WHAT'S WRONG?

WHY WE CANNOT WIN THIS WAR

AGAINST THE JIHADISTS


Not too difficult to figure out

Raymond Close . . . was C.I.A. station chief in [Saudi Arabia] . . . [who] took early retirement and then immediately went into business with two well-connected Saudi businessmen, one of them a former Saudi intelligence head. When do you think he started getting those job offers from the Saudis -- after he retired, or before?
"Fitzgerald: Stop the Saudi lobby"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018069.php#comments

With the president/commander-in-chief in Riyadh's pocket, what chance does USA stand?Posted by: Alert at September 7, 2007 2:58 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018069.php#comments


This war has been worse than doing nothing, because it has galvanized our enemy to believe its success more likely than ever—even as it has drained Americans' will to fight.
"What Real War Looks Like"
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2006/12/what-real-war-looks-like-by-elan.asp


This report documents the undermining of this US policy and the apparent violation of US law by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in the Palestinian Authority (PA) areas through the funding of Al Quds Open University. Al Quds is a Palestinian university that hosts branches of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror organizations throughout Gaza and the West Bank
"Fitzgerald: The 'Israel Lobby' and the Saudi Lobby"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018056.php#comments


The elections in Iraq were touted as an outstanding success for America, but the new Iraqi government is far from friendly. It is dominated by a Shiite alliance led by the Islamic Daawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The alliance has intimate ties with the first nation to undergo an Islamic revolution, Iran.
"The 'Forward Strategy' for Failure"
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-spring/forward-strategy-for-failure.asp


Our military capacities are not in doubt today. It is our moral self-confidence that is in question. What was it that stopped us from confronting Iran in 1979, except a lack of confidence in our own rightness, and an unwillingness to defend ourselves for our own sakes?
"'No Substitute for Victory' The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism"
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp


Self-defense may well require killing more of the enemy’s citizens than the enemy has killed of ours. It is commonly necessary in war to break the spirit of a foreign people whose nation has initiated aggression in which they are complicit. This often requires killing civilians, and in some cases even targeting them, as America did in World War II.
"'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense"
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp


Stop the "Saudi lobby"
Good idea. No, a great idea. A long overdue idea.

But how?

The average citizen, in the US and throughout the West, is probably wondering how it has come to such a pass. But if the above essay paints the picture, even in part, how do small people, without great financial resources, who are worried about bills and mortgages and raising families in a world in which "values" are shifting, how do these folks get their voices heard, heard to the point where change is effected?

It's not going to be easy. It will require personal involvement. It will involve study, not only of the ideology of Islam and the threat it poses to decent society but refresher civics courses, understanding our own governments and how they work as well as how they can be abused. All of which is to be followed by organization on the grass roots level. In the US, the Democratic and Republican parties are equally suspect, in my view. The Democrats in that they defend policies of multiculturism and cultural relativism that are intended to lull the citizenry into a soporific stupor. The Republicans in that they all too frequently are connected to big money (read "big oil") interests that are not in the interests of the American people. They might as well be crying "Allahu Bankbook" for the effect they are having on their country.

As for "Grass roots organization," it could mean increased involvement of the citizenry, in town hall meetings, in municipal elections, in state elections, in federal elections, making this an issue. It could mean some thought going into breaking the death grip that political correctness has on media reporting, followedby action. But for all of this, it will come down to the actions of lots of little guys, dedicated little guys, to break the grip Saudi money has on the West.Posted by:
Chatillon at September 7, 2007 1:11 PM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018069.php#comments


The West can neither buy the Arabs who hate it by sacrificing Christian Lebanese and Israeli Jews nor suppress terrorism by embracing states and movements sponsoring it. Creating such a coalition may repeat the failure of the elder Bush’s coalition to suppress the terrorist regime in Iraq. Instead, it should hark back to the World War II and remember how it was won. Some of the same ruthlessness is needed now. The enemy is no less dangerous and even more fanatic. Waiting to be hit by Moslem nuclear bombs because one does not wish to be ruthless with states sponsoring terrorism, to shift to non-oil energy or to interfere with the profits of tycoons who do not even care for the economies of their own countries is no prescription for the survival of Western civilization.
The Islamic Danger to Western Civilization

[emphasis mine. lw]


THE "WAR ON TERROR" AND THE "WAR ON DRUGS"

As drugs cannot be defeated, neither can terror. Drugs are inanimate objects, they can be destroyed. The"war on drugs," however, intends to destroy drug use. That can only be destroyed if people who use drugs are destroyed or made to stop using drugs. This means either destroying citizens who use drugs or forcibly re-educating them to stop using drugs. The practicality of either is questionable.

Drugs, however, are concrete objects that can be destroyed. Terror is an abtract that cannot be touched. It does not exist by itself--only as a method of warfare employed by human beings. To destroy "terror," you must destroy the human beings carrying it out as well as those who finance and sponsor them--whether these are nation-states or organizations.

That does not mean trying to re-educate these human beings to embrace "democracy,'' nor to defeat and prop them up again. These methods are based on what was done with Germany and Japan after world War II.

The enemy we face today is not fueled by a national ideology as was Germany and Japan, but by a much older ideology that was proven successful in the first year after its inception and has been trying to recapture these early days of victory ever since. Moreover this ideology has a religious component that justifies subjugating or killing all who do not believe in it.

This enemy has infiltrated our nation to its highest levels by economic and financial means. Enemy operatives move freely amongst us while we have a government unwilling to recognize let alone destroy* that enemy without mercy.

Unless we have the will to do the latter, we cannot win this war against our enemies.

That is what's wrong.

____________________________________________________________________
*http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/09/ruthlessness-is-needed.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/03/secrets-of-winning-war-against-islam-on.html
____________________________________________________________________


From sheikyermami

















THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ISLAM AND VIOLENCE

Is it "promoting tension and hatred" to point out that Islam has a martial and supremacist tradition going back to the Qur'an and Muhammad, and that jihadists use that tradition today to gain recruits among peaceful Muslims? CAIR and others would have you think so, and have successfully cowed the mainstream media into thinking so too -- with both liberal and conservative spokesmen fearing to discuss the connections between Islam and violence, for fear of offending Muslims and being seen as "promoting tension and hatred."

But the truth is just the truth. It is not bigoted or multicultural or blue or green, it is just reality. The truth does not become false because some people say it is bigoted. If it is true that Islam has core traditions of violence and supremacism, and that the jihadists use them to promote violence, then it does no favor to peaceful Muslims to pretend that they don't exist.

Posted by Robert [Spencer], September 9, 2007 2:06 PM at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018096.php#comments