $5.7 million.
Washington Warns Congress: Be Ready for War
Then, as would happen with some frequency, the situation in Barbary changed as new rulers came to power, resulting in new realities and forcing new deals. President Washington warned Congress in December 1793: “If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace…it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”
Suitably moved, the House of Representatives on March 10, 1794, passed, and on March 19 the Senate ratified, a bill that gave birth to the United States Navy. As the legislation states: “Whereas the depredations committed by Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States render it necessary that a naval force should be provided for its protection….” Six ships were authorized at a cost of just under $700,000. Unfortunately, the birth of the U.S. Navy was no more exempt from the laws of politics than are mortals from the laws of physics. Thus, in an early example of pork-barrel politics, the ships were to be built in six different states.
As is the case today, party politics played a role in devising a national defense policy. The Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, were pro-Navy, while the Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, were anti-Navy. The pro-Navy party wanted to castigate the pirates, protect U.S. commerce and foreign interests, and assert American strength abroad to secure international respect and influence. Their opponents preferred spending money on westward expansion rather than on ships and distant enemies in foreign lands.
This was somewhat ironic, as Jefferson was otherwise a hawk when it came to the pirates and had previously argued at great length for a robust naval and military response. Jefferson even envisioned an international force, somewhat like what NATO is supposed to be today, that would be called into being expressly to deal with the Muslim pirates. No one ever took this idea particularly seriously.
Before long, however, national politics gave Jefferson his chance for hawkishness. Soon after he became President, the situation in Barbary degenerated.
The Coming of War with Tripoli
President Adams, before him, had been constrained by the early peace efforts, and so was forced to comply with treaty obligations. These included the establishment of American consulates in the Barbary States and sending those regimes cash, armaments, warships, and naval supplies as well as sundry bribes. As the demands of the Barbary Nations increased, the inevitability of war loomed ever larger. This was particularly so with the Regency of Tripoli.
In late May 1801, Jefferson, using his executive powers, sent a squadron under Commodore Richard Dale to deal with Tripoli’s ruler, Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli. Attempts to pacify him with money and bribes had already failed. Indeed, unbeknownst to the Administration, a couple of weeks earlier Qaramanli had beaten Jefferson to the punch. On Thursday, May 14, 1801, Qaramanli sent word to the American consulate that he was sending men over to chop down the American flagpole—the traditional method of declaring war in Tripoli.
Congress didn’t respond to Qaramanli’s actions until February 1802, when it empowered Jefferson to use the Navy in any way he deemed fit to protect “the commerce and seamen of the United States against Tripolitan cruisers.” Jefferson’s instructions to naval officers were explicit: “subdue, seize and make prizes of all vessels, goods and effects belonging to the Dey of Tripoli” and proceed with whatever measures “the state of war will justify.” Note, however, that war had not been officially declared.
Barbary naval warfare was to prove as frustrating as the earlier diplomatic dealings with its perfidious tyrants. So frustrated was Commodore Dale that upon returning home from the Mediterranean in April 1802, he resigned his commission and, glad to be rid of the burden of Barbary, retired to Philadelphia.
Jefferson then sent another squadron under Commodore Richard Morris. This effort proved even more ineffectual, however, and Morris demonstrated a rather thorough incompetence. He was relieved of command in August 1803. For his exertions, such as they were, Morris was rewarded with a court of inquiry into his conduct. Adjudged “not competent to the command of a squadron,” Morris was dismissed from service in the United States Navy.
“The Most Bold and Daring Act of the Age”
Another squadron was dispatched under Commodore Edward Preble. Though he too would end up frustrated, the fighting officer from Maine believed naval force was the answer to Barbary maritime terrorism and was determined to chastise Tripoli.
Preble’s chief frustration was the loss, early in his tenure, of the USS Philadelphia under the command of Captain William Bainbridge. While chasing a small, insignificant pirate vessel on October 31, 1803, Bainbridge grounded the mighty frigate on an uncharted reef. This blunder was compounded by the fact that Bainbridge failed to destroy his personal papers after surrendering and abandoning his ship—without a fight—just outside of the harbor of Tripoli.
Consequently, Yusuf Qaramanli now had a magnificent warship—renamed the “Gift of Allah” — 307 American hostages, and invaluable intelligence about the American squadron and Preble’s intentions. As the news quickly spread, American prestige plummeted to new depths.
While maintaining the naval blockade of Tripoli, Preble set aside his plans for a robust campaign and pondered his only two options for the Philadelphia: to recapture her or destroy her. The impracticability of retaking the mighty frigate forced the latter option. The plan called for Lieutenant Stephen Decatur to sail into the fortified harbor of Tripoli aboard the USS Intrepid, a captured enemy ketch, and come alongside the Philadelphia. At his signal, the nighttime raid would commence and his men, hidden below-deck, would swarm aboard Philadelphia and burn her.
On the night of February 16, 1803, the Intrepid came alongside the Philadelphia. As enemy guards, suddenly suspicious, raised the alarm, Decatur yelled “Board!” while leaping over the side. His men rushed the ship and overwhelmed the guards with their sabers and tomahawks. Combustibles were placed at key spots around the ship and ignited at Decatur’s command. The fire spread rapidly and uncontrollably.
Just then, the enemy’s gunboats and shore batteries came alive. Waiting until all his men were safely back aboard the Intrepid, Decatur leapt into her rigging as she pulled away. The successful 20-minute mission was over, and Decatur suddenly became an American naval hero. The mission had been styled “the most bold and daring act of the age” by Admiral Horatio Nelson. Indeed, Pope Pius VII said the Americans by this action “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.”
Preble also launched several attacks against Tripoli, but to no great effect. Frustrated with the lack of positive results and the growing costs of the war, Jefferson replaced Preble with Commodore John Barron.
“General” William Eaton and the Fall of Derna
In an historic and unconventional move, Jefferson also sent an odd, obsessed, and self-destructive man to the Mediterranean to lead what amounted to the nation’s first covert operation. William Eaton, formerly America’s consular agent in Tunis, had developed a pet scheme to overthrow Yusuf Qaramanli. Named Naval Agent for the Barbary Regencies in 1804, Eaton, a veteran of the Revolutionary War and Indian fighter, sailed with Commodore Barron’s squadron to Barbary.
The scheme was ridiculous. Eaton was to find Yusuf’s exiled brother Ahmad, raise an army, march to Derna (the second largest city in the Regency of Tripoli), capture it, secure its harbor, foment rebellion, and then proceed to Benghazi and then on to the city of Tripoli. There, Yusuf was to be ousted and replaced by the U.S.-friendly Ahmad.
Eaton had managed to convince Jefferson that the mission was worth a shot and that it could be done cheaply. That was more than enough for Jefferson, but almost from the moment Jefferson gave Eaton the green light, he started to have his own doubts about it.
The expedition began on November 26, 1804, when Eaton landed in Alexandria, Egypt. Accompanying him was a small detachment of United States Marines led by Lieutenant Neville Presley O’Bannon.
Eaton steamrolled ahead to Cairo, picking up Ahmad and assorted “warriors,” and then embarked on a roughly 500-mile march westward across the desert. The newly self-appointed “General” Eaton was able to muster a roughly 400-man army of European mercenaries and disaffected Arab fighters. Due principally to religious tension and mistrust, this motley army nearly collapsed into mutiny and bloodshed at nearly every turn. The only binding element was Eaton and his Marines.
William Eaton overcame odds that might have stopped a saner man. At the fortified city of Derna, in April 1805, Eaton confronted a force much larger than his own. His strategy was to lead a charge straight into the enemy’s guns and, with the support of U.S. Navy gunboats offshore, capture the city. The effort was a smashing success. When Eaton’s Marines flew the Stars and Stripes at Derna, it was the first time a U.S. flag had been raised in conquest in a foreign land.
It is this action, and the valor and conduct of the Marines, that is forevermore enshrined in the opening lines of the Marine Corps hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.” The action at Derna also gave us the Mameluke sword that is worn on parade and formal occasions by Marine commissioned and warrant officers. The sword is patterned after the sword worn by Ahmad Qaramanli, which he carried while a refugee with the Mameluke in Egypt. Ahmad presented his jeweled sword to Lieutenant Neville Presley O’Bannon as a tribute to the Marine’s bravery and valor. It is also the oldest weapon in continuous use by the United States Armed Forces.
The fall of Derna shook Pasha Qaramanli to his core. It also gave Eaton the momentum he had hoped for. The Pasha envisioned the forthcoming reckoning, Eaton the vindication and glory.
Unknown to Eaton, however, Jefferson had authorized U.S. diplomat Tobias Lear to negotiate a peace treaty at the same time that Eaton was undertaking his daring and dangerous mission. It was Jefferson’s way of hedging his bets. Whichever effort succeeded first, the President would be able to declare victory.
While Eaton planned his westward advance in his head, an enormously relieved Pasha Qaramanli was busy cutting a sweet deal to end the conflict and retain his position. Consul General Tobias Lear negotiated a peace treaty with Tripoli. The United States agreed to pay $60,000 for all American prisoners; agreed to withdraw all U.S. forces and support from Derna; and granted a secret stipulation that the Pasha be allowed to keep Ahmad’s family hostage to prevent future mischief. The Americans were freed, peace was declared, and Ahmad Qaramanli was betrayed without a moment’s hesitation.
An Elusive “Peace”
Jefferson declared “victory,” but the “peace” proved rather political. The Senate ratified the peace treaty with Tripoli, and it was proclaimed on April 22, 1806. The Federalists did not manage to derail the peace treaty, although they did manage to embarrass and, at junctures, discredit President Thomas Jefferson and forever tarnish the career of Tobias Lear. Five years later, the now alcoholic, 47-year-old William Eaton died in anonymity. For what it is worth, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison saw to it that Lear continued in government employ until his death. He committed suicide in 1816 and left no note.
The piracy didn’t actually end there, however. America simply chose to ignore it as more pressing matters took center stage.
Finally, in 1815, Barbary piracy once again emerged atop the country’s national priorities. The War of 1812 finally over and the Treaty of Ghent ratified, President James Madison was at last able to concentrate on the situation in the Mediterranean. Once again, diplomacy had failed. Again, bribery had also failed—the money was never enough.
Unlike Thomas Jefferson, Madison was eager to pursue the war against the Barbary terrorism with real gusto. On March 2, 1815, Madison secured a declaration of war from Congress. He sent two squadrons under Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur to deal with the Barbary tyrants.
Decatur reached Barbary first. He quickly defeated the enemy at sea and forced tough new peace treaties on American terms, “dictated at the mouths of our cannon.” These new terms finally spelled victory. This was the first time any nation had successfully stood up to the Barbary Pirates. It was sufficient to ignite the imagination of the European powers to rise up against Barbary and take action.
In late August 1816, a combined British and Dutch fleet under the command of Lord Exmouth unleashed hell upon Algiers, effectually ending piracy against most of Europe—excepting France. The French eventually grew tired of Barbary as well and sent an invasion force in May 1830. France conquered the city and regency of Algiers and remained there until they were finally chased out in 1962.
Lessons for the War on Terrorism
Although there is much in the history of America’s wars with the Barbary pirates that is of direct relevance to the current global war on terrorism, one aspect seems particularly instructive to informing our understanding of contemporary affairs. Very simply put, the Barbary pirates were committed, militant Muslims who meant to do exactly what they said.
Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.
These future United States Presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Sound familiar?
Note that America’s Barbary experience took place well before colonialism entered the lands of Islam, before there were any oil interests dragging the U.S. into the fray, and long before the founding of the state of Israel.
America became entangled in the Islamic world and was dragged into a war with the Barbary States simply because of the religious obligation within Islam to bring belief to those who do not share it. This is not something limited to “radical” or “fundamentalist” Muslims—which is not to say that such obligations lead inevitably to physical conflict, at least not in principle. After all, peaceful proselytizing among various religious groups continues apace throughout the world; but within the teachings of Islam, and the history of Muslims, this is a well-established militant thread.
The Islamic basis for piracy in the Mediterranean was an old doctrine relating to the physical or armed jihad, or struggle. To Muslims in the heyday of Barbary piracy, there were, at least in principle, only two forces at play in the world: the Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or House of War. The House of Islam meant Muslim governance and the unrivaled authority of the sharia, Islam’s complex system of holy law. The House of War was simply everything that fell outside of the House of Islam—that area of the globe not under Muslim authority, where the infidel ruled. For Muslims, these two houses were perpetually at war—at least until mankind should finally embrace Allah and his teachings as revealed through his prophet, Mohammed.
The point of jihad is not to convert by force, but to remove the obstacles to the infidels’ conversion so that they shall either convert or become a dhimmi (a non-Muslim who accepts Islamic dominion) and pay the jizya, or poll tax. The goal is to bring all of the Dar al-Harb into the peace of the Dar al-Islam and to eradicate unbelief. The Koran also promises rewards to those who fight in the jihad: plunder and glory in this world and the delights of paradise in the next.
Although the piratical activities of Barbary genuinely degenerated over the centuries from pure considerations of the glory of jihad to less grandiose visions of booty and state revenues, it is important to remember that the religious foundations of the institution of piracy remained central. Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crews to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea.
In fact, the peoples of Barbary continued to consider the pirates as holy warriors even after the Barbary rulers began to allow non-religious commitments to command their strategic use of piracy. The changes that the religious institution of piracy underwent were natural, if pathological. Just as the concept of jihad is invoked by Muslim terrorists today to legitimize suicide bombings of noncombatants for political gain, so too al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, served as the cornerstone of the Barbary States’ interaction with Christendom.
The Barbary pirates were not a “radical” or “fundamentalist” sect that had twisted religious doctrine for power and politics, or that came to recast aspects of their faith out of some form of insanity. They were simply a North African warrior caste involved in an armed jihad—a mainstream Muslim doctrine. This is how the Muslims understood Barbary piracy and armed jihad at the time—and, indeed, how the physical jihad has been understood since Mohammed revealed it as the prophecy of Allah.
Conclusion
Obviously, and thankfully, not every Muslim is obligated, or even really inclined, to take up this jihad. Indeed, many Muslims are loath to personally embrace this physical struggle. But that does not mean they are all opposed to such a struggle any more than the choice of many Westerners not to join the police force or the armed services means they do not support those institutions.
It is very easy to chalk it all up to regional squabbles, economic depression, racism, or post-colonial nationalistic self-determinism. Such explanations undoubtedly enter into part of the equation: They are already part of the propaganda that clouds contemporary analysis. But as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams came to learn back in 1786, the situation becomes a lot clearer when you listen to the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists and take them at face value.
Joshua E. London is Deputy Director for Public Affairs with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and author of Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2005). He has written on politics and public policy for the American Spectator, Human Events, National Review Online, and Details: Promoting Jewish Conservative Values and holds an M.A. in Social Science from the University of Chicago and a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Davis.
Thursday 29 November 2007,
http://www.kabylia.info/observer/spip.php?article112
More about the the fledgling United States and the Moslem Barbary Pirates: http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/02/to-shores-of-tripoli.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)