Wednesday, 31 October 2007

What - me inconsistent?

Over the last few months I've had several emails [irishsavant@yahoo.ie] and comments questioning an apparent inconsistency in my views. Imagine that. Anyway, it takes essentially the following form. "How can you be viciously/ bitterly/ savagely opposed to Bush and the War on Terror on one hand, and Islam/Muslims on the other?".

I'm opposed to Islam because, when it's practiced correctly as in say Afghanistan, it's bloody, aggressive, violent and intolerant. On a more abstract level, it cannot countenance a division between religion and state. My problem derives mainly from the latter issue. If Muslims in Muslim countries want to do all these awful things to one another, my view is to let them. It's up to them to change if they really want to.

But when its adherents come to Western countries, given its revolting practices, and unwillingness to separate 'church' and state, there's a major and fundamental existential dichotomy - once a critical mass of Muslims is achieved - between our liberal democratic system, and what they're prepared to accept.

And we see it throughout Europe - it's all over this blog. Keep pushing, ban Christmas trees, ban mixed bathing, demand Muslim-only schools, close restaurants during Ramadan and so on. Eventually, we either totally succumb and become dhimmis, as is happening in Sweden right now, or else the 'natives' will object, leading to non-stop ethnic and religious conflict a la Lebanon. Incidentally, I see this undermining of social democracy and tolerance as a far greater threat than Islamic terrorism.

Now the Bush regime, by attacking Muslim states, most notably Iraq and menacing Iran, is increasing the flood of emigrants from Muslim lands, whilst giving Islamist extremists, both in Western and Islamic countries, a steroid-like boost. What they're doing is like pouring petrol on a burning house. In any event, it's downright immoral, as in the case of Iraq particularly, to wreak such suffering on a people who did nothing to deserve it.

10 comments:

stevie said...

This is true. The only answer is separation.

USorThem said...

The Iraq mis-adventure is wrong in so many more ways than you list Savant.

It is wrong to have war without a clearly stated objective. Can we find anyone who dare state without equivocation what that objective is? Not that I've seen.

The initial objective was to remove Saddaam and diffuse his WMD. The second we caught Saddam and realized there was no WMD we should have declared, "war is over, it's been a blast, catch ya later". The "we broke it so we fix it mentality" has no place in warfare. But no, we had to fulfill the Bush dream (more like nightmare) of bringing democracy to muslims who don't give a hoot about democracy- they may want freedom, but just more freedom to practice a purer version of Islam. When given the chance to solidify the right to liberal democracy what did they do? They adopted Islamic sharia law into their constitution. We can kill every al qaeda in Iraq and what will remain? A country full of muslims who can't wait to start excercising their rights to killing apostates, public whippings of women and gays, and the reat of the excesses that derive from the purity of lawful Islam.

It is also wrong because it will only make Iran a bigger threat to the west when we leave, and, despite the neo-cons insisting we have to continue this war without telling us what victory is supposed to look like, ("we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"- they are here.) we will have to leave someday. Shia Iraq and Shia Iran will ally, or at least they will try to.

If reducing the threat of Islamist who intend to damage western societies is a goal, why don't we just leave. Let sunni and shia and their proxies in Iraq fight it out. That will use up a great deal of resources and weaken the forces of jihad. It will keep Iran tied up for years. I mean, wasn't the Iraq and Iran war a good thing for infidels?

I agree with stevie. The west needs to separate itself from Islam and let it figure how to solve it own problems.

Read Lawrence Auster , Hugh Fitzgerald, and about separationism. And,know your enemy- study Islam.

SAVANT said...

This is a great comment from usorthem. Sums it up perfectly. I especially like his exposing the nonsense of 'fight them there'. As he says, they're here already

Anonymous said...

seriously----as an irish citizen, am i free to 1.choose not to bother using capital letters and 2. convert to islam-- and if i do? or if i have already (lol) - why the fuck should i go to some country i've never been to before...... stop tellin all muslims to go home coz the home-grown variety don't have anywhere else to go- i need a bloody visa to go to some muslim countries and i certainly can't just emmigrate if i feel like it- d'ya know what! why not blame the government after all it's their non-existant immigration policy and welfare system that allows itself to be exploited by muslims, home grown muslims and lets not forget our own indigenous chavs and travelling community that never pay tax...and put on your clothes...
flanders

SAVANT said...

put on my clothes? Well, I never...

foxman said...

You gotta hit the arabs/islamists first and hard. thats the israeli way and its the only way they understand. in that sense bush is right.

SAVANT said...

would foxman like to explain how attacking Muslim STATES helps with the millions of Muslims already in Europe or USA? It'll help all right - help make them even madder.

Anonymous said...

'It is wrong to have a war without a clearly stated objective'

The only wrong in war is losing, as those Nazis found out at Nuremburg.

Anonymous said...

"The only wrong in war is losing, as those Nazis found out at Nuremburg."

Thats about as cynical as you can get.

Anonymous said...

it is the truth.