After listening mostly in vain to the President tonight and his new approach to Iraq, we thought it time to come out with a clear statement on the War Against Islam. Here it is: We are at war whether we like it or not. There is no hiding from this enemy. Either we lock him out and go after his strongholds or we cower as he picks us apart piece by piece.
We listened to the President this evening. Nothing he said was convincing nor did it address in any serious or detailed way what he is going to do about the most immediate problem in Iraq and further out in what should be, but is not, the War Against Islam. Let’s first focus on the Global problem and then we’ll return to Iraq in a follow-on essay. The following can be considered the SANE War Manifesto.
On the so-called Global War on Terrorism, GWOT, we have been quite clear along with a few other resolute souls. This should be a WAR AGAINST ISLAM and all Muslim faithful. In particular, historical, traditional, and authoritative Shari’a, or the Islamic Way of Life, bound most tightly by Islamic law and jurisprudence, or fiqh, is the focus of the ideology which drives our enemy. People who don’t grasp that Islam is first and foremost a religious ideology built on a legal foundation or jurisprudence simply don’t understand Islam.
All traditional Islamic legal schools adhere to the notion that the Islamic world must persuade, conquer, or kill all of the non-Islamic world (dar al-kufr) and convert this territory to the Land of Submission to Allah (dar al-Islam). The particular emphasis on the jihadist strategic issues varies – such as aggressive and offensive outright war or a more subtle and deceptive war which capitalizes on the infidel’s inclination toward appeasement; suicide-homicide attacks against soldiers and "settlers" or the murder of all infidels whether they be men, women or children; and other such tactical issues. But the Islamic legal dictate to conquer the world for Mohammad's rightful successor to establish the World State Caliphate occupied by the One People (Ummah) in submission to Allah is the common denominator.
Ignoring the enemy and fighting a tactic such as terrorism or worse, reducing the enemy to just those men and women dressed up in their suicide bombs on the way to attack civilians is to open the US and the West to death and destruction by the parts. Bit by bit we will be dismantled as a society and as a nation. This is unfolding before our eyes in Israel. The Jewish State is hemorrhaging land, people and resources and morphing into a “post-Zionist” or “post-Jewish Nation” status as the “State of its Citizens”. It has institutionalized since the beginning of the “Peace Process” the murderous notion of “Sacrifices for Peace” as the Hebrew word for “victim” is also “sacrifice”. This is the line made famous by Prime Minister Rabin and repeated in speech or in deed by subsequent Prime Ministers Peres, Barak, Netanyahu, and Olmert.
The actual or physical enemy is any Muslim who adopts or accepts historical and traditional Shari’a as authoritative. This includes individuals, terrorist networks, clans, tribes, regimes, or states. One law and one Rule of Engagement: If you adopt Shari’a as your ideology, you constitute our enemy and you are in our cross-hairs. We of course will pick the most opportune time and place but you will be targeted.
At a practical level, this means that Shari’a and Islamic law are immediately outlawed. Any Moslem in America who adopts historical and traditional Shari’a will be subject to deportation. Mosques which adhere to Islamic law will be shut down permanently. No self-described or practicing Muslim, irrespective of his or her declarations to the contrary, will be allowed to immigrate to this country.
The US will cease trade and all economic ties with countries which embrace Shari’a and with countries which befriend the Shari’a-based regimes. This includes the duplicitous oil-rich Gulf states.
The US will take emergency measures to open up new oil extraction facilities in US territories and will immediately make available land and reasonable regulatory structures for new refineries. Massive free market incentives such as marketable and securitized coupons and vouchers will be used to promote alternative fuels.
America and its Western allies will quarantine every enemy regime and will search out and destroy the leadership and the physical infrastructure of these regimes with air bombardment, drones, airborne gunships, sea-based missiles, special ops, and covert activities. We will not occupy these territories to “build democracies” or even to replace regimes directly. We will simply quarantine and police these regimes with a hair-trigger response to hostile behavior. We repeat: adoption of Shari’a is by definition hostile behavior.
This plan, as many of you will notice, is quite similar to a growing list of respectable thinkers who have addressed the problem of Islam in a serious way. The following list has been proposed by Lawrence Auster, himself one of the more vocal of the advocates of what has been dubbed Separationism: Serge Trifkovic, Diana West, Randall Parker, the Norwegian blogger Fjordman, and Hugh Fitzgerald. There are others and you could probably include Mark Helprin and Angelo Codevilla who have written in the Claremont Review.
For our part, we prefer a different nomenclature than Separationism because that smacks of a kind of Buchanan-like isolationism and appeasement of the Muslim regimes. Buchananism will not work because science and technology will allow our enemies to plot, conspire and strategize until they have perfected a delivery system for WMD. By then, it will be too late. We need to implement the Separation platform with a Search and Destroy mission wherever Islam raises its ugly head.
There are two critiques of this Manifesto. One, it reduces America to a state of perpetual war and turns us into a war-like society falling short of the ideal of the City on the Hill. Two, given the liberal Open Society Elite’s stranglehold on both major political parties, it is not practical.
As to the first critique, what would be the better approach? Wait for the next attack with WMD? Wish for a miraculous theological revolution among a substantial number of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims who consistently express support for Shari’a and Islamic law as a guiding political and social structure? Adopt the democracy-building ideology so tragically failing in Iraq?
With the SANE War Manifesto, we need not target all or even any substantial number of the world’s Muslims. Instead, we target their leadership strongholds and their infrastructure. Will many of them be killed in the war? Of course, and it is intended to be so. Otherwise we can never expect to be victorious. Muslims will certainly never abandon historical and traditional Shari’a easily. But given sustained and determined separate-quarantine-search-and-destroy operations, Muslims will have the choice: either reform your own societies or forever be rebuilding them while burying your dead.
The second critique is valid to the extent that either we accept the destruction of our nation and we are merely looking to forestall the inevitable or we agree that we have no alternative but to believe in and rely exclusively upon miracles. We certainly believe in Divine intervention in the affairs of men and nations but it is a fundamental principle of the Judeo-Christian creed that we don’t rely exclusively upon them. We fashion our lives and our political affairs on the basis that we must confront the reality of the world in which we live. The second critique is for us not a legitimate one.
We owe it to ourselves, our families, our nation, to act now to put Islam on notice. We are at war.
There is no chance of victory over America
.
*UPDATE: One final point to the pure Separationists like Lawrence Auster who don’t want to confront Islamic regimes unless they “project outwardly”. If these regimes are faithful to Shari’a, they must project. That is the heart of Shari’a. Islamic law and the broader Shari’a are not a passive or peaceful approach to Jihad and “outreach”. Under the strict Separationist approach, you might not see the planning and logistics forming until it is too late. Under such a theory, if an Islamic regime overthrows Musharraf’s government in Pakistan and states it will impose strict Shari’a on its people but does not wish to confront the West, the Separationist doctrine would require a hands-off approach. But that would mean you’ve provided an Islamic Shari’a faithful regime with nuclear weapons and delivery systems. You might not wake up to see them coming. That is not credible.
*UPDATE: One final point to the pure Separationists like Lawrence Auster who don’t want to confront Islamic regimes unless they “project outwardly”. If these regimes are faithful to Shari’a, they must project. That is the heart of Shari’a. Islamic law and the broader Shari’a are not a passive or peaceful approach to Jihad and “outreach”. Under the strict Separationist approach, you might not see the planning and logistics forming until it is too late. Under such a theory, if an Islamic regime overthrows Musharraf’s government in Pakistan and states it will impose strict Shari’a on its people but does not wish to confront the West, the Separationist doctrine would require a hands-off approach. But that would mean you’ve provided an Islamic Shari’a faithful regime with nuclear weapons and delivery systems. You might not wake up to see them coming. That is not credible.
MORE:
2 comments:
I love your plan however I don't see it happening as faras our govt. is concerned.In this politically correct world we now live in we don't seem to have the balls to do it.Plus the muslim machine has infiltrated our govt. overtly by invitation.The people would have to do it themselves and at this point are afraid or don't have the balls either.I fear it will get a lot worse before it can ever get better.
You got it, the war should be AGAINST ISLAM. But we keep giving in to Muslims one little step at a time. They use own own freedoms, laws against us. We are stupid.
Post a Comment