Christians, Jews and right thinking people throughout the world should pray that he does not weaken in his mission.That assumption, about a mission, in itself is a prayer. It is a prayer that a Western man of integrity, who leads the largest Christian Church will continue to tell Islam what it does not want to hear. Short of John Howard in Australia, most, if not all western leaders, have succumbed to politically correct pap, insincere treacle about a religion of peace. Nonsense, and everyone still left with a functioning honest and analytical brain knew it was nonsense. But on it rolled. No bad news for bonzo. Must not scare the horses.
We are up to our keister in bad news and "Fatma, the Martyred", should just about wrap up the "religion of peace" mantra.
The Telegraph believes the Pope's visit to Turkey, to be the most potentially incendiary confrontation between Islam and the West since the defeat of the Turks at Vienna in 1683 brought an end to Islamic conquest in Europe. The article in this morning's paper has some powerful things to say:
"The Pope will take with him an understanding that at the root of our problems in dealing with the Islamist death cult, there is a fundamental debate to be had about the role of human reason in political affairs.The entire article lays out in clear terms what the Pope is and the West is facing. Say a prayer and read this. The Telegraph, ( They do not pay me to post them)
The remarks he made in a lecture in Regensburg, Germany, which implied that Islam rejected rationality while Christianity saw it as essential to faith were contentious (and almost certainly designed to be so), but they raised a question that almost no Western government has the courage to ask, let alone answer. How is a liberal democracy to deal with an illiberal religious minority in its midst?
To understand the life-or-death significance of what the Pope does and says when he arrives in Istanbul, it is necessary to see this confrontation for what it is. This will involve some traumatic re-adjustment for most of the opinion-forming class in Britain. The first assumption that will have to go is the premise that Islamist terrorism can be understood in pragmatic, politically rational terms: in other words, that it can be addressed with the usual mechanisms of negotiation, concession and amended policy.
The most readily accepted version of this is that a change to our policy in the Middle East will remove the grievances that "fuel" Muslim terrorism. The Cabinet has apparently been advised that all foreign policy decisions over the next decade should have the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain and that this should involve "a significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity". So Britain is contemplating constructing a foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East, that is designed to give in to terrorist blackmail.
Never mind that the hereditary grievance of almost all British-born Muslim terrorists is the Kashmir question, to which the almost entirely irrelevant Palestine issue has been tacked on by political manipulators with larger ambitions. (The easiest way to make a connection between the Palestine-Israel conflict and the problem of Kashmir is to construct a global theory of persecution in which British-born Muslims may see themselves as born into a victimhood perpetrated by all non-Muslim nations upon Islam.
That, as it happens, chimes perfectly with the true goal of Islamism, which is global supremacy.) So this ignominious posture – what you might call the "save our own skin; who cares what happens in the rest of the world?" view – is based on a false premise. It is not adjustments to our stance on Israel-Palestine that the international Islamist terror movement wants.
That demand was just a bin Laden afterthought that went down a treat with the old reliable anti-Semitic interest in Europe. What Islamic fundamentalism plans to achieve (and it has made no secret of it) is a righting of the great wrong of 1492, when the Muslims were expelled from Spain: a return of the Caliphate, the destruction of corrupt Western values, and the establishment of Sharia law in all countries where Muslims reside. That is what we are up against.
The Pope characterised it as a battle between reason and unreason. Scholars may debate the theological and historical soundness of his analysis. But what is indisputable is that this is not an argument that is within the bounds of diplomatic give and take, the traditional stuff of international policy argy-bargy. What we could plausibly offer to the enemy, even at our most craven, would never be sufficient."
Halfway through, I thought of all the destructive Pap that has emerged from GWB's mouth since 911, and how far we now have to go just in terms of honest communication to get back on track.
...and the rationale was always:
"You don't want to cause a Holocaust by offending x billion Muslims"
As if the truth would inevitably result in a Holocaust, and only multicultural drivel and dhimmitude will save us.
I've been thinking lately that both Tony Blair and George Bush are spent. Used up in the war. No longer effective against militant mohammedanism. I thought of John Howard as the next in line to speak for the secular free world. The Australians, as far as I can tell, seem to say what they mean and mean what that say.ReplyDelete
The Pope seemed to do some backpedaling after the Papal Furor I. I hope that he will advance the debate of Islam v. Modernity. The world must understand - Muslims must understand and correct the flaws in their religion before it is too late.
The purpose-driven lieReplyDelete
Maybe Karen Hughes should have him in the Whitehouse w/Baby Doc as part of the continuing warm and fuzzy dictator/"realism" campaign.
Rick Warren wrote to me this morning to protest this column. He claims he didn't say anything he was actually quoted as saying by the official press in Syria. However, in a video posted on YouTube but removed today, he says Syria "does not allow extremism of any kind." In fact, Syria is, in many ways, the No. 1 sponsor of terrorism in the world.
For a long time I've held off criticizing mega-church leader Rick Warren, author of the best-selling "The Purpose Driven Life," even though I have been sorely tempted.
When he joined up with now-disgraced National Association of Evangelicals leader Ted Haggard to suggest man-induced global warming represented an impending calamity, I didn't say too much. I questioned it, but I let it go.
When he joined Haggard again in writing an open letter to President Bush urging government action to fight global poverty, I didn't say a word – even though I thought it ironic. After all, it is the church's responsibility to help the poor. It is not government's responsibility...
Previous commentaries by Joseph Farah:
Calling Rick Warren
Rick Warren disciples: Where are you?
Megapastor Rick Warren's Damascus Road experience
'Purpose Driven' Megapastor Rick Warren calls Syria 'moderate nation'...
I'd probably take Haggard over Warren.ReplyDelete
Less dangerous, as long as you keep him supplied with well-muscled masseuses.
All the church ladies swoon over Rick, wonder if they still do over Handsome Haggard?
Cut to the chase:ReplyDelete
Phoney Multicult "Religion" is just what the Muzzies love.
Back to Benedict!
Whit is correct. There may have been some papal pedaling to the rear. This visit should clarify his intent. That is the reason for the prayer. Please make it so.ReplyDelete
Doug, you had me in stiches with some of your stuff last night.ReplyDelete
this was a hoot:ReplyDelete
"if the administration can keep State out of play"
Hasn't tried that yet, far as I can tell.
Policy over the years "developed" by listening to the likes of Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice and mixing in a little of each.
Kind of like mixing mentos with Pepsi:
A lot of foaming at the mouth of the containers.
11:13 PM, November 26, 2006
Have you seen the videos those guys that do complete Operas with Mentos and Diet Coke?ReplyDelete
If you haven't hopefully I, or someone can link them.
As far as policy goes:
Coke and Mentos, One of many experiments, check them all out.ReplyDelete
"Mr. Bush’s nominee for secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, resigned from the commission after his nomination this month, and was replaced by Lawrence S. Eagleburger, another Republican who once was secretary of state. Mr. Gates has said little about his thoughts on military strategy, other than to express amazement when he visited Iraq with the study group over Labor Day that the administration had let the situation spin so far out of control."
"But, he said, he was hoping that Mr. Bush’s meeting with Mr. Maliki would bring about “something dramatic” to stop the violence in Iraq.ReplyDelete
Last week, administration officials played down expectations for the meeting with Mr. Maliki. But they are clearly hoping that Mr. Maliki will show a greater willingness to crack down on the Shiite militias, including the militia run by the powerful cleric Moktada al-Sadr.
While it is unclear what private messages Mr. Bush was preparing for Mr. Maliki, the public message will be an eagerness to turn more operational control over to the Iraqis, as soon as they are prepared to handle it.
“Any disarming of the militias — in large part because there is such a political element to that — is most effectively carried out by the Iraqi security forces,” said Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor. "
So WE stood back as Sadr got to this point, despite having a murder warrant out and despite his folks killing our troops,
and *now* we tell Maliki to deal with it.
...with friend like these!
So many ideas. So little time. Pepsi soaring to new heights with mentos. Iraq soaring to new lows and Mr. Gates astounded.ReplyDelete
Doug, you are just a "nattering nabob of negativism".ReplyDelete
Its just denial, pure and simple. It isn't a big threat if we don't think it is, right?ReplyDelete
I continually encounter people who are hell bent to convince me that this just isn't a big deal, it's just a few crazie muslims and let's all get back to work.
It's denial, the same process that allows alcoholics to keep drinking and cigarette smokers to keep smoking, its powerful and effective for the short run but it causes us no end of trouble in the long run.
My hope has been that we could resolve this conflict without involving the entire world and our entire economy. If we could sow the seeds of reform in Iraq we could work toward a better relationship with the this faith.
But it appears now that the muslims in the ME and world wide are simply more dysfunctional than many of us recognized. They won't stop now and more thousands of westerners will die before we shake off our denial and take this threat seriously.
It's a sad, sad situation and I'm disheartened. Not because I don't think we'll win, but because if we acted tough now, we'd spare ourselves the general conflagration that the muslims so clearly desire.
War to the death, with who?ReplyDelete
The rag tag thugs of Baghdad?
Perhaps it is the 12th Imam we battle?
I too had wished for a US success in Iraq. I had hoped that we would unleash Mr Madison and Mr Jefferson on their sorry ideological asses, but no.
We unleashed Mr Senor and Mr Bremmer, who, while pleasent fellows were not up to the task.
The early indicators were all flashing red, then they have quit flashing. They glow red, now, with nary a flicker.
Talks with our Allies, the Kings, monarchs from another Age, are used to solidify our "Base". While the real "Base" spreads it's cancer throughout the Middle East. Migrating with the Sunni fish, swimming out of Iraq and across the Region.
The Jordanian King is all a fritter over the prospect.
He'll be the second to tell you, "It's all about Palistine and the Israeli" which is why the Golden Mosque was targeted, it is so important to both Israeli Jew and Palistinian Sunni cultural cores.
Remember to support Mr Bush in the coming months, put your souls into it, project all your positive vibes for the success of the Religion of Peace.
Mr Bush will thank you.
We shall over come!
The Pope seemed to do some backpedaling after the Papal Furor ...ReplyDelete
Some? The guy all bar started grovelling, and started mouthing weaseling semi-apologies, while the vatican's henchmen were grovelling and apologising and spouting the "great faith" and "one god" pap. They are still at it : implying Benedicts "gaffe" is the result of high blood pressure, and a bad spokesman, and that the Vatican has no opbjection to the admission of Turkey to the EU. The only excuse I see for Benedict (andI hope this is so) was that the affair was as much an internal struggle in the vatican with Benedict and co against the soft liberalist ecumenicalist crypto-hippy wing of the house promoted by John Paul.
In the same light I wonder what the motivation (and factions) behind the review of the famous contraception ban is?
Muslims must understand and correct the flaws in their religion before it is too late.
That's not possible because religion is, to the faithful, quite flawless, precisely the opposite of science, which is ever flawed and ever correcting those flaws.
So WE stood back as Sadr got to this point, despite having a murder warrant out and despite his folks killing our troops, and *now* we tell Maliki to deal with it.
Are you referring to the same Maliki who made us take down our barricades in Sadr city so the Sunnis could not drive their suicide cars with impugnity, the same Maliki who made us turn over the Shi'ite prisoners we held, making our boys play "Catch & Release" ?
Janet Daley sums up:ReplyDelete
"As Caroline Cox and John Marks argue in their book The West, Islam and Islamism, republished in a new edition by Civitas this week, it is imperative that we distinguish between the Islamic faith and Islamist ideology. If we accept – or even countenance – the view that the two are indistinguishable, we will either be paralysed by our own democratic commitment to religious freedom or forced to engage in all-out religious war.
If a majority of the Muslim community is prepared to separate itself, clearly and explicitly, from the terrorist faction, then we have a chance. If it is not, if it is swept up in the glamour of international victim status and the dark victory of glorious death, then we face generations of bloodshed.?
...she hit the nail on the head. Islam is not salvageable and the Western world doesn't want to accept this. Whit, this is why Bush and Blair are "spent". This is why we have to change our thinking.
"Mr. Gates has said little about his thoughts on military strategy, other than to express amazement when he visited Iraq with the study group over Labor Day that the administration had let the situation spin so far out of control."ReplyDelete
A committed conspiracy theorist would argue, or simply assert, that "out of control" was the Plan all along. (As you know, Master Plan fans have their own mirror version of this.)
In effort to be fair to Bush, I believe there's a case to be made that those he most heavily relied upon simply did not level with him - in frank terms, did not serve him. I hope that Gates is a different man, but can only wait and see.
Bill Roggio reportsReplyDelete
" ... The Anbar Salvation Council was formed in September of 2006 and has made progress in working with the U.S. military in Ramadi and throughout western Iraq. Several foreign al-Qaeda have been kiled and captured.
In an effort to counter the Anbar Salvation Council and Iraqify the jihad, al-Qaeda formed the "Mutayibeen Coalition," which is comprised of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura, six Anbar tribes and some minor insurgent groups. ..."
Now one wonders, we obviously know which six tribes are allied with the aQ. Why are we not clearing and holding the areas controlled by those tribes, then destroying their holdings?
When that is seen, the tide could be turning. Until it is seen, the announcements and proclamations from DC or Baghdad will carry little wieght.
So there you have it, the Six Enemy Tribes of Anbar.ReplyDelete
There is the Enemy, those providing infrastructure to the Insurection. One wonders how many seats those Tribes control in the Iraqi Paliment?
Less than 30, I'm sure.
Instead of declaring the Shia Militias the foe, and attacking Mr Maliki's base, why not engage both aQ and the SETA and destroy them?
Eliminate the militias' excuse of self defense against the Insurgents by destroying the Insurgents "base" of support in Anbar.
Then if the Mahdi or one of the other 27 militias operating in Baghdad continue to spread mayhem, in the face of the Anbar Ops, clear, hold & destroy their areas of operation.
Well within the parameters of both War Authorizations passed by Congress and signed into Law.
o/t, but, hey Marines:ReplyDelete
I NEVER thought it would get THIS bad:ReplyDelete
"This particular rout is a result of policies the voters have chosen in the last election.
The Dems are taking credit for withdrawal.
Let's just make sure they get all the credit.
Fair's fair. "
Bush is home free, in the minds of the TRULY Delusional!
My point being that he has never taken any of the steps proposed by 'Rat and some of the rest of us to improve the course, and things have gotten steadily worse, so it seems a tad unfair to act as tho things were right on the verge of being all better.
Does Wretchard not remember that Bush still had great public support when many of us were calling for action to be taken against sanctuaries in Iraq and Syria, and calling for Sadr, who had a murder warrant outstanding and was killing our troops to be dealt with AT THAT TIME.
(His "Militia" consisted of about 40 Yuts.)
How do you make good on a bad idea, Doug?ReplyDelete
Something that isn't worth doing at all isn't worth doing well.
___Bill Barker at Motley Fool
That just about says it all, doesn't it?
While it would be regrettable to rain on the President's parade, someone might just mention over the coming week that Iran may gain control of the ME and its oil. Although I am sure that such an eventuality isn't nearly as important as the "Democracy Project", it is food for thought. Oh sorry, these guys consider chewing gum while walking a competitive sport. (Unfair, I know, but it did feel good, and recall, I have BDS.)
When just about everything that was done was done wrong, I conclude gross incompetence, regardless of the cause.ReplyDelete
Soldiers died for nothing because of Sadr, catch and release, Fallujah I, etc and etc.
Hard to imagine how Families feel about that.
I know how *I* feel about this incompetent bastard acting like he knows what he's doing!
Regardless of the cause...ReplyDelete
The fucking cause was never wrong, absolutely fucking not.
Who fucked up your good goddamned war, Doug?