Wednesday, June 27, 2007
'We Are Not Losing the War Against Radical Islam'
Hey, clip and mail this to any simpleton you know who thinks:
1. We face a monolithic enemy.
Or
2. Those damn librals who hate Murka are forcin' the West to fight with one hand tied behind its back with, you know, loyalty to liberty, freedom of speech, the human and constitutional rights to dissent, and stuff like that.
I loves me some Fareed Zakaria:
From a broad coalition promising to unite all Muslims, Al Qaeda has morphed into a purist Sunni group that spends most of its time killing Shiites. In its original fatwas and other statements, Al Qaeda makes no mention of Shiites, condemning only the "Crusaders" and "Jews." But Iraq changed things. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, bore a fierce hatred for Shiites, derived from his Wahhabi-style puritanism. In a February 2004 letter to Osama bin Laden, he claimed that "the danger from the Shia ... is greater ... than the Americans ... [T]he only solution is for us to strike the religious, military and other cadres among the Shia with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis." If there ever had been a debate between him and bin Laden, Zarqawi won. As a result, an organization that had hoped to rally the entire Muslim world to jihad against the West has been dragged instead into a dirty internal war within Islam.
Read all of 'We Are Not Losing the War Against Radical Islam' by Fareed Zakaria.
And his book, "The Future of Freedom," also comes with the ER Seal of Approval.
--ER
1. We face a monolithic enemy.
Or
2. Those damn librals who hate Murka are forcin' the West to fight with one hand tied behind its back with, you know, loyalty to liberty, freedom of speech, the human and constitutional rights to dissent, and stuff like that.
I loves me some Fareed Zakaria:
From a broad coalition promising to unite all Muslims, Al Qaeda has morphed into a purist Sunni group that spends most of its time killing Shiites. In its original fatwas and other statements, Al Qaeda makes no mention of Shiites, condemning only the "Crusaders" and "Jews." But Iraq changed things. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, bore a fierce hatred for Shiites, derived from his Wahhabi-style puritanism. In a February 2004 letter to Osama bin Laden, he claimed that "the danger from the Shia ... is greater ... than the Americans ... [T]he only solution is for us to strike the religious, military and other cadres among the Shia with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis." If there ever had been a debate between him and bin Laden, Zarqawi won. As a result, an organization that had hoped to rally the entire Muslim world to jihad against the West has been dragged instead into a dirty internal war within Islam.
Read all of 'We Are Not Losing the War Against Radical Islam' by Fareed Zakaria.
And his book, "The Future of Freedom," also comes with the ER Seal of Approval.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
What's interesting about this article is that it runs in the exact opposite direction of the opinions of those most conservative among us. At the blog Eschaton, there is a link to a story on the New Republic's cruise, as reported by a liberal reporter who went along for the ride. What stands out the most is the almost universal conviction that Muslims the world over are on the verge of taking over first Europe then the United States. There is even a remark in the story by one participant in the cruise concerning the hope for a firebombing of the UN.
These people are, to a person, delusional. And yet, they rule our world.
These people are, to a person, delusional. And yet, they rule our world.
Islam is undergoing its own Reformation. And we need to be willing to see the shifting sczisms and play hard-ass diplomacy and square dance as we go.
Oh, wait! That requires thinking, which is making decisions and changing our minds and letting strategy evolve as needed. And wisdom.
The Right is in short supply of the former, and the entire political-entertainment-industrial-Internet complex is devoid of the latter.
Oh, wait! That requires thinking, which is making decisions and changing our minds and letting strategy evolve as needed. And wisdom.
The Right is in short supply of the former, and the entire political-entertainment-industrial-Internet complex is devoid of the latter.
Thank God, Allah Akbar, for family fueds.
Also I truely think the pendulum has swung as far right as it is going to. I heard the words "Fairness Doctrine" come out of Trent Lotts lips two days ago. No matter that he retracted it latter.
The Turning proceeds.
Also I truely think the pendulum has swung as far right as it is going to. I heard the words "Fairness Doctrine" come out of Trent Lotts lips two days ago. No matter that he retracted it latter.
The Turning proceeds.
This comes at a good time since I am in an online debate about "islamofascism" and Iraq. I think we gotta get out of Iraq, he thinks unless we kill all Al Queda, we lose, and lose big. I think the only way to beat al Qaeda is to maginalize them, and this provides good information.
So, one guy's opinion seals the deal for you? Isn't Zarqawi worm food right now? If there's a "rift" between Islamic factions, I highly doubt that it means they won't still be trying to pop a cap in the butts of any Westerners or Jews they can hit. And even if Zakaria is correct, the conflict between the differing sects is only likely to be a temporary detour from the goal of killing all indidels. Their faith demands it.
Well, no, MA. I said, based on my own reading, long before I hitched my wagon to Zakaria's star, that it was lunacy for this country to treat our enemies as a monolith. 1., it's always lunacy to put your enemoy in a box, and 2., Isamicism really is undergoing something akin to our own Reformation, and we need to be flexible, not doctrinaire, in dealing with it. And no, I don't agree with your last remark. At all. That is the very heart of the mistake in this country thinking.
Our own faith demands peace, period. Yet we don't agree on it. If their faith demands death to all infidels, why the hell should we think they would be any more devoted to it than we are to ours?
Our own faith demands peace, period. Yet we don't agree on it. If their faith demands death to all infidels, why the hell should we think they would be any more devoted to it than we are to ours?
You misunderstand me. It's those that are devoted in that way that is causing all the trouble. They may be realigning themselves by which sect is most correct, but they are of one mind in their ultimate goals. Those that don't abide are the ones with whom we are currently negotiating and supporting (provided they aren't pullin' our chains).
I also don't think we're putting our enemy in a box. Despite what some might say about the overall execution of the war, there's a lot of constant adjusting and learning and readjusting going on. But that's tactics and strategy against the armed elements of the movement. There's still the underlying motivation and goals and they've remained unchanged since Muhammed lived.
Post a Comment
I also don't think we're putting our enemy in a box. Despite what some might say about the overall execution of the war, there's a lot of constant adjusting and learning and readjusting going on. But that's tactics and strategy against the armed elements of the movement. There's still the underlying motivation and goals and they've remained unchanged since Muhammed lived.
<< Home
