There ya go, using that whole "logic" thing again.

Sheesh, will you never learn?

Where's Allah when you need him? He should be hear, to make it clear that it is *his* word that must be obeyed, and not any rational line of argument.

I need a drink.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

By not speaking out against the terrorists, the muslim leaders ill serve their flocks since one day, perhaps soon, the terror will be visted upon them.

May God awaken one of them to go public and honestly lead their people not only away from this Evil of terrorism but to actively oppose it.

g

There is no sign that Muslims have considered this since the time Islam was founded in the 6th century so I am not holding out any hope that it will happen in my lifetime.

An excellent addition to an already excellent article.

of course, since they are the victims, and we deserve to be bombed to kingdom come, then obviously, we are responsible for preventing violence against muslims. They on the other hand are not responsible for preventing harm to non-muslims because it is our just desserts.

Even when the Muslim Council of Britain condemned the attacks, they still wouldn't condemn the killing of a British soldier in Iraq. Nor do I suspect they will be actively seeking out ways to prevent attacks from within their numbers in the future.

You know, it took Clinton 5 seconds to decide to storm the Davidian compound and kill the cult inside. How many people had they killed? Where was the international outrage then?
Here we have global cult that advocates death and protects those that deal it, and yet the governments of the world, and liberals are too busy tip toeing around them. to effectively shut them down.

Yeahp.

Instapundit linked to what I thought was an interesting article about this subject, by Arnold Kling. He describes this paralysis of moderate muslims, and suggests that we're going to have to be patient with them.

In the Arab world, at least, it seems to be a 50-50 split.

That's insane. Particularly when most of the terrorist body count is on fellow Muslims.

The Sufi sect of Islam is pretty pacifist. But the Wahhabis consider them apostates and kill them whenever they can.

But the Wahhabis consider them apostates and kill them whenever they can.

You can describe any characteristic of any people on the face of the earth in any way, using any words, and pretty much follow it with this sentence.

It is only when the west leans hard on western Moslems that they will stop supporting terrorism and begin to actually try to do something in their own countries to stop it. This notion that if we come down on them we'll be creating more Osama's is chickenshit Liberalism and ridiculous. What more can they do besides talk shit in their mosques and donate money to terrorists? What more do we have to fear from them that they're not already doing by commision or omission? With Moslem friends like these, who needs enemies? Are they suddenly going to join Al Quida because we expel some of them and refuse to patronize their businesses? If they do, then they were a danger all along just waiting to happen and they never should have been here in the first place. No, this is our fucking country and we can (and will eventually have to after enough carnage in our streets) kick out those who will harm us. I think most of them understand that this really is necessary and will actually respect us more if we take the steps necessary to protect ourselves. They understand that only fools don't protect themselves from the enemies in their midst, and we have been foolish far too long. And if they don't like it fuck 'em.

When western Moslems find that every act of terrorism is really bad for business, they'll turn on the terrorists. When it becomes clear to them that every act of terror will be followed by boycotts of their businesses, firings, layoffs, ostracization and expulsion of as many as possible; then and only then, will they actually begin to resent the terrorists for putting them is such a position. And only then will they actually start witholding money and support from the terrorists.

The only way to drive a wedge between western Moslems and terrorists is to lean hard on them, expel as many as possible and put an economic squeeze on the rest.

Right now they fear the terrorists far more than they fear us. But when they find that Moslems are being laid off because their businesses are being boycotted, they will have a choice to make, and many will choose prosperity and peace over violence and poverty.

And the rest don'r belong here anyway.

A couple of things:
It is unacceptable for anyone to put misfounded religious or ethic [sic] loyalty above one's general duty as a human being to do what one can to avoid strive, maiming, arson and murder.

Are you arguing that well founded ethnic/religious loyalty trumps a general human duty? I wonder how you would view the following statement:
"It is unacceptable for anyone to put misfounded patriotic loyalty above one's general duty as a human being to do what one can to avoid strive, maiming, arson and murder."

And this statement floored me:
But our leaders do make that perfectly clear. There is no -- repeat, no -- undercurrent of opinion or thought among non-Muslims suggesting that a little payback is just jake. Our "clerics" do not hint at it...

Are you arguing that Coulter is not an opinion leader? You do remember Ann saying, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." And I'm sure you remember her then saying, "Now more than ever." when pressed about this by Colmes. And what about Bill O'Reilly comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf?

Regarding clerics, yes, the US clerics have parsed their language more carefully than the pundits. We have Robertson and Falwell calling the founder of Islam a terrorist and Islam a religion at war with non-Islam. Or Franklin Graham saying:
“We’re not attacking Islam, but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God…. It’s a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.” And these statements don't call for war against Islam, BUT they insist that Islam is already at war with us. A clever distinction with little difference.

So, do you still argue that, "There is no -- repeat, no -- undercurrent of opinion or thought among non-Muslims suggesting that a little payback is just jake. ?

Western Moslems have had it both ways for too long. At the least, they give tacit approval to terrorists by their silence. I think most feel a deep sense of pride that a few ragtag zealots can tie down the Mighty USA and make us quake in our boots. At the most they are only terrorists waiting to happen. But they all come here seeking prosperity and it has never been denied them. Does that make them pro-western? The results are very clearly no. We cannot win their hearts and minds with words, we must force their compliance by making it economically bad for business every time there is a terrorist incident. Until the we lean on them they have no good reason to change and a lot of good reasons not to.

We have allowed them to come here and become embedded in our country. Through our cowardice, we have allowed them to take over an entire town in Mich. replete with blaring Moslem prayers five times a day! This kind of "tolerance" is not tolerance at all, it is mere cowardice and apathy and it will come back to haunt us someday.

VonKreeden you confuse the call to crush the enemy combantants with non combatants. That really should not be hard to distinguish unless you are purposely being obtuse.

vonK,

You get an 'A' for effort with a carefully crafted comment intended to misconstrue the general intent and meaning of this post. You get an 'F' for stupid moral equivalency arguments vis a vis Robertson, Falwell, Graham and the mad mullahs.

I really think the left pays more attention to Robertson, Falwell, and Coulter than the right does.

What he just said (Brewfan and Dman)

The reason we carpet bombed Germany and Japan is because their civilian populations and industries provided support for their armies. We crushed them in order to break their will to fight. It was necessary.

And you pretty much ignored the point VonKreedon, in order to prop up a 'moral equivalence' straw man. Which makes you look like an idiot.

Again.

Brak,

Agreed, Coulter is ok, she makes a good argument, and then she kind of veers of the path into insane-o-land. Certainly someone to tune into if you want big amounts of rhetoric.

Falwell, and Robertson...meh, I'm not American, and while I have heard of them and their reputation, I can't really think of too much of their writings becoming common though (at least not because they wrote it).

OTOH, you have people like Moore and Howard Dean who pretty much fit the same level as kookiness who are embraced on the left.

Vonk, I think 'misfounded ' was being used to describe their following of Islam, not to justify putting it second.

The attacks are also deeply disturbing because when jihadist bombers take their madness into the heart of our open societies, our societies are never again quite as open. Indeed, we all just lost a little freedom yesterday.

Like a stopped clock twice a day, Friedman is right for a change. We have been ignoring it all for too long. Where is the outrage against Moslems that me must live in fear, behind barracades, and must be searched everywhere we go?

We need to take "affirmative action" to protect ourselves from the Moslem Menace within our borders by not allowing them in anymore, by expelling as many as we can, and by boycotting them and their businesses after every terrorist incident. If we see progress we can ease up. But we must force them to choose between their personal fortunes and the terrorists. Since the vast majority are here for a buck anyway, when they find it in jepordy by terrorism, than and only then will they condemn terrorism and lean on their people to stop supporting terrorism.

When Woodrow Wilson faced an immenant threat from a rapidly metastesizing Communist Party in this country he did what he had to do: executed a few, imprisioned some and expelled the rest. And guess what? The communist threat dissappeared and didn't get bad again until FDR ignored them.

Even Liberal Democrats like Wilson and Friedman are right sometimes.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Coulter said that on 9/12/2001. It sounds a little over the top now, but back then it made a lot of sense. Certainly more than Michael Moore's declaration that Al-Qeda targeted the wrong Americans.

And no, Coulter is not an opinion leader.

I hardly think that we need "opinion leaders" or "political leaders" telling us it's not okay to go slaughter "darkies" because a bunch of them are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. I find the whole idea of even a possible "backlash" of any significant proportion both insulting and idiotic, and I'm more than a little surprised that Ace subscribes to it. To any degree. I mean c'mon, Americans aren't rioting in the streets and burning mosques because Al Sharpton told us it was wrong? What the fuck?

Oh, and since Ann Coulter was brought up, here's an apposite quote from her superb column, My Name is Adolf:

"It's always so comforting when Muslims cite the precise verse from the Quran that tells them killing is wrong. Don't all empathetic human beings understand that instinctively? What if they lost their Quran that day and couldn't remember?"

We don't need Al Sharpton to tell us that murder is wrong. Thanks anyway. Americans aren't a bunch of vigilantes in the making, straining at the leash for the chance to get at those darn Moslems, just as soon as someone says it's okay.

Americans aren't rioting in the streets and burning mosques because Al Sharpton told us it was wrong?

No but the BRITISH are. I guess they need a British Al Sharpton

Western Moslems have no incentive to condemn terrorism and stop supporting it and powerful incentives not to.

They come to the west for a buck, and only when that is denied them will they try to stop Radical Islam. They fear the terrorists with good reason. Right now, they don't fear us, or for their livelihoods.The only way to drive a wedge between them and the terrorists is to boycott Moslem businesses after every terrorist incident.

If they know that bombing London will mean immediate economic pain for them, they will quickly change their tune.

It is up to us to do something about it all.

Where is the Moslem Ghandi? Can anyone name one anywhere, in any century in history? Their history is one of war, conquest, genocide, rape and murder everywhere they go. Only when it becomes against their own selfish interest to do so will they begin to condemn terrorism and stop sending their money to terrorists. Ghandi was a Hindu, not a Moslem and if anyone can name a Moslem one, I'd like to hear about it.

Gandhi was a bit of an asshole, but better than any Moslem leader I've ever heard of at any rate. I'd settle for a Moslem Gandhi - too bad, like Haze says, there's never really been one. I guess the closest you might get would be some obscure Sufi dude, but they weren't into political power and all, so even that doesn't work.

Megan

As stated four times above, western Moslems face a "backlash" from their own people here and elsewhere if they speak out against terrorism and/or stop their contributions to "religious organizations" in their homeland that fund terrorism. However they may feel about it all, they have a powerful incentive to remain silent and continue to contribute to terrorism.

We cannot rely upon their good consciences to risk the lives of themselves and their familys for a bunch of infidels when they have no compelling reason to do so. It is only when they are faced with loss of their businesses and jobs that they will turn on the terrorists.

A "backlash" involving economic boycott of Moslem businesses is the only thing that will drive a wedge between them and the terrorists they fear so much right now.

"Moslems face a "backlash" from their own people here and elsewhere if they speak out against terrorism"

Agreed; all I was objecting to was Ace's implication that we American savages require our noble leaders to inform us that random killing is wrong.

I'm not sure about the economic boycott thing but hell, I'll go with it. Nothing else has worked so far.

If you think about it, there have probably been any number of "Muslim Gandhis" over the last 1500 years or so. The only problem is that before he can get any traction as a leader of his people, he gets whacked by the sickos. I'm starting to believe that the Muslim religion is like "Lord of The Flies", with prayers five times a day (and without the hog roast, of course...that goes without saying).

They've got the stick sharpened at both ends bit down pat, though.

"The only problem is that before he can get any traction as a leader of his people, he gets whacked by the sickos."

Because as an apostate, it would be the "sickos", aka the normal believers of Islam's, duty to whack him. The problem aint the messenger, its the message.
There is a reason the Middle East is locked in the 7th Century politically, economically, and culturally.

The MCB is such a tawagheet [apostate rulers]-butt kissing organization. They should really fear with whom they will be raised up with on the day of judgement. From Jihad Watch

apparently there is dissention in the Muslim community... They don't seem to be so patient. I don't believe we have time to be so patient, either.

If you want to get chills, read this article. In a rare display of honesty, these guys are saying up front what I've been trying to tell people for four years. I'm not saying there aren't millions of muslims who wouldn't engage in these activities, but their first loyalty is to islam, whether they live in Karachi or London.

Note especially the part that includes the quote "There are no moderate muslims behind closed doors."

It's part and parcel of this murderous cult that they want islam to rule the world, and it's in the koran that they can use any means necessary, including lying, making false treaties, and murder.

Um, Ghandi and MLK? Granted, they were peaceful "protestors" but why no mention of The Christ Jesus.

Turn the other cheek? Where is that in the Quran?

Iblis, the guys with the dull knives & the masks are still the "sickos". The problem is that the "sickos" in that part of the world are like ballplayers, actors and Bill Gates all wrapped into one. "Every Muslim woman wants them, and every Muslim man wants to be them."

"Of course we don't want a backlash against Muslims, either here or in Britain."

Speak for yourself. I still favor the old Ace-of-Spades policy of nuking the dar-al-islam until it glows.

Dman said: "There is no sign that Muslims have considered this since the time Islam was founded in the 6th century so I am not holding out any hope that it will happen in my lifetime."

Good thinking. Everyone else needs a refresher course in the contents of Sura 9 of the Koran, or Q'u'r'a'n, or whatever that old propaganda sheet is called. Sura 9: Yes, God has a wonderful plan for your life, kufr.

Mark Steyn has an excellent column on the subject today.

"In most circumstances it would be regarded as appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual "hate crime" by scaremongering about a non-existent one. But it seems the real tragedy of every act of "intolerance" by Islamist bigots is that it might hypothetically provoke even more intolerance from us irredeemable white imperialist racists. My colleague Peter Simple must surely marvel at how the identity-group grievance industry has effortlessly diversified into pre-emptively complaining about acts of prejudice that have not yet occurred."

He began by making another good point:

"'Britain can take it' (as they said in the Blitz): that's never been in doubt. The question is whether Britain can still dish it out. "

Indeed. The answer to that, as I feared from the beginning when everyone else was indulging in their hyperemotional "We are all Britons today" pabulum, is, unfortunately, a fairly definite "No." The underlying subtext of the British response is, instead, "We are all dhimmis today."

I'll be happy to stand with the British - once the British learn to stand up for themselves.

Megan

"We are all dhimmis today."

I'm afraid that slowly but surely that is becoming true. We are locked in a contest of wills and so far it appears that Islam has the greater will. I fear greatly for our future.

I am certain that leaning hard on western Moslems will drive a wedge between "moderate arabs" and terrorists. And as you said, nothing else has worked. But the real problem is the same one as facing Fabian Socialists: while the reaction from conservatives was sometimes vigorous action, sometimes outrage, somtimes exhaustion, sometimes apathetic, and somtimes too tired to oppose it, the Fabian Socialists never wavered in their inch-by-inch determination and their steadfastness to the cause. Islam has shown their determination, and I'm afraid that the west has not. Would boycotting Islamic businesses effectively drive a wedge between "moderate" Moslems and force them to stop their support and contributions to the terrorists? Absoulutely. Will it happen? I fear not. All we can do is to try to make people aware that we have this power right in our own hands ... and pray.