PDA

View Full Version : Islamists' Catch-22


socrates
07-08-2008, 12:32 PM
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Try a little thought experiment. What would have happened in this country during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully neutralized anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin’s plans for world domination?

Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and elsewhere who opposed its totalitarian agenda – especially after Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by accusing them of believing communists were “under every bed.”

But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa had been able to criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the triumph of world communism? What if it had been an internationally prosecutable offense even to talk about the dangers inherent in communist rule and the need to resist it?

The short answer is that history might very well have come out differently. Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately and forcefully to describe the nature of that time’s enemy – and to work against the danger posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold War might well have been lost.

Flash forward to today. At the moment, another totalitarian ideology characterized by techniques and global ambitions strikingly similar to those of yesteryear’s communists is on the march. It goes by varying names: “Islamofascism,” “Islamism,” “jihadism” or “radical,” “extremist” or “political Islam.” Unlike the communists, however, adherents to this ideology are making extraordinary strides in Western societies toward criminalizing those who dare oppose the Islamist end-state – the imposition of brutal Shariah Law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Consider but a few indicators of this ominous progress:

--In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call “Islamophobia.” Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own “ten-year program of action” which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

--Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, “Fitna” – Wilders’ short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism – is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign” which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has “confirmed that the [prosecutor’s action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.” In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned “Islamophobes” like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports – unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

--Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion – a status known in Islam as “dhimmitude.” Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from “politically incorrect” to “criminally punishable” activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage – and in some cases, prosecute – those who do. We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called “Human Rights Councils” on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other “Islamophobic” conduct. Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of “Shariah-Compliant Finance.”

Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22: If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering. On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed. It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about – ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah – and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the founder, president, and CEO of The Center for Security Policy. During the Reagan administration, Gaffney was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy, and a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). He is a columnist for The Washington Times, Jewish World Review, and Townhall.com and has also contributed to The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, and Newsday.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2C9683E3-3651-4882-BC7D-3B1B640E66FF

UShadItcoming
07-08-2008, 05:54 PM
In both the instance of the cold war and today, I believe he has it wrong and I suspect that he may know he has it wrong. Who could not fail to recognize now in retrospect that the aggressor during the cold war was the US. Who could fail to see that now there is no USSR deterrant to US hegemony the US is running roughshod over the ME and will do likewise over the world if they are not stopped. Specifically Venezuela and as was with Iraq where there was no threat to the US in either instance.

And now in today's world who can say that it hasn't been the US that has taken their wars to the Muslim world? Who can seriousy claim that the 9/11 attacks against the US were anything but revenge? Who seriously thinks that those attacks were an attempt to impose Islam's values on the US?

Only Gaffney, propagandists like him, and those who they have been able to propagandize into believing their message. And then we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of their message really is. Has the US not openly proclaimed that it will do what is necessary to remain the world's only superpower?

IMO people who post a complete link should have the courage to at least make a comment or two on how they personally feel about what they post. I think the forum needs to make it clear that that is at least expected.

quirk
07-08-2008, 06:05 PM
First off a comment should be left with every article as UShadItcoming points out and this is in the rules. Moderators can remove any article which has no comment however it is a judgement call and the decision will be based on whether the article might encourage debate anyway.

David Horowitz and Front Page Magazine which he owns are completely discredited and this website has been shown on several occasions to have printed complete fabrications. Horowitz is also leading the crusade against what he terms "Islamofascism". This crusade is a sham to encourage people to get behind US Imperialism and its aggression worldwide.

UShadItcoming
07-08-2008, 06:22 PM
David Horowitz and Front Page Magazine which he owns are completely discredited and this website has been shown on several occasions to have printed complete fabrications. Horowitz is also leading the crusade against what he terms "Islamofascism". This crusade is a sham to encourage people to get behind US Imperialism and its aggression worldwide.

That is exactly how I feel about this sham attempt at propagandizing the American people. I believe that it is now abundantly clear to nearly the entire world that that is the intent. But never underestimate the power of propaganda with lots of money behind it and also lots of blackmailing going on by the US. For their Iraq war, many of the countries who signed on to their coalition for war against Iraq were blackmailed into doing so. But a lot of them were blackmailed in order to build a list of countries in name only. Many of them didn't even have an armed forces which could be sent to battle.

I fully believe also that Tony Blair thought that he was repaying a debt to the US for it's participation during WW2. When we think in those terms it's hard to imagine that Britain could have refused. Economic blackmail which could have been going on behind the scenes, I am not privy to that knowledge but I suspect it played a large part too in the case of Britain.

Now it appears to me at least that we need to begin the process of un-demonizing Russia and China and many other countries which the US is against for nothing more than economic reasons and political ieologies. Venezuela and it's leader Hugo Chavez are stark examples of just how evil the Us intentions really are.

Shadow
07-09-2008, 07:02 AM
Good thinking USHadit.


I like-In particular- the idea of "un-demonizing" the nations that the US has DEMONIZED for their own ulterior motives.


Gotta wonder if the US population (the affected section) can ever be unprogrammed , as when politics/ Gov't and religion are so closely intertwined ..........not sure it is even possible. Anymore than it is possible for the current generation of other religious fanatics to change their views /beliefs.


What is even more concerning , is that the US demonizes other nations for what it is and does itself.

UShadItcoming
07-09-2008, 06:27 PM
Good thinking USHadit.


I like-In particular- the idea of "un-demonizing" the nations that the US has DEMONIZED for their own ulterior motives.


Gotta wonder if the US population (the affected section) can ever be unprogrammed , as when politics/ Gov't and religion are so closely intertwined ..........not sure it is even possible. Anymore than it is possible for the current generation of other religious fanatics to change their views /beliefs.


What is even more concerning , is that the US demonizes other nations for what it is and does itself.

I think we as Canadians may be better equipped to analyze the differences in Americans from other people of the world. When we go across the border we find normal people who are pleasant to talk to in every day conversation and much the same as Canadians. I think we need to study them a little closer to find out what makes them different because it doesn't become apparent to me with a quick casual encounter.

So where do we go to learn? For a start it's been suggested that one of the big differences with the US is that they grew out of revolution while Canada didn't. I"m not quite sure how that could make them different but I wouldn't put it down either.

I've mentioned in the past a book by Will Hutton, A Declaration of Interdependence', which I highly recommend for anyone who is interested in learning something about why Americans are the way they are and why in Hutton's estimation the US is bound to continue to fail. It's prophetic in a way because Hutton wrote it before the US started the slide down in earnest. It would form the basis of a great discussion on this board and let's face it, this board urgently needs a revival of some kind soon.

But overall, can the US continue to prosper when it uses over 20 million barrels of oil a day and it refuses to address the problem in a expedient manner, but continues to drag it's feet on the important global issues. Just the other day a poll on Fox News was done on how many would support a 55mph speed limit to save on fuel. Huge savings are possible. Something like 70-75% were against even that! In general Will Hutton tells us why in his fantastic book.

Shadow
07-09-2008, 07:15 PM
Just the other day a poll on Fox News was done on how many would support a 55mph speed limit to save on fuel. Huge savings are possible. Something like 70-75% were against even that! In general Will Hutton tells us why in his fantastic book.



Have not read that book yet.......but it sounds fantastic. ( and will try to obtain a copy ASAP) Would be interested in a brief statement as to his ideas as to why they are that way.


I have my own ideas / theories( if you will).......... and one component of them is their sense of ENTITLEMENT. They feel and are brought up to believe they are the best nation, the best nation, have the best military that can do as it wishes.... and being patriotic to their country/ gov't and military has the fervor of a "religion."

All this makes them look down on everyone else. Maybe this is why it is so easy for them to decide to invade, slaughter massive numbers of PEOPLE in another nation , and only care about their own troops being killed. By elevating their own troops as they do, into some level of hero worship , helps to salve their misgivings , if there are any.

This attitude of entitlement makes them feel they can do whatever they want to whoever they want as long as their gov't gives them the excuse that these victims are a US 'enemy'.

In keeping with this, it follows that they don't think they have to give up anything on a personal level.......for humanity, the planet , the environment etc. in a way , this is a very spoilt/pampered society. What complicates this , is that they have lost contact with reality. (IF they ever had it ) they have lived in a bubble of their own making . To them , food, oil, and other essentials (even CLEAN AIR) is an endless supply , so why should they conserve or even bother thinking of anyone else on this planet.??

It is a ME, ME, ME society and has been that way since the first war it started . greed is also part of it. And if they cannot have it, no one should.

There is a LOT Of psychology ( pathological) there. IMHO.

UShadItcoming
07-09-2008, 09:01 PM
Shadow- The title is a play on their own, Declaration of Indepence and it is saying that they need to become interdependent with the rest of the world. You can get a copy at your local library or I can loan you mine if you like via snail mail. Perhaps the best explanation I can make is to give you a few of the chapter titles:

The Reckoning

Waging War without Blood: :The Collapse of American Liberalism *

Greed Isn't Good for YOu *

The Globalization of Conservatism

Britain in the American Bear Hug *

Europe Works *

Siblings under the Skin

--------------

I've attached an asterisk to some of the most mindawakening chapters for me. Otherwise, what you have suggested as your feelings are pretty accurate and you will find that these ideas are not your alone. Many are getting the same perception and are starting to say so.

Shadow
07-09-2008, 09:35 PM
Thanks UShadit.


Will be ordering the book from here:

http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Interdependence-America-Should-World/dp/0393057259


I can tell, already , that it is very close to what I think. ;)


(not that what I think is going to change things or the world :);)

Gareth
07-09-2008, 10:12 PM
Gotta wonder if the US population (the affected section) can ever be unprogrammed , as when politics/ Gov't and religion are so closely intertwined ..........not sure it is even possible. Anymore than it is possible for the current generation of other religious fanatics to change their views /beliefs.

It's impossible to separate politics and religion, I will tell you that now. You will have to separate the people from their own religion before that can truly happen. People will always vote with their beliefs in mind, secondly people will always run with their beliefs in mind whether secular or religious. That's the fact, I wish people would stop dilly daddling with this term "church / state separation".

Also if the majority of the population support a religious viewpoint that is democracy at work, part of why people vote is to determine what kind of country they want to live in, if people want to live in a theocracy that is their decision.

Hence why I cannot get my head around what is happening in Turkey at the minute, a party which was voted in on trial for trying to remove the headscarf ban from Turkish universities. That is insane, an imposition of atheistic principles, on a state which has voted by electing the AKP party to loosen the extremist-secular state that exists at the minute. Insanity to the core.

faceless
07-10-2008, 02:05 AM
I fully believe also that Tony Blair thought that he was repaying a debt to the US for it's participation during WW2. When we think in those terms it's hard to imagine that Britain could have refused. Economic blackmail which could have been going on behind the scenes, I am not privy to that knowledge but I suspect it played a large part too in the case of Britain.


The final payment to the USA was made in December 2006 for the financial debt which Britain owed after America agreed to 'help' in WW2... Notwithstanding the masses of American soldiers killed for that privilegem, the idea that Blair thought Britain owed anything was more about his desire to achieve position than anything else.

UShadItcoming
07-10-2008, 02:50 AM
The final payment to the USA was made in December 2006 for the financial debt which Britain owed after America agreed to 'help' in WW2... Notwithstanding the masses of American soldiers killed for that privilegem, the idea that Blair thought Britain owed anything was more about his desire to achieve position than anything else.

I don't understand what you mean when you say it was Blair who desired to acheive postion. Could you explain for me?

And actually I would be interested to learn from you why you think Blair led Britain along with the US when he was just as politically in tune as all the other leaders of the world who refused to take part. I understand there was a lot of blackmail by the US of smaller countries but I would have thought that wasn't the reason for Britain taking part. An opportunity to share in the spoils of war with Iraq perhaps?