Monday, July 31, 2006

who's really riding the weaker horse?

another worthy article..
Who's really riding the weaker horse?
Vox Day

When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the
strong horse.
– Osama bin Ladin

In examining the events of the past five years, it is increasingly apparent that Western leaders and commentators alike have fundamentally misconceived the relative positions of the primary parties in this third great wave of Islamic expansion. While there are nearly as many grand strategic recommendations floating around the Internet as there are editorialists, it is intriguing to note that virtually none of the Western analysts have grasped the basic reality that from the perspective from which a clash of civilizations must be considered, it is the West that is the weak horse.

The overwheening confidence which so often colors statements from men such as bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahimajihad always rings strange in Western ears. It stands so powerfully at variance with what we know of Western wealth, technology and military advantages that it seems to be indicative of false bravado at best, at worst, clinical insanity. The fact that this sort of thing sounds exactly like Baghdad Bob's surreal rantings only makes it that much more difficult for anyone to take it seriously.

And yet, history is rife with examples wherein a wealthy or more technogically advanced society is defeated by its lesser rival. Despite its lack of a navy, the intrepid Romans defeated Carthage on both land and sea, while the technical superiority of its machine guns, tanks, submarines, rockets and airplanes were not enough to allow the Germans to overcome the allies in World War II. The knights of Western Europe lost numerous battles and a number of wars to Mongols, Magyars, Turks and Saracens even though none of their enemies could stand before an armored cavalry charge.

Neocon ravings notwithstanding, national will, (or more accurately, cultural will), is not the issue at hand here. The majority of Americans are largely indifferent to the Bush administration's Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism while an ovewhelming majority of the rest of the West is openly against it. But most Muslims are similarly indifferent to this third round in the great clash of civilizations too. An anecdote from William Manchester's biography of Winston Churchill is most informative in this regard:

During the early 1950s, when this writer was living in Dehli as a foreign correspondent, social scientists began a comprehensive poll of Indian villages to determine how many natives knew British rule had ended in 1947. The survey was aborted when it was discovered that a majority didn't know the British had even arrived.

And while it might be tempting to dismiss those Indians as ignorant illiterates, it might be illuminating to ask your neighbor if he knows the name of his congressman, his state representative or his city councilman.

Christendom has twice previously endured periods of Islamic expansion and even managed to roll back Islamic gains with the Reconquista, and, more temporarily, during the Crusades. But that was when the Christian West saw Islam as an enemy and bitterly contested it on every side. Now, a secular West no longer sees itself as a player in the great game, but as a referee, and views Islam as being merely one of the various contestants.

The unavoidable challenge is this. In the same way that atheism provides no moral basis for an individual to resist evil, secular, religious-neutral government provides no practical foundation for opposing Islamic expansion. If Congress funds no mosques, neither can it prevent them from being constructed by militant Saudi Wahhabists. If the Supreme Court requires no one to pray towards Mecca, neither does it allow the banning of immigrants on the basis of a religious adherence to jihad. The range of options accessible to the leaders of the West are formidable; they are also irrelevant.

Bin Laden's statement about horses can perhaps be best understood thusly: Unlike its Christian predecessor, the secular West is structurally incapable of resisting an Islamic expansion due to its demographic disadvantages and philosophical weaknesses. If this is an accurate characterization, one can only conclude, unfortunately, that his statement is logically, historically and psychologically sound. Certainly the actions of the West's leaders, especially those of the Bush administration, have done nothing to disprove the assertion, the establishment of a modern-day Kingdom of Acre in Iraq notwithstanding.

None of this means that Islam cannot be turned back a third time; it does, however, suggest that the concept of Western secularism is doomed to failure one way or another. Secularism does not inspire, it enervates. The spirit which led to the sapping of British spirit and the decline of the Raj has been at work in America for decades, it should surprise no one that the lion's heir is following the mighty tracks of its predecessor.

The impotence of secularism is only the first of several realities that must be recognized if the West is to survive its third test of character. Here are some other important verities:
Democracy does not reduce radicalism or inhibit religion.

Exposure to Western culture does not eliminate radicalism. Even complete immersion in it does not guarantee its elimination.

Western shock and awe cannot impose permanant defeat upon an Eastern culture of retreat and regroup.

Technological proliferation is inevitable. This includes nuclear weapons.

Internal dissension, not external force, ends offensive expansion.
The West turned back the forces of an expansionary Islam twice before. Those hoping to see it turned back a third time would be wise to examine precisely how it was accomplished on the previous occasions.
counter free hit unique web

america as a superpower = bad

an article from the la times that's actually worth reading.. the last sentence really hits home, and i think we're not far from letting the world get what they want.

Niall Ferguson: Look! Up in the sky! It's America!
Tony Blair doesn't share Europe's vision of American power, and he's right.
July 31, 2006

WHEN TONY Blair flew to the United States on Friday for his meetings with President Bush and Rupert Murdoch, I hope the in-flight entertainment was "Superman Returns." It's a film that perfectly encapsulates the British prime minister's very un-European view of America.Blair, you'll recall, was one of the few European leaders who bought the White House line that — as he told the House of Commons in September 2002 — Saddam Hussein had "existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated in 45 minutes."

An essential part of all Superman scripts is a villain — usually the dastardly Lex Luthor — who is poised to blow up the world with just such weapons of mass destruction. Needless to say, Superman alone can save the world. The question is: Can he be persuaded to?

Superman is always reluctant to exercise his powers. Although born on the planet Krypton, he has grown up as Clark Kent in the idyllic Midwestern town of Smallville, imbibing the simple, self-effacing values of the flyover states. In truth, he feels more comfortable tilling the soil than saving the planet. As the new Superman (Brandon Routh) puts it: "It's not easy for me to live my life, being who I am."

It's partly this reluctance to wield power that makes Superman, of all the superheroes, the one who exemplifies the American self-image. His other quintessentially American trait is that it takes a messianic impulse to get the better of his natural modesty. "Your father used to say that you were put here for a reason," his stepmother tells him. "Every day I hear people crying for a savior," says Superman. And if you're still missing the New Testament parallel, here's what Superman's real father told him back on Krypton: "They [meaning earthlings] could be a great people…. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason, above all — their capacity for good — I have sent them you, my only son."

This is precisely the kind of stuff for which Blair has had a lifelong weakness. When he addressed a joint session of Congress in July 2003 — at a time when the smell of victory in Iraq was still in the air — he revealed his debt to the myth of America-as-Superman: "In some small corner of this vast country … there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why me, and why us, and why America?' And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do." Unfortunately for Blair, the rest of the world has a diametrically different view.

According to a Pew Global Attitudes Project survey, even Britons regard the American presence in Iraq as a bigger danger to world peace than Iran or North Korea. A third of Britons think the U.S. invaded Iraq "to control Mideast oil." A quarter think America aims "to dominate the world." And yet it is Blair who is closer to the truth.

Take two measures of American power: the number of U.S. soldiers overseas, and the scale of U.S. transfers to foreign governments. The United States has a population in excess of 290 million, of whom nearly 75 million are men between 15 and 49 years old. Yet the number of military personnel on active duty overseas is little more than a quarter of a million — roughly 0.1% of the U.S. population. When Britain "ruled the world," that figure was six times higher.

Many Europeans imagine that Washington is in a position to dictate to the Israeli government because of the latter's dependence on U.S. economic and military aid. So when Condoleezza Rice failed to press harder for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah last week, the press here overwhelmingly assumed American bad faith: "If they really wanted to stop the fighting, they could." In fact, U.S. aid to Israel in 2004 was equivalent to just 3.2% of Israel's gross domestic product, compared with 14% in 1986. Could the harsh truth be that the present crisis in the Middle East is a symptom of American weakness rather than the reverse?

Like Superman, the United States has vast potential strength. If it wants to be, it really can be "faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound." It is richer by far than the other countries. It has mind-boggling firepower, enough to incinerate Iran and North Korea in an afternoon. And yet, as Blair understands, this Superman would really rather revert to being Clark Kent in Smallville.

Of course, the moral of "Superman Returns" is that when the messianic Man of Steel retreats into provincial isolation, the world is not the utopia of foreign imaginings. The way things are going, we shall soon find out the hard way that there are worse things than an American superpower.

counter free hit unique web


this is a must see movie for everyone. this really demonstrates the view of the islamic street. this shows the true face of islam, sad to say. it also underscores the threat that continual appeasement poses to our way of life. if you haven't seen it, see it soon.

counter free hit unique web

incapable of victory

after watching the world community reaction after the events of this weekend, i've come to the conclusion that the desire in the international community to rid themselves of an american unipolar world and their annoyance with this gnat of a state Israel is greater than their fear of nuclear terror states or the command of islam to be spread from iraq to spain. no, those folks in europe are more concerned with perceived american arrogance and appeasing their own islamic populations.

but europe has been anti-semetic for quite some time.. and the eu is a counterweight against american trade prowess. not to mention the corrupt governments on the take from saddam in the oil for food scandal. (france, russia, germany to name a few)

and we have our beloved american left who would have you believe that america is the source of all the trouble in the world and if they were just in power, we would not be having any of this middle east conflict..

“If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if
the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day
after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the
Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the
-howard dean

talk about american arrogance - as if howard dean's party
has any moral authority or clarity. this has been going on since isaac and
ishmael but howard dean has the right idea.. how could american voters ever have
not got his party in power ??? a party that will say anything, sell anyone out,
promote any point of view just to try to get elected.

but alas, the
party of no one, yet everyone, or the party of whatever the polls may be reading
are hoping to seize control of the house and senate this year.. these are the
whims of the unprincipled. these are the people of the jimmy carter wing of
american politics.. those who continually snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
time and time again.

Jaws of Defeat
By David Horowitz July 31, 2006

The United States and Israel
and every sentient being in the path of the Islamist crusade are teetering on
the brink of a massive defeat in Lebanon and thus in the war on terror. Lest it
be forgotten, this is a war that began with the Ayatollahs’ revolution in Iran
in 1979 which established the first radical Islamic state whose masters’ war cry
was “Death to America” and the establishment of a global Islamic empire. Nearly
thirty years later, Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and its
imperial war is now being waged on Iran’s Lebanese frontier by its Hezbollah
proxy. One month into the fighting which began with the attacks by Hamas and
Hezbollah on the state of Israel, the scenario for the West’s defeat in this
phase of the war is quite obvious and quite simple.

The appeasers of
Islamofascism, who have been calling for a ceasefire and bewailing “civilian
casualties” in Lebanon and Gaza, will succeed. Hezbollah will agree to turn over
its arms to the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese army. The pro-Hezbollah UN will establish
a security zone on Lebanon’s southern border to keep the area clear of
non-government militias, of which the Hezbollah “militia” is the only one. The
credulous in the Western camp will greet this as a victory for the peacemakers.
But exactly the opposite will be the case.

According to a recent
poll in Lebanon eighty percent of the Lebanese Arabs support Hezbollah. In other
words, just as Hamas, which was created by the same Muslim Brotherhood that
spawned al-Qaeda, is now the Palestinian government, so Hezbollah will emerge as
the government of Lebanon. The Lebanese army will become the new Hezbollah
“militia.” Only it won’t be a militia. It will be the terrorist army of a
sovereign power, with the right to openly negotiate its arms deals with Syria
and Iran. The next battle with Iran, in other words, will be World War III.

In fact, the next battleground in the spread of Shi’ia fascism
is already in progress and aflame. It is Iraq, where Iran’s Shi’ia armies are
already in the field under the command of the sheik of Sadr City, the
America-hating cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr. Al-Sadr, it should be noted, is alive
and in the field because the appeasers in this country, beginning with the
Democratic Party but extending into the Bush State Department, stymied the first
battle of Fallujah and the Bush offensive generally when al-Sadr was trapped in
Najaf and could have been killed and his militia destroyed. The Bush
administration had to delay the Fallujah attack until after Kerry’s defeat in
the November 2004 elections in order to avoid the political complications that
would have attended the battle in the midst of an election campaign. By then
Sistani had staged a "peace march" and going after Sadr was off the table.

But the first battle of Fallujah is only one of many defeats
inflicted by the appeasers and abettors of Islamic imperialism in the West. The
aid to the enemy within the Western camp has taken many forms, beginning with
the hysterical and reckless attacks on the commander-in-chief of America’s
forces as a liar and murderer, and the source of the terror that the Islamists
create. Are there terrorists in Iraq? There were none there before George Bush
created them. Is Hezbollah a Nazi army? It’s because the Jews “occupied”
Palestinian lands. Of course, this is two lies in one. All Israeli “occupation”
is the product of four aggressive Arab wars against Israel. When Israel
withdraws – as in Lebanon – it is attacked. The source of the terror in Lebanon,
as in Iraq, is to be found in the Koran and in the despotisms of the Arab Middle
East. But the appeasement camp cannot face the reality that its enemy is
implacable and its hatred uncaused by anything its targets – Jews, Christians,
“infidels” – have done.

The division of America is the greatest
threat to our ability to prevail in the War on Terror – and the Left knows this
and is incited by it. America is not divided enough for the American Left, which
is now in full purge mode in Connecticut, where it is attempting to bring down
the one statesman in the Democratic Party who might re-unite this country in the
face of its enemies.

Those who in the midst of these wars clamor for
ceasefires with an implacable foe, those who call for withdrawals that would
leave sovereign states in the hands of the terrorist forces, those who decry
civilian casualties caused by the only forces in this war who do not target
civilians, those Blame-America-Firsters who exploit the Abu Ghraibs on our side
and not their atrocities, those whose hysterical fear of the conflict we face
takes the form of pathological denial and projects the rabid hatred of the enemy
for us onto our own commander in the war, are destined to have a lot to answer
for before this conflict is over.

counter free hit unique web