Thursday, 13 September 2012

A vile litany gains another entry in Libya [updated]

“If your religion is worth killing for, start with yourself.”
- Gerry Duggan

With yesterday’s vile atrocity in Benghazi, we can add another entry to a long list beginning more than half-a-century ago.

Each of these direct attacks on the west was met with appeasement, apology and capitulation. Each of them resulted in the (correct) assessment that the west was morally weak, that there would be no negative consequences for either perpetrators or supporter, and emboldened further escalation. By surrender, each of them invited escalation.

The invitation was enthusiastically taken up.

The attacks on September 11, 2001 and after saw the culmination of this attitude, and an outbreak of massive, violent and orchestrated attacks on civilians.

These are just a few, a very few, of the murders of innocent people perpetrated by followers of Islam.

There have been several blood-soaked new entries in recent years in this litany of Islamist-driven death and destruction.

The latest is the murder in his country’s Libyan Embassy yesterday, in other words on American soil, of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues, by a mob wielding rocket-propelled grenades—an armed calling itself the ‘Islamic Law Supporters,’ who were said to have been directed towards the Embassy by Libyan police.

Killed over what?

A satiric movie about Mohammad and the poisonous fraud of Islam that few Americans even knew about? Or was it about the death by drone of a Libyan Al-Qada leader?
Who knows? Who cares? This is Islam at its best. This is Islam and Muslims shining through. Muslims don’t need an excuse. The Koran tells them so.
Trying to sift through the multifaceted motives for the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi is as pointless as sorting through the ruins of the World Trade Center on 9/11, 2001 searching for the identities of the plane hijackers. Once it was known who supported, funded, recruited, and triggered the attacks, why waste any time trying to identify the expendable "martyrs"?
It was the ideology that launched the attacks, in 2001 and in 2012. It was the ideology that has launched such attacks ever since the plane hijackings of the 1970's. It was behind the Munich massacre and every casualty-strewn bombing and murder spree committed in the name of Islam for the last five decades…
[T]he cause was immaterial. This was just Islam doing what it does best: killing and destroying.

We are at war.

Like it or not, we, the people of the west, are at war with people—people? with inhuman savages!—who wish to see us bleed, beheaded, destroyed.

It's a different war than we're used to, an asymmetric war -- a so-called fourth-generation war -- so some folk still don't recognise we're even in a state of war (or don't want to recognise it), but the fact remains we are under sustained attack and have been for some time.
That's not scare-mongering, that's just the way it is. Like it or not, we are at war. We didn't start this war, but a litany of appeasement by those under attack has fanned its flames, encouraged the attackers and emboldened the growth of violence.
It's not caused by the war in Iraq, by an expansionist US foreign policy, by a search for new oil fields or pipe lines, any more than it is caused by the drawing of cartoons, the making of movies, or the public burning of copies of The Koran. It was started by Islamo-totalitarians who by their own admission "worship death" as we in the west worship life; who want the prosperous, freedom-loving west dead, as dead as their own dark souls; and who see the cowardly west as easy prey.

On these last point at least, they're right. We are easy prey. And there is an essential difference between the essentially individualistic, prosperous, freedom-loving civilisation of the west and the stone-age culture that has declared war on it. Said Osama bin Laden on behalf of those who declared war:

“We love death. The [west] loves life. That is the difference between us two.”

On that, we agree.

Allahu Akbar my arse.

In the name of those who do love life and who treasure the life-loving civilisation of the west, on this anniversary week of the most visible attack on the west and all it stands for we should consider all that led to it: a series of snubs, trial balloons and atrocities by Islamists and Islamist sympathisers, the tepid and pathetic response to most of which emboldened those who love death to even greater atrocities, and the supporters of the death-worshippers to even greater support, both financial and logistical.

Just as it did in the thirties, turning the cheek to violence led not to peace but greater savagery—with the savages secure in the knowledge that cheek-turning was the best the west would do. Purveyors of violence can smell fear; they can smell weakness; they smell it and they prey upon it—just as they can in Iran and Saudi Arabia, the unacknowledged sources of so much Islamic savagery; just as they can in Afghanistan where the weak-kneed “nation building” is coming to an end without any end to the savagery the Afghan mission was supposed to have wiped out; just as they have now in Benghazi where, with the revelation that Ambassador Stevens was slaughtered by the very jihadists who  had gone there to aid, in an embassy lying entirely unprotected against barbarian incursion, the failure of US foreign policy almost seems complete.

So, like cockroaches, the disciples of brutality will feed off another example of western weakness—just as they have for over fifty years, where they've had an awful lot of food to sustain them and make them stronger.

What will stop the savages? Recognition, for a start, that we have an enemy. That this enemy has a name, a specific religion, and a specific blood-soaked anti-human ideology. That this enemy has incubated this hatred of the west for centuries. That his savagery cannot be successfully resisted with appeasement, hand-holding and clumsy attempts to censor or airbrush away those who point out the truth about Islam, but only by continued resistance to the savagery of it adherents, and understanding they are emboldened by weakness to think they might succeed. Obama pledged yesterday:

We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice will be done. Make no mistake, justice will be done.

If he means it, that would be something. But meaning it, really meaning, and going through with it,needs a 180-degree U-turn.”

We have to reverse years of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter when it comes to the Middle East—and immediately.
    Until or unless that happens, the rising tide of Islam—a religion whose Koran actually calls for the literal genocide of non-Muslims worldwide—will continue to act as a moralistic and physical wrecking ball to civilization as we’ve known it. It's the Koran, stupid.

He, and all western leaders, must recognise that to 'respect' the religious beliefs of those who wish to kill us is suicidal nonsense.  Which is to say they will need to recognise Islam for what it is.

Which is Islam.

Which is not a religion of peace.

When it comes to the defeat of totalitarian Islam, there truly is no substitute for victory.

America successfully targeted, dismantled, and discredited a warring enemy's ideology once before. I fear however that the knowledge to do that again, to Islamism, is now long gone from the corridors of power.  But I fear too that there is no other way.

* * * *  *

Cartoon by Blunt

[Hat tips to Michael Caution, Edward Cline, Noodle Food, Bosch Fawstin, Harry Binswanger, TOS Blog, and the late John David Lewis. The opinions expressed here are, however, my own.]

imageUPDATE:  Hope?  Buzzfeed has 15 Photos Of Libyans Apologizing To Americans, (that’s one of them, on the right) about which Diana Hsieh says:

These signs make me just a tiny bit happy and hopeful. To anyone who thinks that Islam cannot fundamentally change because it's forever bound to its texts, you need to study the history of Judaism. The destruction of the second temple by Rome (after a hiccup or two) hugely transformed Judaism -- from an aggressive, fundamentalist, and political religion to a peaceful, and studious, and accommodating one. That was a win for civilization... and particularly for Jews. (Alas, the Christians were not as civilized as they could and should have been in response.)


  1. ok, but...

    Islam isn't taking half of what I earn with threats of kidnapping.

    Please don't suggest more such mugging to fund, justify and glorify monopoly security apparatus that back up those threats.


    Liberty took massive strides across the Islamic world recently, especially with people learning that overbearing states can be challenged. Yay for them!

  2. @J: Have you not noticed what they've replaced those overbearing states, with, J.?

    A Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship in Egypt, much the same in Syria and Lybia--and more of the same in Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority...I see no advance anywhere there for liberty.

  3. Well there are two views here:

    Leftist liberalism:

    Yes, that Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Egyptian President went and told Iraq to stop f**king with Syria.

    Or Randian, I guess. Let's face it, the only sure way to end Iran's nuclear programme, once and for all, is to wipe the country out. Once Ohio broadside should do it - at zero cost to the deficit (the nukes are due to be withdrawn anyway) and zero cost to troops. Kill say 20-40 at least of 80 million Iranians. Bomb them back to the stone age.

    Because anything less, anything at all less, will have whoever is left in Iran writing a very big cheques to Pakistan and North Korea and getting nukes and missiles in return. And there's absolutely nothing the US or anyone else could do to stop them.

  4. The big problem with Islamism is that it is not an actual country with a conventional military force and so the strategies of normal warfare don't apply. It's a difficult one and I don't have the solution, but killing 40 million Iranian civilians is one of the most extreme ideas I have heard promulgated. Targeted strikes, maybe, but genocide? I don't think so.

    Another issue is that in the Arab world and possibly South Asia but not so much in Indonesia the people don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of democracy at all. Many of these countries are ruled by dictatorial arseholes, but when they are overthrown what takes their place is Islamism. Even the fucking murderous Japs got the idea of democracy.

    One area where I do have a solution though, is in the mindset of the democratic people and their military. If you are going to invade a country then FFS do it properly. It's no use poncing about with 'aid' and 'reconstruction' and announcing in advance when you plan to leave while your enemy carries on around you almost unaffected, as we are doing in Afghanistan. We should either be prepared to subjugate and dominated a country entirely and occupy them indefinitely (like Japan) until the job is done - or we should never be there in the first place.

    Yes, we are at war, and so far we are not winning. I wonder how the Chinese will get on when they become the world's dominant superpower? I think their approach might be very different.

    Dave Mann

  5. So if you were made the first libertarian President of the US tomorrow, what *exactly* would you do to remove the Arab/Islamist threat? You yourself are adamant that you can't group everyone by their race or location or genes and assume they are all the same, so how can you stop the crazy muslims without catastrophically impinging on the rights and liberties of the others.

    They are all individuals after all.

  6. @twr: The first thing the President of the United States should do (and not just a libertarian president), is to identify and name the enemy. They have not done this. The enemy is not terrorism (a tactic) or even extremists (you may be extreme in your desire to eat healthy food or use correct grammar, without killing people).
    The enemy is Islam and specifically state-sponsored Islam. The United States recognised this in WWII when Japan and the religion of Shinto threatened the world. They named their enemy and a few years later the enemy was defeated.


  7. @Julian, I'm not sure you've succeeded in naming your enemy, as all you've named is a religion, which is like naming a tactic.

    You can't fight a religion, you have to fight specific people presumably. And those people need to be the dangerous ones, not just people who believe something silly.

    And you need to know what to do to fight them.

  8. @twr: Islam is not a tactic, it is an ideology, a philosophy of death (using their own words). When it is state sponsored (as it is in the case of Iran) the dangers are obvious.

    You asked for the first thing the President should do. I gave my answer. There are many things that follow from that but they are not the first thing the President should do. What they should do next is a question for military people. But don't engage the military people until you have identified your enemy.


  9. Correction to my comment above:

    @twr: An ideology of death, which is the religion of Islam (using their own words) is the enemy. When it is state sponsored (as it is in the case of Iran) the dangers are obvious. A religion is not like a tactic. Religion is simply a primitive form of philosophy. A tactic is simply a way of giving effect to one's ideas.

    You asked for the first thing the President should do. So I gave my answer. There are many things that follow from that but they are not the first thing the President should do. What they should do next is a question for military people. But don't engage the military people until you have identified your enemy.


  10. Yes, it is wrong for Libyans to kill American diplomats (and Libyan embassy guards) but you haven't adequately explained why the West has a right to occupy the Middle East. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Islamic governments systematically occupied New Zealand, would you fight back?

  11. Without wanting to argue over semantics, you haven't identified your enemy, you have identified an ideology, which is *LIKE* identifying a tactic as your enemy.

    You can no more attack an ideology than you can a tactic, so while your premise has merit (ie identify your enemy), your answer is as useless as the previous one (war on terror).

    You can't just say "we don't like an ideology" and then leave the rest up to the soldiers. If you don't know who you're going to kill/imprison/suppress/re-educate then how the hell do the military know how to implement your wishes.

    Which is why I asked the original question.

  12. Regarding Peter's first comment on this thread, the Arab Spring is probably going to end in the Winter of Theocracy.

    I've said since the start of the Syria revolt that between the tyrant and butcher Assad, and the Free Syria Army that is executing prisoners without trial, there is no hope for that country.

    Just glad I don't live in the Middle East.

  13. @Someone called Anonymous (yes, another Anonmyite) said, "Yes, that Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Egyptian President went and told Iran to stop f**king with Syria."

    Did you not see why? It's there in the very article to which you link: because the Syrian opposition to which the Shi'ite Iranians are opposed are in the main Sunni Muslim Brotherhod types like Mordi himself.

    So what's your point?

    Beyond that, you posit both a false alternative and a lie. If you put a name to your comments, I'll tell you which is which.

  14. Peter it is hard sorry impossible to argue with you on this, trust me I tried. That said and not with standing our ideological differences I endorse your blog and infact have used it as a reference via a link in a blog of my own.

    I have to say that some of the left wing appeasment on this issue is a disgrace but not all of us on the left subscrbe to that total tolerance doctrine.

    Obama got Bin Laden.

    Australia got a wake up call I watch and hope that an Austrlasian line in the sand is drawn.

  15. *Excellent* article, Peter.

    One useful measure that hasn't been mentioned would be to legally define Islam as an "ideology of hate" - not a "religion".
    In other words - strip it of all protection afforded to genuine religions.

    There is more than enough proof around to show that it is in fact a totalitarian, violent, fascist ideology/cult.

    Proof is not the problem. The problem is finding politicians with BALLS to implement this policy.

    How would this policy help? Immigration, for a start. Policy #2 - no immigrants with an ideology of hate.
    That means no Nazis and no Muslims coming here. ( No loss either way there..... ).

    Ok, sure - Mr Yousuf from Indonesia or Pakistan could *pretend* to be non-Muslim, but the default position should be to accept no immigrants from Islamic countries.
    ( If that means keeping out minorities that are escaping them, that's sad but tough. Our country, our rules. )


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.