Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Islam Problem Redux
Get the facts and get them right!
I agree that we shouldn’t lump all Muslims together. Let us separate out those Muslims that believe the word of Muhammad is absolute law from those who don’t. Then, let us separate from that bunch those who believe that Islam should rule the world and support a New Caliphate. Then from that group, let us separate out those who would accept a call to arms to pursue Jihad against the infidel right now versus those that would not.
If we started with a billion Muslims, how many would be left in this sieve: Well, about 2/5ths are adult women, 1/5th are too old, and 1/5th are children. That leaves the other 1/5th of the Muslim population, or about 200,000,000 actual or potential Jihadist Muslims who swear by Muhammad and are of fighting age. Of this number, the key question is, how many would accept the call now? What percent of the 200 million would sign up:
If it is 100% we have a horrible problem==> two hundred million
If it is 50% we have a horrible problem==> one hundred million
If it is 25% we have a horrible problem==> fifty million
If it is 10% we have a horrible problem==> twenty million
If it is 1% we have a horrible problem==> two million
If it is .1% we have a horrible problem==> two hundred thousand!!
If it is just .01% it means that 20,000 radical Jihadists are roaming our streets now, and they will receive support from the rest of the Muslim population!
One challenge I submit is that no one in the US really knows just what percentage yields the true number of potential Jihadists we are facing. I also submit that we don’t know how to find out, either. It is most probably true that we don’t know how many real Jihadists currently reside in the US. Out of the suspected 6 million Muslims purported to be in the US, how many of them are Jihadists, and do we have a solid track on them? I suspect that answer is not only no, but hell no!
It is this total lack of knowledge of the actual numerical threat from Islam that has many of our citizens spooked. A poster elsewhere claimed 990 million worldwide are not involved at all. That leaves the rather large number of 10 million involved, if my 3rd grade arithmetic is good, of which some significant number are in the US right now. Again, we do not know the basic facts about the potential threat. We do know, however, that it doesn’t take very many of these killers and suicide bomber types to take out a large number of our citizens with little warning, which is a scary fact. We also do know that the number of actual Jihadist incidents is not very large at this time, but it is most definitely not zero!
A second consideration: While there have been a few rather weak Muslim denunciations of Jihadism, I have not read or heard of a concerted effort by these more liberal and passive Muslims to identify serious Muslim Jihadists in our midst, to denounce Muslim organizations in our midst that are subversive, or to take any action themselves that would threaten their Jihadist brothers in the slightest. But I have seen their actions in Detroit and other cities in celebration of US defeats, and praising Islamic victories, as well as denouncing Muhammad cartoonists in a nation that prides itself on free speech. We do have to sign up to keep our nation free and open for religions that are not advocating the overthrow of the US.
I would also add that a list of published condemnations is fine, but where is the self-policing of the killers in their midst? Where are definitive actions, not just words? CAIR? Sure.
Someone here needs to get real. Yes, it has been a while since we lost 3,000 of our people in a Jihadist firestorm in NYC. We have lost over 5,000 more overseas fighting the Jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, have any of you pacifists noted that the rhetoric in US mosques has not toned down one whit? That imams rotating in from Saudi and Yemen have been preaching Jihadism and the gradual overthrow of the nation in the more than 10,000 mosques in the US? That police forces have been suppressing the religious aspect of all manner of killings of Muslims by Muslims in the nation?
That the government suppresses every action as far as it can to damp down the idea that we have a steady rain of Jihadist activities at a low level, till one breaks out at Ft. Hood that couldn’t be suppressed? That Muslims pop up demanding more and more dispensations of land, for school facilities, and independent foot washing facilities? Islam has a Farsi word for slow integration, assimilation, then takeover and installation of Shariah, but Robert Spencer has labeled it Stealth Jihad.
How is it that the true count of Muslims in the US is bandied about between 2 million and 6 million? Most people that have been more closely involved, as opposed to sticking their heads in the sand, sign up to the larger number. How is that possible? Why can’t we get answers? Be thankful that there are those who do not buy into the “all is well in this best of all worlds” crap when it comes to Islam. I fear however, just as the Brits were lulled into a pacifist mode in 1939, we are being lulled ourselves now, trusting that our Constitution and our police will keep the animals at bay here at home, and that our respect for all religion is right and good.
You want me to respect a religion many of whose members swear to conquer the US by stealth? That will install their Shariah law in our nation, and force us infidels to dhimmitude or death? Get real! Try reading the Koran and the Haddith with your thinking cap on to get a truer line on Muslim thinking. How many of you know what the tenets of Shariah law are? Precious few, I will wager. Do any of you know what provisions Islam makes for Muslims that emigrate to foreign countries? In essence it is to lie low and go with the flow until enough Muslims are in that country to make changes in their laws, namely, to install Shariah.
Finally, how can you tell a “bad Muslim” from a “good Muslim”? It is a bit late when you have to say, ‘the ones with the AK-47s are the bad ones’, as we have had to do overseas.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Iranian Problem
Which way forward?
Most commenters seem to think Israel would perform a surgical strike targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. My own belief is that they would attack everything military in Iran, from RG barracks and motor pools, to airfields and aircraft revetments, to missile sites, and command centers, along with any nuclear sites known. They would be particularly careful to hit all of the anti--air capabilities they could find, because they must have a sustained attack over Iran for days, if not for weeks, to hit all they can. I believe they would fly missions against the Gulf missile sites as well in the course of the week or weeks. Instead of simply trying to delay the nuclear program, they would go for denuding Iran of all the military hardware they could, and then, at more leisure go for the nuclear sites.
It is obvoius really, that any attack on Iran is cause for a declaration of war by Iran against Israel. Therefore, Israel wants to take out Iran's air defense capabilities and retaliatory capabilities up front, insofar as possible from the air. Their dig-em-out missions may well be performed by C-130 transport planes carrying the Israeli version of MOABs, just as we have done with our MOABS. You need air superiority for that to happen.
Thus, it is not at all surprising that Israel would want a lot of time to prepare this air offensive, since many items would need to be produced and stockpiled in advance, including the MOABs. If, as one has suggested, the Israelis plan to use tactical or larger nuclear weapons, that too would require preparation time, right up to the limit. Their home defenses would have to be prepared against Hesbollah and Hamas retaliatory actions as well, which takes even more time. I fear that time is running out now.
How does one deal with "nuclear Iran?" Since there would be an ever present threat of nuclear engagement between Iran and Israel, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction rears its head as the only practical approach. MAD makes the assumption of two rational actors in the set, whereas in this case, I seriously question the rationality of the Iranian leaders that hold the trigger. If one examines their public statements over the past years, their religious ferver just might be more than bluster and connivance. Then too, there is the question of their stability in power and how to maintain it.
In any event, should the Israelis gamble with the lives of their people on a bet that the Iranian leadership would or would not pull the trigger? There have been over six years of negotiations with Iran to stop their program. Talk has not worked and will not work.
I could also believe that with their currently-thought-to-be nuclear superiority, the Israelis might sooner or later decide to try for a silicon-fused and electronically- fried Iran to eliminate the threat, and the agonizing fears of virtually total annihilation of the Israeli people, once and for all. In fact, that approach might best be undertaken very soon now, if ever, before the retaliatory capabilities of Iran grow. Of all the surprises, this one appears to me to be the greatest that the Israelis might employ, since it condemns many Iranians to a nuclear holocaust, something Israelis would not decide to do lightly.
As for continuing to live with that nuclear sword over their heads for years, and with zero faith in MAD, I seriously doubt it would last for very long. The greater the pressure from Iran or its minions Hesbollah, Hamas and Syria on matters of land, water, trade, blockades, fences or other concessions, the more likely the ultimate response from Israel. Any lesser response might then be fatal to Israel as well.
From the US viewpoint, and from a stability of the ME view, a nuclear Iran is quite unacceptable. We must not allow the Iranians the option of holding our population centers hostage to their atomic threats while they pursue a lesser aggression in the ME, nor can we sit back and allow Iran to pass a nuclear device to a terrorist group. Thus, we have vital interest in stopping the Iranian nuclear program.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Supermosque in Manhatten?
Sheer effrontry. this is!
The symbolism of this act to the Islamic world must not be lost on the American people. What it says to Muslims is that Islam can place a mosque in the heart of America, almost exactly where the Islamic bombers flew aircraft into the towers. Since the mosque is a sacred place of worship and an extensive Islamic business center, especially of a Jihadist nature, such a structure here would be very symbolic of Islamic resurgence amd increasing power, even in America. That it is Saudi funded adds to the degradation imposed on us by the Islamic world.
They are thumbing their noses at us, and under our laws and conventions, there is little we can do about it. Unless, of course, the property owner or someone stands up and refuses to go ahead with it on civil grounds.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Border and Amnesty
Amnesty should not be part of the solution!
Let us face squarely the whole border issue in all of its complexity. Violence seeping into the US from Mexico is one important aspect that must be controlled and prevented right now. Smuggling of people and dope into the US is a second issue. A third issue is the penetration of our nation by millions of illegal immigrants which impacts us in innumerable ways.
Then come the issues of how to proceed from here, such as closing the borders effectively, getting the illegals to return home, controlling the employers in the US that hire illegals, creating an effective guest worker program, handling the Anchor Baby problem and the bringing into the US of strings of relatives, the problems of assimilation and teaching culture, custom, language and the “rules of the road” here, and the idea of amnesty and citizenship for the illegal lot that has been most seriously considered by Congress in the past, and appears to be headed for another legislative run in the near future, and the rather ineffective attempts underway to solve some of these issues of an open border policy that many in government have advocated.
Pull on any one of these issue strings and you automatically pull out the rest of them with all of their messiness and political, social, and humanitarian conflicts. It is a very explosive set of concerns, not only for the Border States but also the rest of the states that find themselves in opposition to the ideas of maintaining in effect an open border policy, mobs of illegal immigrants on the streets, and populating the jails in every state with Hispanic gangs, while the police merely stand by and watch these illegals run around.
My particular thrust is and has been to find and support effective solutions to the full set, and to ward off the radical, humanitarian-oriented and progressive solution of total amnesty, and the most likely augmentation of the Democratic Party through such amnesty using my tax dollars to pay for it.
These things, and others that will come to mind later, I consider of major importance to be discussed once the border problem is broached in one or more of its facets, including the very political aspects that frost my cake.
Let us see where the amnesty argument take us in the following months. The crucial defense of allowing amnesty centers on a humanitarian argument.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Some thoughts on blogging and bloggers
First, there are dedicated news hawks that feel they must contribute to our understanding of the very latest news events in as great a detail as they can dig up somehow. Not that they are at all biased or inaccurate, but they appear to fashion themselves after the great commentators of the past, and believe they are lending perspective and information to their public. Indeed they are, sometimes.
Second, there are message hawks that see an opportunity by way of the news to put their version of the truth before an audience and to sell themselves as a pillar of some political or social order, while also managing a putdown for the ideas behind other groups and factions.
Then there are blogger groups that post incessantly every day at the same site. Somehow these bloggers seem to combine the two themes of news reporting with their own commentary built around a political theme, and they achieve far wider coverage from collecting like-minded bloggers of good reputation from all over the nation. Some of these sites boast a cadre of 10 or 20 well known writers with a more or less harmonious view, which is an excellent drawing card for like minded readers. It is often like reading a continuous Op Ed page in the newspaper. Indeed, some of the very best bloggers are Op Ed contributors also.
The common trait with all of these types of sites is their demand to publish, daily in the case of a one or two blogger site, and at least weekly or more in the larger gang sites. The larger sites can maintain and grow their readership by virtue of their comprehensive coverage and their stable of excellent writers, yet giving individual writers more time to gather background information and form their pieces.
Oddly enough, some of these sites refuse to allow comments on their pieces at all. Others do allow comments, but the authors virtually never get involved in the commentary threads themselves, perhaps because it can be a major distraction from their other plans. It is well known that comment threads can be a disaster for useful exchanges on the subject at hand, and often degenerate into shouting matches, which help no one.
Then there are those sites that do allow comments and do participate in them to some degree. I have on my blog list and my favorites list a bunch of sites from each of the above categories, which forces me to consider commenting on their sites if allowed, or to form a post of my own on my site, which is far less well known and attended, and therefore draws less return comment—near zero in fact. Obviously, I prefer those popular sites that allow comments.
The best popular sites are becoming far more adept at composing, editing, illustrating, and presenting their posts attractively and compellingly, and it shows in the slick productions they create. They have become quite professional journalists over time, and their hits in the millions attest to that fact. Of course, having an editorial staff and a technical staff allows for a much more professional approach to journalism.
After five years of posting on my site, and of violating the” must publish daily” rule to build an audience, I have few visitors and fewer comments. Since I refuse to join the daily comment crowd, and the reporting-again crowd on the news events of the day, that loses me several classes of audiences. Since I have focused heavily on conservative theory and commentary from a conservative viewpoint, that loses me another swath of readers—ones that I don’t regret losing!
Then, too, my style and viewpoint probably drives even good conservatives away, never to return. My anti-PCMC attitudes, my anti-abortion stance, my anti-same-sex stance, my anti-liberal stance, and my anti-Islam stance, when combined with my anti-intellectual and pro-Christian stances appears to be rather unpopular with many potential readers, and makes for rather predictable commentary, I suppose, which is boring.
So be it! I-yam what I-yam, and have little ambition to become a lead blogger. The one aspect I regret is not having developed, somehow, a small set of commentators that would help to expand my outlook by critiquing my posts.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Oil Spill---It is just that BP be made to cover the costs of the damage to our environment and our people along the coast that were truly impacted.
The Obama Problem---It is increasingly clear that our President is underperforming where it hurts the people and overperforming where it costs the nation. It will take a long time for the nation to recover from his misadventures and socialistic/Marxist ideas.
Iran---Israel will attack soon. If Iran responds by hitting the US too, we will be at war.
The Market---Virtually every one of the financial and market advisors I use predicts a major slump soon, and it will brng hard times to the nation. Take heed, and look to your money!
The Elections---I hope the predictions of a significant reshuffle from Dems to Repubs really does take place, but I worry that we have no strong leader to keep the weak, the flacid and the nuts in line.
Labels: Comments on the day