Redstate

some young Muslims join the United States military to defend this nation. What would you say to them?

This is interesting. You have responded to a post concerning foreign nationals entering the United States, with a post concerning Muslim enlistments in the U.S. Armed Forces. Are we to assume some sort of attention-deficit disorder on your part, or do you have some logical explanation for how this happened?

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Correction. I would say, "No."

country is to sign one's death warrant. Even here in the United States, ex-Muslim "I'bn Warraq" has to write under a pseudonym because some of the fine people we have let into this country intend to kill him over his apostasy. The neo-conservatives are horribly wrong in their overall approach to this issue. Democracy isn't the answer to a problem based on religion--the danger lies in the religion itself. The Pope has revealed this "faith" for the death cult it has become--or always was. I am inclined now to believe Islam has simply returned to its doctrinal moorings, so count me among the "always was."

...deport the guy who runs my local convenience store, then. Plus five or six of the people that I work with. And a friend or two from college. Seeing as they all belong to the same death cult, and all that.

Not gonna happen.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

at your neighborhood store then I would not worry about them, because they don't necessarily know if someone buying beer from them might also be Muslim, and they might not care enough to worry about it. I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to aid and abet another Muslim's apostasy if you're hardcore.

One of those annoying counties that have weird Sunday laws about booze. Which is a roundabout way of saying that my local convenience store wouldn't sell alcohol, anyway. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I'm not personally prepared to make any kind of broad generalization about Islam. But the fact is that a great many Muslims live here, and they are honored and esteemed members of our communities. There's no question that Moe is right- mass deportations just aren't going to happen. However, the possibility exists that America now harbors an evil- radicalized Islam- that may lead us to our second Civil War. It all depends on whether large numbers of American Muslims decide that their faith requires them to transform the American social order. There are perhaps six million of them now, and their numbers are growing rapidly. The tipping point may be decades away. But then as now, there will be no question of deportations, because these people are our friends and family. I hate to connect these dots, but the parallel with the mid-19th century is frightening.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

Re: There are perhaps six million of them now

The six million number is grossly inflated, and it comes from counting everyone with an Arabic name as Muslim. However about half of our Arab-Americans are not Muslims but Christians (and some too are Baha'is). The true number of American Muslims may be three million-- although if you count only practicing Muslims it's even lower.

Seems like that could easily add back in all of those you just subtracted out.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

But I do expect those who enter now to be subjected to intense scrutiny, and the numbers of entrants from hostile nations lowered. Not a really big request, really, in the middle of a war.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

do you mean what you think should happen? Or what you think will happen? Because if it's the latter, I think you'll be disappointed. For a whole lot of reasons, there is no way America will find either the leadership or the political will to restrict immigration by Muslims. And of course, this means we're putting the keys to our future in their hands, and theirs alone. If they should someday choose to radicalize and forcibly convert the rest of us, our only alternative will be civil war. That this is plain as day doesn't mean we will do anything to stop it now.

No it won't happen, but WHat SHOULD happen is just to end all immigration from terror exporting countries, and throw out anyone from those countries who has broken the law or overstayed their visa.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

We also should have a "Demanjuk law" (sp?) for radical Islamists who were naturalized and did not reveal their inclinations. Unfortunately, it won't happen as was pointed out.

So, yes, "should."

...that we should run our country in such a self-defeating way?

self-defeating, some of us would call it self-preservation.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

It is strange thing to witness men boast of their impotence, or the impotence for their country: "there is no way America will find either the leadership or the political will to restrict immigration by Muslims." No way? Shall we fold it up, then? What is your real counsel here --surrender? quietism?

"this means we're putting the keys to our future in their hands, and theirs alone" -- "they" being the Muslims. Here is not merely a counsel of surrender, but a statement that it has already occurred.

In fact the battle has hardly even been joined. We are five years into this thing; did you expect that we would turn this around in that short of time? What sense is there, really, in boasting of a conjecture of futility?

____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

And I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. In addition, I'm not offering counsel of any kind- only observations.

What is the real problem we're talking about? We invest a lot of our attention on the Global War on Terror, which will enter a new phase in January 2009. The only prediction I'm willing to make is that the new phase will be less intense than it currently is, regardless of whom we elect to sit in the White House.

But on the other hand, what I've been talking about on this thread is the fact that Muslims are coming here in large numbers. Given time (a certainty), numbers (a certainty to me, although not to Aleks311), and radicalization (not a certainty but greatly to be feared), their presence in our society can be an explosive force.

If I may make an inference from your remarks, you agree with this and also think the answer is obvious: keep the Muslims out, starting right now. Another possibility you may be thinking of is to prevent those already here from radicalizing.

As a country, we can't even make up our minds to elect leaders who will enforce existing immigration laws. Please prove to me that it's a plausible strategy to restrict Muslim immigration in the face of all the constituencies (including the Democratic Party, the press, and our liberal academics) who are strongly in favor of anything that dilutes the national character and unity of the United States.

The same applies to any efforts you might propose inside the US to inhibit radicalization of American Muslims. Now you really are talking about a radical reinterpretation of a range of civil liberties. I really hope you have some good answers to these questions. Because the alternative, which I am willing to predict, is a future full of armed conflict within the United States, pitting brother against brother.

This is nothing but the natural consequence of failing to assert as a nation that we stand for religious tolerance and pluralism, even to the point of not tolerating those who would impose their religious views by armed force. It's been said many times, here and elsewhere, that the saddest and worst consequence of war is that it forces good to adopt the tactics of evil. Americans are loath to do this. We are idealistic, hopeful people, and part of that ethos is our unwillingness to confront incipient evil until it's too late. We always want to think the best of our friends and neighbors, which as Moe pointed out, America's Muslims are.

The very last thing I've done is to give up. If I'm right (and I dearly hope I'm not), then I'll be ready for the armed struggle for America's soul. So, I suspect, will everyone else who posts here. We'll win, because the love of freedom actually is something that is real and present in the American character. (I've recently given up on my youthful fantasy that love of freedom is part of the human character.)

The next civil war will more likely be against the academic left if they get the bomb than against us muslims. But we have actually stopped a number of homegrown cell plots.

btw, did you know that college football is being played today. I don't know the level of free press you have on the Island...

how ya been
I'm living in downtown Charlotte in corp law(no state desognation necessary) now and may soon land a monthly column writing gig for the "Disturber" newspaper, the largest in "the Carolinas" (I hate that term. We are two states. Two governers. Border. Better BBQ. South!!)

check out my new sites

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

The only prediction I'm willing to make is that the new phase will be less intense than it currently is, regardless of whom we elect to sit in the White House.

That prediction can only rest on the assumption that the enemy will not strike again in a dramatic fashion; to a lesser extent it can only rest on the assumption that the sort of minor crises vis-a-vis Islam we have witnessed these past few years (Cartoon Jihad, Papacy Jihad, etc) will not continue.

One prediction I am quite comfortable making is that at least this latter assumption is untenable (I hope, of course, the former proves more tenable). As it appears to me, this story of Jihad will continue to rile our politics, and that of most everyone else, indefinitely.

Given time . . ., numbers . . ., and radicalization . . ., [the Muslims'] presence in our society can be an explosive force.

Even this I cannot assent to in theory. Only the first is truly a given. Neither the numbers of Muslims, nor their radicalization, are resistless forces of nature. They are, on the contrary, effects of specific policies -- policies which can be changed.

I really hope you have some good answers to these questions.

I do have answers to your tough questions. In fact, I have a book coming out that deals with them in some depth.

Please prove to me that it's a plausible strategy to restrict Muslim immigration in the face of all the constituencies (including the Democratic Party, the press, and our liberal academics) who are strongly in favor of anything that dilutes the national character and unity of the United States.

Yes, overcoming these obstacles is no small thing, but it is not impossible. These constituencies are louder than they are powerful. Brought into an alliance, as they often are able to do, their bluster can be intimidating: but they still do not command a governing majority in this country. A few years of Democratic leadership in the face of Muslim intransigence will give the patriots of this country some real momentum.

It will become more and more clear to office-seekers in this country, even if they are reluctant to say this openly, that career advancement can be achieved by opposing the Jihad; by demanding more than formulaic and vague denunciations of terror from CAIR; by arguing for legislative moves against the Jihad. Congressmen are used to be unpopular in the eyes of the elite; and they will see that, as is so often the case, it will not hurt your career to be unpopular in the eyes of the elite on certain very visible issues.

It is not inconceivable that in the not too distant future, Congress will take up legislation specifically directed against the doctrine of Jihad. Like welfare reform and the balanced budget, maybe it will prove easier to ram such legislation down the throat of a reluctant but pragmatic Democrat. Who knows?

You say that resisting the radicalization of Muslims will entail a "radical reinterpretation of a range of civil liberties." That is enervating hyperbole. In virtually every war -- at least every big war -- this country has fought, there has been some element of domestic repression of certain ideas or doctrines determined to be intolerable. The Jacobins, the northern Copperheads, the anarchists, the Commies, the Nazis -- all saw their freedom of action restricted. We have taken small steps along this path already today. Sure, our Liberals will howl. But the trick is this: we don't have to listen to them. Defy the Liberals. To hell with their hysteria.

In short, we have in this country a rich political tradition of dealing rather deftly (if never without missteps and setbacks) with domestic subversion and disloyalty. That our Liberals think this tradition an object of shame does not make it so. Let them compare our record on domestic disloyalty to the record of Europe during the Wars of Religion, or Spain during her Civil War, or the Balkans.

So we have a rich tradition; let us make use of it, and not despair.

__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

of America's political class here, Paul:

It will become more and more clear to office-seekers in this country, even if they are reluctant to say this openly, that career advancement can be achieved by opposing the Jihad; by demanding more than formulaic and vague denunciations of terror from CAIR; by arguing for legislative moves against the Jihad. Congressmen are used to be unpopular in the eyes of the elite; and they will see that, as is so often the case, it will not hurt your career to be unpopular in the eyes of the elite on certain very visible issues.

It is not inconceivable that in the not too distant future, Congress will take up legislation specifically directed against the doctrine of Jihad. Like welfare reform and the balanced budget, maybe it will prove easier to ram such legislation down the throat of a reluctant but pragmatic Democrat. Who knows?

Nonetheless, I don't have much faith either of the above will occur unless something truly horrific happens here. It already is abundantly clear to senators that this is the route to career advancement and job security, but most continue to prefer to be praised on the cocktail circuit rather than to serve the will of their actual constituents. It is a rare case where status trumps self-interest among elected officials. Your point regarding the House membership is true, but evidence mounts that senators prefer to maintain their perceived reputations to self-preservation. We see that stalemate play out right now as the Senate tries to beat back border security legislation that was enthusiastically embraced by a bipartisan House majority.

So I can't see a senator who gets queasy when asked to build a border fence turning around and supporting substantive legislation to crackdown on religious extremists who advocate adding America to the next caliphate.

This isn't "giving up" or "defeatism," but an opinion based on evidence, which was how very little was actually done to deal with the direct threat to the homeland in the aftermath of 9/11.

Your analysis of what would happen in the wake of a national disaster is dead on, but legislative moves against jihad will not take place merely because alarms are sounding from Copenhagen to Vatican City. Worse things have happened on our own soil and even minor precautions such as profiling plane passengers continue to be shouted down with great success.

So I have a grimmer outlook than you do on two points. The first is that I don't think things that should be done will be done before another national tragedy. The other is that such an event will occur and possibly be carried out by jihadists who entered this country after the last violent outrage.

The problem is that Islam was founded on and propagated by violence. That is how it was able to spread so quickly -- from the Arabian Peninsula to (the formerly Christian) North Africa and into Spain. This whole politically correct idea that Mohammedism has been hijacked by extremists is non-sense. It was "extremist" from the beginning, and what we're seeing now is people returning to the true Islamic faith.

There are many good Muslims (i.e., rational, compassionate, pluralistic). But you can be sure that they are the ones who don't practice real Islam or take it seriously.

Re: There are many good Muslims (i.e., rational, compassionate, pluralistic). But you can be sure that they are the ones who don't practice real Islam or take it seriously.

I have heard atheists make the same point about Christians: that the only "real" Christians are the Bible-thumping Fundamentalists, the others don't "really" believe the Bible.
It helps to maintain a stereotype if you can simply recategorize inconvenient examples that don't fit the proposed mold.
I have to say I find it a bit interesting to see rightwingers use the Left's logic.

and based on what little I know of Islamic history I would concede that Wahhabism has traded a millennia of history for the interpretations proffered by a handful of unpopular jurists. But there is a fundamental difference between a religion that instructs its followers to turn the other cheek and delineates between the realm of Caesar and that of God and one whose luminary was a spiritual, temporal and military leader who sought to spread faith by the sword and whose religious doctrine sought to pervade every aspect of a person's life.

Your argument works, I suppose, if true Christianity demanded at its core, and as its highest expression of faith, that people kill other people who are different from them. It doesn't. So while I get annoyed with fundamentalist Christians, I don't otherwise have a problem with them. And I don't worry about them flying planes into buildings for Jesus.

Just FYI

and fine, and how's your family. Long time no hear brother. But let me partially endorse at least some grain of the logic behind your atheist friend's observation, with some caveats.

Firstly, being the evangelical that I am, "real" Christians are those that are "born again", the "elect" if you will, and only God knows the heart for sure. But let's deal with this issue on a more worldly level below.

Secondly, I have often commented that the good American Muslims aren't very good Muslims, as defined by any fair reading of what the book says. Now, I understand that millions of Muslims are devout seekers of God that are very spiritual and with whom I have a lot in common. But, unlike me, they must accept a tortured "re-interpretation" of the meaning of the words of their book to so-consider themselves Muslims.

Just as, i would argue that many liberal Christians have done to the Bible. Some have so neutered those parts of the Bible that make demands they would rather not be held accountable and re-invented an unrecognizable Jesus from selective verses, that one wonders if the only reason they call themselves Christians is for the tax exemption, the imprimatur of respectability of the Church or the nagging still small voice that tells them they could go to Hell.

I guess my point is that an atheist, being one defined by not believing and affirmatively rejecting the Bible, and also being one that recognizes that the Bible defines Christianity, much as a boy scout manual defines eagle scout requirements, such an atheist more clearly sees the distinction between those that really believe and those that don't.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

behind Apostates of Islam.

being "tried" as they are backsliding rapidly.

Personally I give them another 5-10 years and the Turkish experiment with secular democracy will be democratically replaced by the "one man, one vote, one time" rule.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

less seriously in the specifically relevant sense is a manifestly Western idea.

Pigs will fly. Hell will freeze over and Lucifer will open a ski resort. Al Gore will rediscover sanity. In other words, It's. Not. Going. To. Happen.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

Pigs will fly. Hell will freeze over and Lucifer will open a ski resort. Al Gore will rediscover sanity. In other words, It's. Not. Going. To. Happen.

It has already happened among some Muslims. After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, many Iranians held a candlelight vigil for the victims of those attacks even though the Islamist government of Iran warned Iranians not to hold such a vigil.

We say that there are "1 billion to 1.3 billion Muslims" in the world. But how many of these Muslims do very un-Muslim things like hold vigils in honor of "infidels?"

This isn't to deny that a large percentage of the world's "1 to 1.3 billion" Muslims are radical and willing to join the terrorists. But neither should we deny that there are many people who are counted among the "1 to 1.3 billion Muslims" who, given a choice between good relations with the West and warfare with the west, would choose the former.

Yes. Islam has serious problems that the west will have to confront through military means. Yes. The world would be a better place if the Muslim religion had never existed. But going back in time using a time machine and changing centuries of world history isn't an option.

We have to understand what it means to say that there are "1 to 1.3 billion Muslims in the world" and understand the variety of viewpoints within that population. We shouldn't be blind to the fact that many of those people want us all dead or under their tyranny, nor should be blind to the fact that many want to make peace with the western world and would like the "Muslim world" to adopt some western principles.

have raised an important question: what is extreme? Some of loudest outcries against Benedict have emanated from Europeans Muslims and "moderate" states. Ataturk realized the inherent incompatibility between the faith and democracy, so he attempted what you suggested. It worked, for a while.

This debate over whether the west should encourage stability or democracy in the Muslim world is an important one.

One reason why I support democracy in the Middle East is because the dictators of the Middle East have proven ineffective at stopping the rise of Islamic extremism. Most of the 19 Hijackers of September 11th were from "pro-US" dictatorships: Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Both governments (Saudi Arabia's and Eygpt's) have media outlets and educational systems that give people 24/7 anti-American and anti-Jewish rhetoric. So, I doubt that demandning "stability" will really help the US security interests.

Any dictator in the Muslim world who is truly pro-US will likely be overthrown.

Also, lets remember that not everyone defines Islam the way a scholar defines it.

Many people call themselves "Muslim" even if they haven't attended a Mosque, read the Koran or fasted during Ramadan in years or even decades. A self-described Muslim who is more interested in concepts such as individual liberty than he (or she) is in the correct theology of Islam might not qualify as a "true" Muslim in the eyes of many people, but there are many people whom we count as among those 1 to 1.3 billion Muslims who fit in that category, just as there were many "communists" in communist countries who didn't care must for the communist ideology, but simply couldn't speak out.

Democracy gives people, including Muslims, the opportunity to speak out and to vote by secret ballot for who they want to hold political office.

Wouldn't the United States be much better off if Iran held truly free and fair elections rather than let, as is the case today, the Islamic dictators determine who is allowed on the ballot and who is not?

Do we want a dictator to take over Turkey, even if this dictator turns out to be just as "pro-American" as Mubarak of Egypt?