While browsing through LGF's
blog I came across Charles' entry regarding an article by Robert Spencer. "Europe Will Be Islamic by the End of the Century"
gives a few examples of how Europe is slowly sliding into dhimmitude. I found the following especially disturbing:
Sweden's third-largest city, Malmø, according to the Swedish Aftonbladet, has become an outpost of the Middle East in Scandinavia: "The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations's third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengård, Malmø, for twenty years, and still don't know how to read or write Swedish. Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized."
No society can long tolerate egregious, outright violations of law and order; when gangs are given free rein, the end is certainly not far off.
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 1:13 AM
Fundamentalism, Christian and Islamic
I was just reading an article
the other day on FrontPage Magazine.com
by Don Feder entitled "AntiChristian Fundamentalism". The article is essentially an attack on the left by a member of the religious right for equating Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism (he goes on to equate that viewpoint as one step away from advocating the burning of churches, but I won't deal with that non-sequitur here).
What I found interesting was Feder's idea that his fundamentalist Christianity was in any way different from a Muslim's fundamentalism. Feder says:
When he speaks of a fundamentalist impulse in Christianity, Gore is also degrading and demonizing evangelical Christians. The term fundamentalist implies fanaticism, which suggests mental instability, which in turn insinuates a tendency to violence.
When the left says fundamentalist it means takes religion seriously, believes in the Bible literally, thinks The Ten Commandments are more than suggestions, disagrees with the ACLU on abortion and same-sex marriage: in other words, miscreants, mutants, degenerates and the criminally insane the sort of folks who would never get a grant from The Heinz Family Foundation.
Liberals in politics smear Bible-believing Christians by comparing them to the religion of holy war and suicide bombers.
As Gore does here, by speaking of Christians like the president in the same breath as Saudi Arabia and the Kashmir where Moslems on steroids shoot, bomb, and behead infidels.
The clear implication is that fundamentalists/evangelicals are the American equivalent of suicide bombers. The late Ayn Rand, herself an atheist, used to call such a rhetorical device the broad-brush smear.
The absurdity of the comparison may be seen in this way: If you disagree with an evangelical on religious doctrine, hell pray for you. If you disagree with a Wahhabi Muslim on a matter of faith, hell try to kill you. No small difference, if youre on the receiving end of a car bomb.
Now Mr. Feder seems to build an insurmountable argument here - after all, there aren't any cases of Christian suicide bombers, only Muslim. So doesn't that mean there is a fundamental
difference between these types of fundamentalists? Isn't Christian
faith more benign and peaceful than Islamic
Of course not. While Mr. Feder skews the picture with his pious platitudes to Christianity's peacefulness, he's quietly covering up a great deal of history. Just a few highlights:
- The theocratic middle ages
- The Inquisition (especially its Spanish incarnation)
- Jewish pogroms throughout the world
- The theocracy of the early American Puritan colonies
What is notable here is that these are all primarily Christian
phenomena. While Islam certainly doesn't have much to point to for redemption, the same can consistently be said for Christianity. Like all religions, Christianity is least harmful when its least taken seriously (such as during the Renaissance, and most of history since then). The fact of the matter is that anytime religion mixes with government, violence is produced. So called "pro-lifers" who promote laws forbidding women to destroy a fetus is the initiation of physical force, just as surely as any one of them had stopped her at gunpoint. They are really just one side of the same theocratic coin; both agree that it is legitimate to use violence to enforce their faith - they merely squabble over which divine whims should be enforced.
For what argument does Mr. Feder really have against those who "keep their women swathed in black from eyes to toes and make suspected adulterers shorter by a head"; Sorry, my faith says that's wrong? The Islamic reply is totally consistent on this point: Sorry, but my
faith says its right. And that's where the discussion (and any discussion based on faith
) ends, and has to end. Faith, especially of the fundamentalist variety, is the true enemy here, and the real cause
of the violence. Until faith is rejected and replaced by reason
, theocracy and suicide bombings will continue to plague the world.
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 11:25 PM
The Morality of War
I just finished listening to a fascinating lecture by Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute
on "The Morality of War". He discusses where Bush has gone wrong and why Bush cannot win the war on terror. You have to register to gain access to the lecture (and Q&A), but it is free and well worth it. Dr. Brook even mentions my namesake, General William Tecumseh Sherman, and praises his heroic actions during the civil war as a model of how to fight a war! Go register
and listen to it now.
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 8:08 AM
A Tentative Endorsement (Caveat Emptor)
Caveat Emptor, Buyer Beware. In the last few days I have been diligently searching through the "free", online encyclopedia Wikipedia
. I must confess that I am impressed with it, and have found numerous entries that were helpful in learning about a topic I didn't know about. However, there are subtle errors throughout, due in part to two policies of WikiPedia:
- It is modifiable by anyone and subject to a type of majority rule in the event of disputes
- The "editors" or "moderators" take objectivity to mean that there should be no point of view on a given subject - in other words, if "Reason" is the entry, just present Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant and Ayatollah Khomeini's viewpoints, but pretend like there all equally plausible
Leaving aside these two defects, there is much good
information to be found here. Take a look
, and see what you think. So far I've looked up everything from Greek Fire
to the Byzantine Empire
to Eastern Orthodox Christianity
to Tariq ibn Ziyad
the Muslim conqueror of Spain.
Also, the entire textual (and some pictorial) content of the encyclopedia is covered by the GNU
"CopyLeft" copyright. It basically says that since the content is free, you can't use it in derivative material that isn't also "free".
There was at least something
of value in each entry I listed, so with the above caveats in mind, learn and enjoy, with a grain of salt!
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 1:34 AM
The Sunnah and Hadith
In reading through various documents on the internet, I came across the following, which may be of interest. This website hosts an interesting page on the Sunnah and Hadith
, which are the collectively seen as the sayings and doings of the prophet Muhammed. These "documents" are considered second only to the Koran by devout Muslims, and all Islamic countries use them in conjunction with the Koran to form and uphold the Sharia (Islamic law).
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 1:26 AM
Fallujah's Chickens Come Home to Roost
I was extremely skeptical in April 2004 when, poised to crush the "insurgency" being led by Muqtada Al Sadr, the US pulled back and brought to life the "Fallujah Brigade". A motley assortment of insurgents and former Saddam loyalists, this group was touted by military "experts" as the solution to the problem. For they knew that to weed out the terrorists, civilians would have to die. Afraid that US soldiers killing Iraqi civilians would cause a large-scale uprising, they demonstrated their depth at making foreign policy - if Iraqis do the killing, maybe they won't hate us.
Needless to say this policy has been an abyssmal failure. The LA Times reports
today that the Fallujah brigade has been disbanded:
The Iraqi military force formed by the Marines in a last-ditch effort to pacify the restive city of Fallouja has been disbanded in the face of continuing violence, assaults on government security forces and evidence that some members have been working openly with insurgents.
Once again, Bush's lack
of determination has made the situation infinitely worse than it would have originally been. For if we had simply assaulted the city with the intent of killing the thugs inside, this would be a distant memory today, and fewer Americans would have lost their lives. Now we face an enemy who has had months to demoralize the opposition and dig himself in. And why are we in this position today? According to the Times:
The goal in forming the force was to avoid a bloodbath by allowing the Marines to withdraw from the city but leaving a proxy force to tamp down insurgent activity and arrest those responsible for the killings of four U.S. civilian security contractors March 31.
Nonsense! The goal was to help Bush conduct his "sensitive" war. Just as in Vietnam, there was no practical impediment to our crushing this enemy. We could have bombed Fallujah into a parking lot if it caught our fancy. Only our moral uncertainty could have so effectively led us to play into the enemy's hands. Bush and his cabinet were afraid that we would lose support if we accidentally killed civilians while killing the insurgents. They feared invigorating the populace against us. Hello! They're way past invigorated.
What Bush and everyone else needs to understand is that if these people are fighting against us, then we must kill them. We represent freedom, the rights of the individual; they fight for theocracy, the "right" of mullahs to control every aspect of the individual's life. There is no moral equivalence here. The muslims who fight against us are evil - they want to enslave other people.
There was no moral equivalence during World War II. No one was afraid to invade German occupied territory and kill Germans; hell, we firebombed Dresden and killed tens of thousands. During the firebombing of Tokyo alone nearly 100,000 people died and large sections of the city were demolished. This is how a war is fought. That is decisiveness. Only by utterly crushing our enemies and showing them the folly of their rebellion will they be defeated.
If Fallujah would be too costly in terms of American lives (which I readily imagine it is), then we should do the following. Announce publicly that Fallujah has 24 hours to hand over the insurgents and allow US forces to take control of the city, or else we will annihilate it. When they fail to do as we have demanded, we send in so many bombers that there is nothing left of the city. We then continue on to the next "hotbed" of insurgents, until we have either cleaned the country out or reduced it to rubble. Of course, we wouldn't have to reduce it to rubble - once we demonstrate not only our firepower but our resolve to use it mercilessly, we will regain the respect the world has so long forgotten to show us.
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 1:16 AM