Monday, 13 June 2016

We’ve got to do something about Islam’s war on the west

 

13445363_10209348060601437_2627262838905247296_n

More murder, more hand-wringing, but still no end to the horror. And yet, argues Yaron Brook, “Horrific events today can be prevented. But to do so means identifying the enemy and defeating them. Victory is possible.” If only the response weren’’ self-crippled from the start.

Winning would not mean blow-hard blather, white-washing Islam, or hand-wringing evasion – the three most popular responses today that help the self-cripppling.

One must [for example] speak out against all acts of hatred and violence towards homosexuals…well, unless such acts are committed by Muslims … 

"In which case,” says Amy Peikoff this morning. “you call for gun control."

13423731_10209347489747166_755953006797350432_n

Victory would begin with acknowledging the west is at war, and then identifying and naming the enemy.

We cannot target the enemy that is attacking us—much less defeat it—if we are unable or unwilling to specify who and what it is. We must name the enemy. We must name it accurately. And we must demand that our governments and politicians name it accurately.
   
Our enemy in this war is: Islamic regimes that have in any way sponsored or supported attacks against the West, and jihadist groups that have planned or executed such attacks. The enemy regimes are primarily those in Iran and Saudi Arabia; and the jihadist groups include Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Islamic State (aka Daesh).2
   
Importantly, although Islam is a philosophic and cultural enemy of the West—in that it opposes every principle of Western civilization and calls for the murder of those who refuse to submit to “Allah”—Islam is not our military enemy.
   
Islam is a religion—a body of ideas—and, militarily speaking, one cannot be at war with ideas. What would one bomb?
   
The relationship between Islam and our current military enemy is essentially of the same kind as the relationship between Nazism and Nazi Germany or Shinto and Imperialist Japan in World War II. Nazism is an ideology, a body of ideas; Nazi Germany was a state ruled by a regime that was motivated by its leaders’ and supporters’ acceptance of those ideas. Shinto is a religion; Imperialist Japan was a state ruled by a regime that was motivated by its leaders’ and supporters’ acceptance of that religion. Likewise, Islam is a religion; various states, regimes, and groups today are motivated by their leaders’ and supporters’ and members’ acceptance of that religion.
   
Islam motivates our military enemy. And this is an important fact. But Islam has not attacked the West; Islamic regimes and jihadist groups have. Islam cannot be eliminated; Islamic regimes and jihadist groups can. Our military enemy today is not Islam but the regimes and groups that embrace that religion, take it seriously, and thus seek to kill us in the name of their alleged God.
   
Grasping this distinction is vital, because naming our enemy accurately is crucial to winning the war. If we misname the enemy, calling it “Islam” or “Radical Islam”—or, worse, “terrorism” or “extremism” or the like—then we won’t know specifically where to deploy our forces, whom or what to bomb, or what winning this war means (more on this below).
   
Additionally, if we accept the notion that our military enemy is “Islam,” we might come to think that in order to win the war we must kill every self-described Muslim on the planet, which would be a moral atrocity (to put it mildly).
   
Although all jihadists are Muslim, not all self-described Muslims take Islam seriously enough to engage in, materially support, or encourage jihad. And unless a Muslim does so, he cannot properly be regarded as our military enemy.
   
Like the vast majority of today’s Jews and Christians, many of today’s Muslims refrain from acting in accordance with the murderous or otherwise rights-violating tenets of their religion. This does not absolve unserious, non-rights-violating Muslims of any and all responsibility for jihad, but it does limit their responsibility to a sub-legal, sub-political level.
   
Just as we do not and should not hold all Jews and Christians legally or politically responsible for assaults or murders committed in accordance with their religious scriptures, so we should not hold all Muslims legally or politically responsible for assaults or murders committed in accordance with theirs.
   
Merely believing in a religion that calls for rights violations does not, in and of itself, violate rights. To violate rights, one must initiate physical force against people, either directly—by, for instance, hitting, stabbing, or shooting them—or indirectly—by, for instance, materially supporting those who commit such acts, or encouraging or inciting others to commit such acts.
   
If a Muslim in any way materially supports, encourages, or incites jihad—if he provides jihadists with weapons, shelter, information, or the like; or if he calls for aggression against Westerners—he is, by that fact, an agent of the enemy and should be treated accordingly. But if he merely “believes in” the tenets of Islam and does not practice the rights-violating tenets of the religion, he cannot properly be held legally or politically responsible for practicing them. We recognize this fact in regard to other religionists and religions, and we morally must recognize it in regard to Muslims and Islam as well.3
   
Our military enemy in this war is Muslims who engage in jihad, or materially support jihad, or encourage or incite jihad. These are the Muslims of which the Islamic regimes and jihadist groups are comprised. And these are the Muslims, regimes, and groups we must eliminate.

As I said, that would just be a beginning.

It begins, to remind you, in recognising and acknowledging that “our enemy in this war is: Islamic regimes that have in any way sponsored or supported attacks against the West, and jihadist groups that have planned or executed such attacks.”

That means, and let’s be very clear about two things. 1. The war is with Islamic regimes and jihadist groups, not with immigrants as such. (The murderer’s family had been in America thirty years; he a citizen, not an immigrant.) 2. The war is with Islamic regimes and jihadist groups, not with every Muslim who follows Islam -- every Muslim being better behaved than their prophet being an ally in that war. So it doesn’t mean “banning Muslims,” whatever that would mean, it means making allies of every Muslim who is as opposed to jihadists as we are. As one American Muslim reminded folk this morning.

American Muslims are responsible for identifying and turning in over 90% of the lone wolves who would have committed terrorist attacks on this beautiful land of hours over the course of the past 15 years.
    We love this country and in order for us to show our love we need to start being looked at as the last line of defense and not the enemy.

So forget the blowhard blather. Let’s actually get smart.

.

20 comments:

  1. @ So forget the blowhard blather. Let’s actually get smart.@
    Getting smart will not help you in any way PC. They don't care how smart you are.
    Get real

    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. We don't know whether or not (or how much) the shooter was in fact a Muslim - or just a fantasist who name-checked ISIS.

    We do know that he was a registered Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The name of the enemy PC is Islam

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lolz - Yeah the way to defeat Islamic terror is to import more mohammedmen.....Um I'm only a simple man here so let's actually get smart here.

    Out of curiosity, have you adopted your refugee yet Peter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, clearly you are very simple, Jamie. Immigration is clearly your answer to everything, even when, as here where the murderer is an American citizen, it is simply not the issue.

      Delete
    2. Can't even integrate second generation muslims, and still you want to import more.
      Keep banging that drum Peter

      Delete
    3. PC, Your reply at 08.30 to Jamie is too simple. The meme of Western destruction, violence and rape is within Islam. Among other ways, It appears in the second generation or third from this weeks passive refugees. Orlando.

      Delete
  5. "Our enemy in this war is: Islamic regimes that have in any way sponsored or supported attacks against the West, and jihadist groups that have planned or executed such attacks. The enemy regimes are primarily those in Iran and Saudi Arabia; and the jihadist groups include Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Islamic State."

    No, it is *not*.
    Our enemy in this war is *Islam*, full stop, and that means all Muslims.

    Islam is an *ideology*, not a religion, and it has killed *vastly* more people than even Naziism ever did.

    The answer is simple. Define Islam in law as exactly what it is - an ideology that promotes and encourages hatred and violence towards those outside of it.

    Having done, that, use that law to ban immigration of anyone following an ideology of hate. Use the same law to close down all mosques and Islamic schools. Finally, ban the proselytising of Islam in this country.

    Doing all that would ensure that Islam in this country slowly but inevitably dies out.

    The solution is easy - it's finding politicians with the courage to *implement it* that is hard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the enemy is not all Muslims. As the fellow points out above, if civilisation's defenders want some way to flush out filth before it murders, then you need to realise that the people who actually know them "are the last line of defense and not the enemy."

      Delete
    2. You are dead right, j4d3 goat. Islam is the enemy. When someone responds with something like "the enemy is not all muslims", they are just sidestepping the issue. It's the same as saying not all nazis are the enemy because not all nazis believe in gassing jews. Might have been true, but it didn't mean the enemy wasn't nazism, or that no nazi could be trusted. I really can't fathom where a supposed freedom lover can be coming from with such a stance.

      Delete
    3. The sidestep, not to say total evasion of reality, is to imagine that 1.5 billion people are all your enemy.
      I really can't imagine how anyone would leave their house in the morning if that were even remotely true.
      Or how anyone could then focus on and identify those who actually foment, carry out, and support the atrocities.

      Delete
    4. By enemy you mean violent jihadist out to massacre people. I think enemy is more broad than that, so you're attributing something to me that isn't the case. Anyone who supports the establishment of Islam, whether they support violent means or not, is an enemy in this war. I don't care that many muslims would not personally gun me down or behead me. We are at war. That is the bottom line.

      Delete
  6. Here's an idea. Let's import more and more mulims into the West. That will show them how tolerant and liberal we are, and they'll love us for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not for the first time, Richard, you make no point whatsoever.

      Or if you're suggesting you're as dumb as Trump, then realise instead that banning Muslim immigration would have done precisely zero to stop a mass murder carried out by a man born in New York.

      Delete
    2. Radical Islam festers in Muslim communities - the larger the Muslim community, the more terrorists it will contain. How do western countries end up with Muslim communities? Arab immigrants.

      If the terrorism is committed by the son of Islamic immigrants rather than the first generation, that makes fuck-all difference to the root of the problem.

      Richard's comment is your stance on this issue in a nutshell. I know you have an ideological stance on immigration you feel you have to defend at all costs - regardless of what happens in the real world, but really: use your brain!

      Delete
    3. I don't feel I have to instantly "defend at all costs" any position, Barry. If a tragedy like this doesn't cause you to challenge or readjust your views, then you're just not thinking properly.

      But have you noticed how many of these attacks mass murders are committed not by immigrants, but by their children? In other words *by those who grew up in the west* and not by trhose who came here to escape these things. If that fact alone doesn't make you challenge your lazy narrative about nasty foreigners (and make you at least wonder what these murderous folk imbibe here as youngsters) then you can forget any claim at all to being a thoughtful commentator.

      Delete
    4. Just at the cost of more and more massacres.

      Delete
  7. I thought the sarcasm would have been obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your confident libertarian replies are self defeating PC. '
    @ But have you noticed how many of these attacks mass murders are committed not by immigrants, but by their children? .. Islam children Peter Islam
    and then
    @ If that fact alone doesn't make you challenge your narrative ... then you can forget any claim at all to being a thoughtful commentator.@

    ReplyDelete
  9. " realise instead that banning Muslim immigration would have done precisely zero to stop a mass murder carried out by a man born in New York."

    Making the West Islam unfriendly will go a long way to reducing the chance of mass murders being carried out by Muslims in the West, perhaps even reducing it to zero. On the other hand, inviting Muslims to pour in enmasse will do precisely the opposite. Jihadists are emboldened by success. 49 dead, and just as many injured and maimed, will embolden and inspire jihadists everywhere. So much damage by just one man. And in this climate, you want to pile more Muslims in. Their morale, their faith, their belief in Allah, needs to be smashed. Stopping Muslim immigration (not immigration) would take a big step towards that goal.

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored.
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.