I've often compared our war with Islamism (political Islam) to that of fighting Communism. It's a long term effort which must be fought both ideologically and militarilly.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to fighting this war is lack of open discussion about the teachings of Mohammed. I have always blamed Karl Marx for the evils of communism, and while many on the Left continue to apologize for Marx, there was never any concerted effort to silence his critics. Blame Mohammed for the evils of Islamism, and you are labelled a bigot.

Of course, it is precisely because Muhammed was a religious philosopher that we get into trouble. Americans are naturally tolerant of religious diversity. Or, at least, that is the way in which we like to think of ourselves. It's a goal and a value we cherish, if we do not always practice perfectly. Good for us for the effort.

But what most Americans do not realize is that Islam is every bit as much a political system as it is a religious one.

So, how do we win this Cold War with Islamism? Jack Wheeler & Steve Baldwin have some suggestions. They are calling their movement, the 9/10 Group. WND:

* investigate radical mosques

* support anti-Islamofascist freedom fighters

* thwart attempts to impose Sharia law

* form an anti-Islamofascist publishing network

* create an anti-Islamofascist portal on the Internet

* establish an anti-Islamofascist speakers bureau

* wage an ideological assault on Islamofascism

* support efforts to evangelize Muslims in Europe and the Middle East

* create a global anti-Islamofascist coalition

* reframe the illegal immigration issue as one of national security

* end dependence on foreign oil that's funding the Islamofascists.

Like I have always said, I'm not really worried about the eternal salvation of Muslims--that is, not any more worried than the eternal salvation of any other group. In fact, as a Christian universalist, I'm closer to them on matters of how God judges people than I am to most evangelical Protestants. I'm more worried about what people do than what they believe.

Belief does lead to action, but there is nothing in the teachings of Islam about day-to-day behavior that particularly worries me. What does worry me are the teachings of Islam about the organization of the state.

But the exact same was true of Marx and Communism. Marx's ideas on the organization of family and personal life really was not worrying. I've never met a Marxist who I wasn't willing to hang out with at a baseball game or who I wouldn't have a problem being my neighbor. It is Marx's political and economic views that are not only troubling, but which are at the core of so much bloodshed and oppression.

The individual Marxist and the individual Muslim are not a problem. They are only problems when they wield political power.

Another thing that worries me about Islam is that whenever there is war between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims--even in the West--are predisposed to taking sides based solely on religious identity. And if ones religious identity trumps national identity, then you have a major problem in the making for the idea of the secular state.

The same thing worried me about Marxists. In any given Communist insurgency, they were predisposed to side with the Communists. Or, at the very least, urge non-intervention and letting those states "sort it out for themselves". No such urging for the Soviets, though. Sound familiar?

In any event, keep an eye on the 9/10 group. Their blog is here. Their forum is here. Hopefully, we will see good things. And, Wheeler and Baldwin are right:

Without the anti-Communist movement, it's likely we would still be in the midst of the Cold War today. Wise men and women rose up to the challenge and created a movement that was very much opposed by the existing political and media establishment. But we won. Then we all went to sleep.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:54 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 707 words, total size 5 kb.

1 "The individual Marxist and the individual Muslim are not problems." -- Dr. Lusty Shariaford
 
The individual Muslim IS the problem. Because individual Muslims get together in packs and become monsters lusting for blood and gore while destroying civil society.
 
The lone suicide bomber, among others with a taste for death, acts as an individual Muslim.

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 02, 2006 01:00 PM (HSkSw)

2 There is no such thing as a lone suicide bomber.  He is part of a cell of political activists. We call these cells "terrorist organizations".  The key word being, organization.

Further, even the lone nut terrorist isn't killing people so that they will live up to the sharia requirement for shaving your balls.  He does it because he believes such an act will lead to POLITICAL goals. 

Posted by: Rusty at December 02, 2006 02:42 PM (JQjhA)

3 Although the lone suicide bomber may have found support among a cell, he still acts as an individual Muslim. He did not bring a cell with him when he joins a cell, and he does not take the cell with him when he blows himself up.

Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed found support in Al Qaeda, but his actions as an individual, specifically the dull knife beheading of Daniel Pearl, are some of his most heinous.

I said individual Muslims come together to form ravenous and blood-thirsty packs, but this does not mean the individual Muslim (single person) is not a threat.

Now if by individual Muslim, you mean Joe-Five-Prayers, who lives a quiet life in the burbs and has a family, well then I suggest you reread history and the life stories of more than one 9/11 or 7/7 terrorist.

Stop your wishy-washy, beating around the bush apologetics for the individual Islamist. Contrary to your PC thinking, Islam is a threat to humanity.

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 02, 2006 03:52 PM (HSkSw)

4 Quote from Speaking to the chior:
"
I said individual Muslims come together to form ravenous and blood-thirsty packs, but this does not mean the individual Muslim (single person) is not a threat.
"
 
WTF!!
 
Christians have killed just as many over the ages than Muslims,
 
Just remember it was a blood thirsty CHRISTIAN who started the Iraq War! not Muslim!

Posted by: sol at December 02, 2006 07:24 PM (fuinW)

5 Sol: You are incorrect. The war started shortly after July 1990 when Saddam Hussein threatened to attack Kuwait for violating oil production quotas. So you are probably right, the war really was about oil. But it was a Caligulan dictator who used Islam as a political tool, Saddam Hussein, who started the war. The current fighting is really part of the same war that started in 1990. There never was a peace treaty, and Iraqi and Coalition forces were firing on each other, ostensibly over the no-fly zones after the cease-fire in 1990, every day for 13 years. Please clear your head of liberal theology and face reality and actual history.

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 02, 2006 07:42 PM (HSkSw)

6 sorry, ceasefire was in 1991

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 02, 2006 07:48 PM (HSkSw)

7 Speaking to the choir:
 
The Current Action on Iraq is NO WAY realated to the Invasion of Kuwait.
 
The point in which the Offensive of Kuwait stopped and the invasion of Iraq began was then the US and Allies failed to help the Kurds in their attempted Coup!
 
That point defined the region.
 
Not to mention that the West put him in power, at first, to control the region and it looks like they may have to put another dictiator in Iraq to stop the attacks on the population.
 
So what was the point of the current invasion?

Posted by: sol at December 02, 2006 07:49 PM (fuinW)

8 Sol has been doing his required reading at Kos !
He deserves a sticker !

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 02, 2006 07:55 PM (HSkSw)

9 Speaking for the Choir  has been doing no reading.
 
This current immoral war was for something but it's purpose has changed so much I really do not know what the US is doing there. From reading your post you do not know either.
 

Posted by: Frank Booth at December 02, 2006 08:05 PM (rIWvK)

10

Speaking to the chior!

I've never been to KOS
 
I'm more of a newshound kinds guy!!
 
But i'll take in to account you isolated situation...

Posted by: sol at December 02, 2006 08:16 PM (fuinW)

11 sol, you really dont know why Bush Sr. stopped when he did? You right away had to throw in the coup remark as the typical Lefty retort.

Bush Sr. had to stop short of an invasion of Iraq because the UN made sure that the coalitions mission was to defeat the Iraqi forces in Kuwait and eject those Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Nothing more. The good ole UN made sure that Saddam stayed in power to be a pest for another 13 years while he murdered more of his fellow Mulsim civilians. And to Frank, tell me, what is a moral war supposed to be like? And is that the only kind of war that Leftys will support, especially if someone else besides the USA is doing it?

Posted by: THANOS at December 02, 2006 08:54 PM (4UFiH)

12 Yes Thanos
 
the US and the UK had to stop when they got Iraq out of Kuwait, that was thepoint. so the action was ended!
 
Speakingto the chior said that thois was related to the current situation in Iraq which it was not!
 
 
The point is that the US and the UK after the invasion of Kuwait said to the Kurds that they "WOULD SUPPORT THEM IN A COUP"!! when they left Kuwait.
 
Guess what!!
 
they didn't! Guess who paid for that, not us!

Posted by: sol at December 02, 2006 09:06 PM (fuinW)

13 I have come to the conclusion that Islam is a totalitarian movement disguised as a religion.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at December 02, 2006 09:08 PM (az74v)

14 sol - exactly which one of us told which kurd we "WOULD SUPPORT THEM IN A COUP".
 
were the no fly zones I helped patrol NOT support?
 
your buddy saddam is going to hang by his neck and shit himself because he didn't follow the very simple UN resolutions he agreed to follow. his 2 dipshit sons are decaying corpses because their daddy's ego trumped his common sense.
 
nothing immoral with muzzies killing each other - just business as usual...

Posted by: Max Power at December 02, 2006 10:27 PM (PM8kH)

15 Choir
Individual Muslims are not necessarily bad people, or anti west. I know of examples where Sharia would be the last thing they would want. They benefit from, and enjoy our culture, and want it to stay the way it is.

Sol
George Bush Sr didn't invade Kuwait. He can't honestly be described as bloodthirsty, and I voted against him so I;'m not a big fan of his. My advice is to make more acurate statements. Discredit him with truth, not hysterical bigotry.

For example, he couldn't keep his 'no new taxes' promise, and all that talk about a new world order in concert with depending to much on the UN made him look bad to me. Those can be factually supported, and are framed as my opinion in any case.

I would not say Karl Marx was a bloodthirsty Atheist. It is an equally poor attack. It would be better to say that Marx neglected the relationship between ownership, and a desire to produce, when describing his idea of social economic improvement.

Frank Booth
No offense, but there is no such thing as a moral war where only the very bad get hurt. There are wars you win, and wars you lose. There are times when war is better than 'not war' which some people call peace.

There are times when 'not war' is more evil than war, and we are forced to see it that way. Sometimes war later is more evil, than war right away, because the war later is a bigger war due to the waiting.

Usually people who claim a war is immoral, or illegal, or unjust, are not very friendly to the party forced to initiate or continue that war. There is a political bias.

The American Civil War was deemed unjust by many Americans at the time, and it was still fought. The spread of slavery was still thwarted, and nearly a million war related deaths were inflicted upon American citizens.

Was it a moral war? Was it worth it to stop the westward spread of slavery? What else could Amrerica have done?

Anyway, you can all come back at me now

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 10:33 PM (2OHpj)

16 Forgive my spelling, I'm not fast on the keyboard, and making fun of that isn't a substantial attck, but a persoanl one

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 10:36 PM (2OHpj)

17 I think the subject of this post was a blueprint beating islamofacism. I think the best way is to set a better example than the muslims. We have to look in the mirror and see the example we give to the youth of the middleeast. The picture young people get when they compare the west to islamic countries. My take:
 
(1) The war means really little. These people have been fighting for hundreds of years. If they weren't fighting us, they would be fighting each other.
 
(2) Religious side. A muslim cleric is an ugly sucker who says you can mistreat your sister. All little boys like to torture their sisters. The muslim cleric says making war in the name of Allah is Okay. Exciting huh! Kids love guns and war games. Muslim clerics say eat well and don't become a fatso. Kids love to make fun of fat kids. See any over weight muslim kids? Muslim clerics homsexuality is bad. Know any kids who thinks its good?
 
We on the other hand offer movies with disgusting language, homsexuality, drug dealers and plots against our (corrupt politicians). We offer McDonalds and Coke which will kill you after obesity sets in. We say you must be nice to your sister and according to American newspapers Catholic priests only wish to play with their peepees. Example: Todays news. Los Angeles Archdiocese agrees to pay $60,000,000 to 45 kids that were abused by priests. 
 
 
(3) Muslims have a history of worshiping their leaders. They are respectful and bow to them. (Overly so) but that's their way. We on the other hand have Islamocrats that refer to our President as a moron and murderer. It must be true if Americans are saying it. Right!
 
Neither the enemy or the liberal newsmedia will show anything good about American. Only the bad makes news.
 
To win. We must either set better examples or blow them up. There is no other way. We hand them candy and the cleric reminds them it will rot your teeth. The west is not going to change. So, I believe we are going to war. I don't believe the invasion of Iraq is a real war. Think WW2.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 03, 2006 08:55 AM (5vGBy)

18 Oh yea: Forgot to say the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has more than 500 more suits to settle concerning phedophile priests. Putting that with the east coast phedophile priest the bill should be in neighborhood of a billion dollars. Think of that when you put your donation in the kitty. Little kids the world get to read this shit and then say American, nay.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 03, 2006 10:08 AM (5vGBy)

19 "There are times when war is better than 'not war' which some people call peace. "
 
So Michael Weaver why do you hate Jesus? After all Jesus was one of the people who prefered the peace and love thing.
 
Jesus Christ! The world's first Hippy.
 
On your point about  War
 

Iraq was NOT a war to stop terrorism it was a power grab for oil and revenge by power hungry neocons. Many who are now blaming others for this fiasco. It was started based on lies and modeled after the Millennium Project. A 2 billion dollar war game were the enemy was not allowed to participate in the game. Look it up.

 

Wars of choice are wrong and those that support it knowingly like you will fail. Ask the Romans or Napoleon or Hitler or both of the crusades or countless others stupid power hungry leaders through out history. That’s just the way of the universe.

 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html
 
story is orginally posted in the American Jewish weekly hardly are left wing news source

 

Posted by: Frank Booth at December 03, 2006 12:17 PM (rIWvK)

20 "story is orginally posted in the American Jewish weekly hardly are left wing news source"
 
You're joking - right????????
 
 

Posted by: Max Power at December 03, 2006 12:34 PM (PM8kH)

21 Care to expain Max?

Posted by: Frank Booth at December 03, 2006 02:37 PM (rIWvK)

22 Another "Front" for the war is Demographic (see Mark Steyn book and articles). So I propose a rallying cry:
FOUR KIDS FOR AMERICA!
All Red-Staters should have 4 kids minimum.
    2 - to replace themselves
    1 - to replace a blue stater who is not reproducing enough
    1 - for America!
Yes, you may have to sacrifice a little more, and retire a little later because of the cost of educating these kids... SO?

When you see a soldier, you walk up and thank them, don't you?  Next time you see parents with 4+ kids, walk up and thank them for doing more than their share to raise the next generation of Americans.

In support of the front-line troops in the demographic war (parents), we need other Red State Americans  (RSAs) to help take back our schools. Retired RSAs and stay-at-home mom RSAs who's kids have all entered school age should consider getting certified and becoming teachers to take back the schools from the America Haters. Disabled Vets, and retired Vets should also consider this as a continuation of their service to country. Teaching is a profession that is compatible with disability.
It won't do a lot of good to have more kids and still abdicate their education to the America Haters.

Please feel free to copy or paraphrase this post on your own sites, and claim it as your own.

Telmah

Posted by: Telmah at December 03, 2006 02:53 PM (WYNeG)

23 How to destroy islamofascism? Simple - kill all muslims and their
treasonous lefturd supporters. Can't be done you say? Why not? Just
because one lacks the guts to do something doesn't mean it can't be
done; it just wants someone with the balls to do the job.

Soon, the war will be in our streets, and once appeasement and even
surrender have been tried ad nauseum to no avail, the sheep, (that's
most of you),  will be bleating out for something to be done, and
the only workable solution will be extermination.

Want world peace? Of 130 conflicts in the world today, 129 involve
muslims. The answer to the question is staring us in the face, but our
culture and society are degraded and cowardly, and we shirk from the
sight of blood, and so the only solution that will work will be the
last to be tried. Until we exterminate muslims and their lefturd
allies, there will be only more war and death in the world, not less.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 03, 2006 03:55 PM (v3I+x)

24

anything "jewish-american" is left wing frank

Ask fred baron if you don't believe me. 
 
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A1773_0_3_0_C/
 
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001208.html
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Baron
 
http://www.txsharkblog.com/2006/07/is_fred_baron_crusading_for_jo.html
 
 

Posted by: Max Power at December 03, 2006 06:18 PM (PM8kH)

25

Muslims will not stop until they are stopped. The west needs to teach them a lesson never to be forgotten. A simple lesson that says (see what you made uis do). From now on you may not threaten us, kidnap us, kill us or any other of your Islamic bullshit. If you do we will come back and teach you another lesson. What is the difference between us destroying Germany and Japan with our bombs and destroying a islamic country? Personally, I know the Germans and Japanese are far more civilized people. Why spare the ragheads when they are as much a threat to world peace as any country in the past.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 03, 2006 06:19 PM (rir45)

26 Communist USSR kept the Muslims in check, using secret police, fear, torture, camps (gulags) : the whole iron fisted worked, until 1991 there abouts with the fragmenting of the place. So since then we got the GENIE OUT THE BOTTLE, so to speak. Maybe communism in Russia is too blame for what's happening now. In the Soviet Union Muslims made up a lot of the population, kept in place,...note Iraq was doing the same under Saddam, now we have shia vs shite's ,kurds etc, fighting everyone in Iraq. DEMOCRACY is Bush's impossible dream, as it does not work with the Muslims there. Shia Law and thats it!

Posted by: brianpacman at December 04, 2006 05:28 AM (ZC3y5)

27 Marx's writings on political and economic matters were a study of capitalism. Most people have not taken into context the time  and language (German) of what we meant. Because Marx was difficult to read( trying getting through Das Capital vl1 and explain surplus value etc.) Whew!
Lenin saw how to exploit this to his ends. Stalin used other crap, and so does everyone else from Australia to Iceland. All different and all confusing.
Do not blame Marx, but the Marxists and loony interpreters of it for evil purposes.

Posted by: brianpacman at December 04, 2006 05:37 AM (ZC3y5)

28 I will agree with one thing. Both myself and president George Bush have learned that your statement (Democratcy doesn't work with muslims, Shia law and that's it) is so true. But what now?

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 04, 2006 05:57 AM (qWbYR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment