How we’ll play the game

(All links current on Sept. 19, 2006)

This is me putting on my fortune-telling hat. I’m watching Iran, watching Amadinejad playing with the UN, watching American apologists beating their breasts over the imagined wrongs done to Islam by democratic society and free peoples, and watching Islam making yet another push to own the planet.

Any strategist knows that diplomacy is one of the best and most deadly weapons for waging war.

So … this is how I say the playing board has been set up and is being set up, and what will happen in the near future. My little public demonstration of politicomancy.

Here are the playing pieces.

Starting in the seventies, (about the time that “students” [AKA terrorists] held American Embassy members hostage for 444 days) Muslim men came to the US using student visas with two purposes in mind. Get a useful western education, and marry an American woman. This is not because Muslim men loved American women, mind you, but because the children resulting from these unions would have dual citizenship. When the children were old enough to travel, many of these men kidnapped them back to their countries of origin, either with or without their wives. (There are American mercenary groups that specialize in going into these countries and rescuing the kidnapped Americans, but take it as a given that a lot of the snatched kids weren’t rescued.) The boys, American citizens, were indoctrinated into Islamofascism. A lot of them have grown up now. They’re American citizens, a lot of them will have found their way back to America, and they’ll be parts of sleeper cells scattered throughout the country.

Meanwhile, the Saudis have been financing American mosques [2] and groups like Jamaat ul-Fuqra [2], creating a radicalized Islamic population within American borders.

At the same time, Islamofacsicm began tightening its grip through Sharia and terrorism, using repression and fear to suppress debate, on both Muslims (Malaysia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and non-Muslims (Denmark [2–slow link], Holland, Italy ) and practicing genocide on non-Muslims in Darfur, Sudan, [2], South Asia [2], Iraq [2], and planning the genocide of Israel [2, 3, 4].

It’s old stuff, new stuff—but one big plan. Islam is not a religion. It is a theocracy—a government/religion mix wherein no separation of church and state exists. Muslims are citizens of a supraterritorial nation, the Islamic Caliphate, which is a global entity, and which demands a loyalty that supercedes national loyalty. Islam as a theocracy has had one goal since its inception, and that goal, as set out by Mohammed in the Koran, is to convert all the world to Islam by any means necessary.

The pieces are in place. The useful idiots are busy keeping democratic nations from dealing with the problem of Islamofascism by claiming the problem is really caused by democracy. The President of Iran is buying time for the Iranian nuclear weapons program by lying to the UN, promising to offer an agreement.

Here are the rules of the game

I realize that most folks don’t know that in Islam, contracts with heretics (that would be everybody else on the planet) are non-binding.

Koran 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.” Also translated as (9:1-3)
[9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
[9.2] So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
[9.3] And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.”

Mohammed himself advocated over and over the technique of lying to infidels to get a good position from which to wage war and annihilate the enemy. (Read the Koran. You’ll discover all sorts of interesting things.)

So attempts as negotiating with Muslim diplomats is utterly pointless.

Furthermore, Islam in its rule-set is permitted the following (with the tacit agreement of Western Civilization, as demonstrated by the West’s refusal to draw persistent, clear links between Muslims and their actions):

  1. Freedom from adherence to the Geneva Convention;
  2. The Travelling Riot playing piece, which when played commits violence over real and imagined insults to Islam;
  3. The Useful Idiot Apologist playing piece, which when played declares that Islam is a peaceful religion;
  4. Total negation of human rights (as linked above)
  5. Acts of terrorism to subjugate masses, force the West to change strong playing pieces for weak ones (Spain and its coward vote following the bombing of a train), and clear spaces into which it can then invade without protest.

Western Civilization is bound to the following rule-set, however, and any deviation from Western rules will be set upon by Western Apologist Media and the Travelling Riot playing piece:

  1. Protection of individual rights;
  2. Protection of privacy;
  3. Protection of religion;
  4. Adherence to the Geneva convention;
  5. Being honest in treaties and agreements;
  6. Not saying mean things (The Pope, Theo Van Gogh, various cartoonists, anyone?)

Here is the board, the set up, and moves to the current position

All things being equal, here’s how the current board is going to play out. Iran will delay any useful action to stop it from acquiring usable nukes, and will either elicit a non-nuclear first strike at a n Iranian target from Israel, or will put its nukes into the hands of Hezbollah or another arm of the Iranian “not-us” military, and will lob a nuclear first strike at Israel. If it does the first, then Iran will respond to Israeli non-nuclear self-defens with nukes. Either way, the world media will register stunned disbelief that Iran has nukes, and has used them. Israel—what’s left of it—will pound the shit out of Iran, perhaps using a nuclear response, but probably not. Either way, ANY response from Israel will engender cries of “Israel aggression” from the rest of the Islamofascist world, who will deny Israel’s right to self-defense and promptly declare their own wars. The UN will censure Israel for overreaction, the majority of European nations will refuse to become involved, the US will waste time trying to get the UN to build a mutinational coalition to act against Iran (and such other countries as join it in its attack of Israel.

And in the US, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and western democratic nations in Europe, the sleeper cells will wake up, the radicalized mosques will activate long-held guerrilla strategies, and we’ll find ourselves fighting Islam both at home and abroad.

THEN the American population will wake up and realize that we have a genuine problem. THEN we’ll pull together as a nation, as Americans, and stop distracting ourselves from real issues with partisan bullshit. THEN we’ll act together, cohesively and with a single focus.

THEN, a lot of people are going to die unnecessarily because we are not dealing with Islamofascism NOW.

Which, of course, raises the question, how should the western world deal with Islam now?

Here is one workable endgame with DEMOCRACY WINS as the finish.

We need to start by dumping our condescension, changing our outdated ways of dealing with nations, fixing our perceptual problems, and treating Islam as what it clearly states that is (and has unswervingly stated since its inception in the 7th century AD, and not as what we wish is was.

The West—and by the West, I mean all nations that, grouped together, make up Western Civilization, (Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Western Europe, and the US, as well as some Central and South American countries, and a number of small and vulnerable scattered democracies)—needs to listen to what the majority of Muslims world-wide are saying. That Islam is a nation.

The West is currently crippled by the perceptual problem of defining Islam as a religion instead of as a nation. This is because all westernized nations recognize property ownership and hierarchical governments as the sole working models of government, and are therefore bound by a definition of nations that consists of four things:

  1. Countries contained within geopolitical boundaries;
  2. Established and recognized heads of state;
  3. Recognizable bureaucracies with which we negotiate, and recognizable armies defined by uniforms, hierarchies, and codes of conduct.
  4. A recognized national capitol.

We are, for this reason, incapable of effectively dealing with theocracies.

Islam is not a religion, but a theocracy, with a capitol (Mecca), an established government/legal system (the mullahs and Sharia), military (primarily guerrilla/volunteer, but also inclusive of the militaries of those Islamic states recognized by the West as belonging to “real” nations), leader (Mohammed), state religion (Islam), and national goal (conversion of the entire world). The word of Mohammed is conveyed through mullahs, Islamic scholars, and to deal with them, the West has to recognize that there is no one living leader of Islam, and deal with each mullah and his followers on a tribal, case-by-case basis.

Islam does not recognize the sovereignty of any other nation, because its leader, Mohammed, claimed that Allah himself claimed the whole of the world as his own and set Mohammed and his followers to the task of converting every human to Islam. Citizens of Islam owe their allegiance to Allah over that of any national government. This goal has not changed since it was set in the 600s AD, and while its success as a nation has waxed and waned, it has never changed either its goals or its methods of obtaining them.

Currently, the Islamic Nation is experiencing an incredibly successful expansion, primarily because the West defines Islam as a religion—a spiritual movement—and the west protects religions. So the West is at a loss with how to cope with the problems Islam is causing within the borders of Westernized nations as well as around the world. The Nation of Islam, which exists across borders and in almost all traditional nations in the world now, numbers one billion citizens. That’s significantly more than the population of the US, or Great Britain, or any other single western nation.

Islam declared war on the West, and in the last hundred years or so, because Islamic technology and wealth fell behind, the response of Western Civilization was, “Aw, isn’t that cute.” It shouldn’t have been.

By shifting our perceptions and recognizing Islam as that which it repeatedly declares itself to be—a theocracy—we become able to devise ways of dealing with the problem of Islamic world conquest. Nation by nation, we need to separate the part of Islam that is spiritual (and protect those Muslims who wish to worship Allah in the spiritual kingdom while acknowledging the sovereignty of the Earthly governments which they inhabit over matters of state), from the government part of Islam. We need to remove the government part of Islam from within our borders—those mullahs who preach conquest and those Muslims who deny the authority of the sovereign nations in which they live and who declare that all people must bow to Allah.

As a government to government problem, Islam is solvable. Western Democracy knows how to deal with sedition, attempted coups, and other government issues. Perception, and honesty about what we wish were true versus what is true, are the keys to the solution.

Want the Blog Posts to Come to You?
Get the blog digest once a week. Effortless, offbeat, and it comes to you.
I will not share, sell, or trade your personal information. I respect your privacy, and value your trust. - Holly Lisle
image_pdfDownload as PDFimage_printPrint Page

About the author: Novelist, writing teacher, on a mission to reprint my out-of-print books and self-publish my new ones.

28 comments… add one
  • hollylisle Oct 9, 2006 @ 8:30

    To Wisemoon and other religious proseltyzers:
    I have answered the Church of Moral Relativism’s blanket statement about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam being all the same elsewhere. I’m tired of the utter, incomprehensible stupidity and demonstrable willful ignorance of that statement, and having demonstratet it wrong before, I’m not interested in proving it wrong yet again.

    I’m tired of the snippy, snotty way in which these ignorant little missives are delivered, too, as in: “In short, I think the distinction that needs to be made here is that the Muslims who are causing all the trouble are the *FUNDAMENTALISTS*. Interesting to note that the Christians who are causing the most trouble are the *FUNDAMENTALISTS*. Also interesting to note that in Israel the Jews who are causing the most problems are the *FUNDAMENTALISTS*. See a pattern?”

    No, dear. I think you don’t understand the meaning of the word “think,” if what you have written above is a demonstration of your thinking. I don’t see a pattern in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalism, and if you genuinely looked for a pattern, instead of spouting your religious dogma at me, neither would you. There are no Jews, not even fundamentalist ones, who are cutting people’s heads off or forcing them to convert to Judaism. There are no Christians, not even the really annoying ones, who are doing that, either. Neither Christians nor Jews are taking slaves, nor does either religion approve of or permit slavery in this day and age. Christians and Jews are not cutting the clitorises off their baby daughters to make sure they can’t enjoy having sex; they aren’t drowning daughters for being raped and bringing shame on their families; they aren’t making Muslims wear a little star-and-moon symbol on their clothing so that the Muslims can be more easily persecuted; they are not carrying out systematic genocide in places like Darfur. Not even in places where they are the majority.

    I am, frankly, tired of having the dogma of the Church of Moral Relativism spouted at me by zealots who buy the church line and don’t ever question what their religion says, just as I am tired of the dogmas of all the other proseltyzing religions out there. I am tired of the sloppy thinking, I am tired of the clear ignorance that is considered acceptable because the true believers are professing their articles of faith—I am, in short, tired of the endless crap.

    Religion is the human being’s way of abdicating personal responsibility for thought and deed and spiritual growth into the hands of someone else, and while there are members of religions who still manage to think independently, they do so in spite of their religions, not because of them. I vehemently defend the right of people to worship as they choose (so long as they aren’t hurting others in the process), but I have nothing but distaste for the whole business myself.

    Faith… that’s another matter, and I have great respect for faith. But if your religion’s big, stupid deal is to claim that other religions are all bad, and equally bad at that, you’re just adding to the general din and ignorance. Please don’t do it here again.

  • shawna Oct 6, 2006 @ 18:59

    Ah, realized I should specify it was the last sentence that I was referring to,

  • shawna Oct 6, 2006 @ 18:59

    I wish I’d seen an author (or ten) make that comment back when I was in high school.

  • hollylisle Oct 6, 2006 @ 12:19

    Shay—I’m personally on the complete other side of the planet from the allegory you ended up with. No criticism of your allegory, but it almost couldn’t be farther from what I had in mind.

    This, though, is a demonstration of how allegories work. People take what they want or what they need from them, and find things in them that are nothing like what the writer would ever have intended.

    Which is why I laugh my ass off at college professors who think they know what the writer meant in the creation of his or her novel.

  • shay Oct 6, 2006 @ 4:42

    forgive me if i keep getting this wrong but i’m trying to work out what talyn could really mean and so i thought of all the events that have happened over the past year and another conclusion that i’ve come to is that you were possibly trying to show that people take advantage of those in vunerable situations i.e. skirmig takes advantage of Talyn much like how the US and co. took advantage of Iraq’s downfall. Skirmig wanted to have Talyn’s abilities with magic and the US wanted to have control of Iraq’s oil in much the same way.
    But whilst Skirmig used manipulation to get Talyn to tell him how to control the Hedgewar (sorry for any mispelling) the US(& co.) used brute strength to get hold of the oil that they wanted and covered it up by using Sadamm Hussain as an excuse similar to how Skirmig made Talyn believe it could help her people…
    …i think that’s what i wanted to say, probably still not close though right?

  • hollylisle Oct 6, 2006 @ 0:14

    Wisemoon—If you think I’m saying all Islam equals Islamofacism, you haven’t read what I’ve written. Or at least you haven’t read it well. And if you haven’t read the Koran, you’re not qualified to have an opinion of what it contains.

    That might seem impolite, but it is true.

  • wisemoon Oct 5, 2006 @ 12:51

    I agree with Jaye Patrick. I am not saying you don’t have some valid points. But I take issue with your assertion that *all* Islam equates to Islamofascism. You are making that assertion based on a reading of the Koran. An untutored reading I might add.

    Not that I am an expert on it, I haven’t even read the thing. However, and I believe someone else has commented on this as well, I do know that a non-Christian reading the Bible today will not get a clear understanding of Christianity as a whole (if it can be said to have a whole) let alone all the abundant flavors of Christianity evident in the various denominations. The Bible is a historical amalgam, compiled over thousands of years and multiple cultures. As such, it is hardly representative even of the people who wrote its various parts, let alone of any religion extant today.

    Now the Koran, supposedly, was written in its entirety by one man who lived in recent documented history. A situation far different from the one with the Bible. However, I would still argue that someone with no knowledge of Arabic or of Arabic culture would not be able to correctly interpret a document that was written in Arabic within an Arabic context. An English translation is by its very nature at least one step (translation from another language) if not two steps (the translator’s cultural assumptoins) removed from the original context.

    In short, I think the distinction that needs to be made here is that the Muslims who are causing all the trouble are the *FUNDAMENTALISTS*. Interesting to note that the Christians who are causing the most trouble are the *FUNDAMENTALISTS*. Also interesting to note that in Israel the Jews who are causing the most problems are the *FUNDAMENTALISTS*. See a pattern?

    I agree that something must be done. I agree that it is time, and past time, that we as AMericans were less PC and more careful of how we deal with people who are obviously not working under the same set of ideals we are. At the same time, I think it is important not to step on a slippery slope. We cannot condemn an entire religion because of what atrocities the fundamentalists of that religion condone or commit. Is it fair to condemn all Christians because a few crackpots bomb an abortion clinic? Is it fair to condemn all practitioners of yoga because one yogi had inappropriate relations with a student? Is it fair to condemn all Jews because of one case of mistaken identity? Evidently the Nazis thought so. And I *so* don’t want to go there.

  • hollylisle Sep 21, 2006 @ 12:17

    Zoe, it was something I discovered back when I was living in Fayetteville, NC, a bunch of years ago. There was a mercenary outfit there that specialized in going into anti-American nations to rescue American citizens, both women and children, who had been kidnapped to these countries by their husbands and were being held there without their consent. The paper did a huge piece on them, I did more research, and discovered that the majority of their clients were families of women who had married Muslim men. The majority of those kidnapped where male children, but sometimes daughters and wives disappeared, too.

    It’s something that I simply carried around in my head for years, not sure what to make of it. Then Sept. 11th happened, and over the next couple of years, that piece of information went “click” with public speculation about the existence of sleeper cells, and with the realization that, while foreign-born Muslim males would be pretty easy to track, American-born Muslim males who came home and picked up their lives as American citizens would be, if they chose to be, damned near invisible.

    I haven’t read anything that suggests this is absolute fact. This is me putting one thing that I know to be true with another thing that I know would be advantageous to the Muslim cause, and again me acknowledging that our enemies are quite intelligent, and have been planning their offense against Western civilization far longer than we have been planning the defense of it.

  • Zoe Sep 21, 2006 @ 11:31

    Where did you get the information about the Muslim men coming to America to have children with American women so they could bring the children back to their countries? Or is it speculation on your part? (I’m not attacking, mind you; I’m just curious.)

  • hollylisle Sep 21, 2006 @ 9:11

    Tambo—the Travelling Riot Piece isn’t a spontaneous thing. It’s orchestrated, and mandated. Christians and Jews and Buddhists and pagans and so on think of their membership as individuals, and while ministers or priests or other leaders sometimes exhort them to action, they can’t tell them “Go riot” and expect a response.

    Islam considers conformity to the group paramount, and individual rights a minor secondary concern—therefore, to further the cause of Islam, mullahs can and do order Muslims to riot when issues that they consider detrimental to Islam arise. It’s highly unlikely that most of the rioters shown in the news can read, have seen the cartoons or heard the Pope, or had any idea what he said, or in many cases even had a clear idea of who he was. Or that they were offended by anything that they’ve been rioting about lately. They don’t have to understand to be useful, and they don’t have to agree with the cause to be part of it. They were told to riot, so they rioted.

  • hollylisle Sep 21, 2006 @ 9:02

    Nicole—“Holly for president.”

    No. No, no. Holly has serious dictator issues and must not be give real power for any reason. Just ask anyone who was at FM during the six or seven years I ran the place. I was a benevolent dictator (mostly), but I do not share power well. We can blame this on Oldest Child Syndrome, or just chalk it up to serious character flaws, but I know this about me, and because I really do want to do good things in the world, I wouldn’t run for so much as local dogcatcher.

  • Nicole Sep 20, 2006 @ 22:44

    Holly for president.

    She’d have my vote. Though I doubt she’d want the stress.

  • Jaye Patrick Sep 20, 2006 @ 22:07

    I agree with you Holly. I do not believe in any organised religion, for the very same reasons, and more.

    There are positive aspects to the Big Three religions – art, philosphy, music (the peaceful pursuits); every religion finds a solid base in assisting the poverty-stricken and disenfranchised. Witness: Inside the Mind of a Suicide Bomber

    History has shown that no religion is exempt from atrocities against the populace – the Crusades, the Inquisitions (Roman, Medieval, Spanish), the Reformation, the Burning Times, the Holocaust, Rwanda, the Kurdish massacre, Sabra massacre… (Encyclopedia Brittanica).

    And yes, the Aztecs did practice human sacrifice, as did the Carthaginians, Etruscans, Celts, Greeks, Egyptians and others (Wikipedia.com), but that does not make them anathema; it makes them of historic interest and significance.

    I’m not defending Islam, for fundamentalism makes it indefensible – makes any religion indefensible.

    “All evils are equal when they are extreme.”
    Pierre Corneille

    If we are at war, as the Islamofascists have declared, then it will be a long, drawn out and painful affair; neither side will give in. Ever.

    “What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”
    Robert Kennedy

  • Rick Sep 20, 2006 @ 14:47

    Oh, Jesus. Holly, I’m several decades younger and batting for the other team, but I still feel strongly inclined to propose. Marry me?

  • hollylisle Sep 20, 2006 @ 9:47

    Jaye—I’m in the camp that says that no religions are good, because they are invariably human beings putting words into God’s mouth.

    Some, however, are a lot worse than others. The moral-relativist blanket statement that all religions are the same is utterly false. At least one religion in the past required the ripping out of the still-beating hearts of men, women and children to sacrifice to the sun god, so that the sun would continue to rise—if you want to defend your statement, defend it from the point of view of the drugged, bound child sacrifice. Mohammed married and had sex with a six-year-old girl because he found her attractive, and said this was an okay thing to do.

    And what makes Islam worse than Christianity? Actions taken by the believers. If Christians were invading villages in Africa, killing all the men, gang-raping all the women and girls down to the pre-pubescent ones, and dragging off all the children to sell as slaves, I’d be vehemently anti-Christian. Since Muslims are doing this, and doing it in the name of Allah, I speak out against these Muslims.

    Again, if Christian ministers in Western nations were preaching the forcible conversion or enslavement or murder of all non-Christians, and were the source point for weapons and training on how to carry out these actions, I would be shouting for their removal, by force if necessary.

    We are not what our books say. We are not what WE say. We are what we do, and only what we do. Words lie, actions do not. Muslim actions are Muslim truth.

    You’re welcome to debate, but include documentation.

  • The English Rose Sep 20, 2006 @ 7:39

    I’m sorry, Noel. I honestly didn’t mean to imply you lacked knowledge of the Bible. I’m not Baptist, and I’m not old enough to have spent twenty-one years in my Bible-study emphasizing church. I just meant that a common criticism of the Bible is its contradictions, but a lot of the ones that people point to can be easily explained when people *do* bother to study it. I meant in general, not you specifically. I’m sorry I didn’t say that.

  • Jaye Patrick Sep 19, 2006 @ 21:57

    An interesting essay, Holly. However… (deep breath)…

    The current climate has been festering for some seventy years. Prior to that, the Middle East was noted for only minor skirmishes. The West must accept some responsibility for today’s problems, given the way Israel was created, without much consultation of the neighbourhood Muslims.

    For Israel to say they ‘own’ the land because it says so in the Torah is bullshit. Alternatively, for Muslims to say they ‘own’ the land because it says so in the Koran is also bullshit. Add to that the Christians reckon it’s there’s because someone was born there, well…

    Islam was, long ago, a peaceful religion that was happy to co-exist beside Christians and Jews. Mohommad also wrote that the two other religions were okay because all three worshipped the same God, just in different ways. He decreed that the Muslim Holy Day would be Friday so as not to offend the Christian Sunday, or the Jewish Saturday.

    The second most used word, after Allah, in the Koran is ‘ilm’, meaning knowledge. Mohommad exhorted his people to seek knowledge for therein lay the path to paradise. It is an attitude that saved European/Christian culture during the Christian ‘Dark Ages’. It is unfortunate that the Islamofascists fail to appreciate the true Koran. Bin Laden is known for misquoting the Koran; he never finishes the appropriate quote, simply leaves it at it’s most aggressive.

    The Muslim fundamentalists are also still a tiny minority of the whole faith; the majority preferring to stick with what they know. Islam preached by fundamentalists isn’t Islam at all, but (like the Bible) an ideology that has been translated so many times it bears little resemblence to the original.

    They have taken the idea of Jihad and corrupted the meaning. The ‘Greater Jihad’ is one of internal struggle, like anyone having difficulties with their faith. The ‘Lesser Jihad’ is one of defending Islam through aggression, but only if it is directly threatened, and it is only called by a Council of Mullahs – no one else may do so.

    Regardless of the West’s new understanding of Islam, the way to control it is education through the Mosques. Herein lies the problem: If you deport/arrest those Imams who preach fundamentalism, you should also arrest Christian church leaders who preach the same. Gender oppression, restriction of personal liberties and dictates on how to live are present in both religions. What makes Islam any worse than Christianity in that respect?

    And the conspiracy theory of Islam wanting to take over the world? Isn’t that what the Catholics are trying to do with their bans on birth control and genocidal wars of history? Or what people accuse the Jews of attempting?

    One religion is not more evil than the others; none are better than the others and killing people because of religion is stupid. Yet, we’re about to get on that merry-go-around again. Why? Because people think their religion is the best and they’re the ones go to heaven?

    Watch the episode of South Park where ‘the answer is: the Mormons’.

    Okay. Done with my rant…, Devil’s Advocate an’ all…

  • BirthdayPirate Sep 19, 2006 @ 17:52

    Holly for president.

    Seriously.

  • shawna Sep 19, 2006 @ 16:12

    I wasn’t awake enough to comment this morning politically/religiosly/etc-wise, and I’m still not, really… but it hit all the right buttons to make a story that’s been muddling around in my head fall into place… So thank you, even though I’m sure it isn’t what you intended. 🙂

    More (((((hugs))))) just for the heck of it.

  • tambo Sep 19, 2006 @ 14:26

    The Traveling Riot piece really ticks me off. Every time there’s so much as a sniffle against Islam from the west, scores of angry protestors take to the streets. When’s the last time Jews in Isreal got up in arms and marched against the Islamic rhetoric? Or Christians anywhere?

    They act like spoiled brats; they sure can dish it out but can’t take it and make special rules that apply only to them. Screw that. We all have to play together.

    I fear for where we’re headed, as a nation and as a global community. I hope that the people wanting to hand out teddy bears and candy bars to make it all better come to their senses soon. Teddy bears won’t work this time.

  • NoelFigart Sep 19, 2006 @ 12:45

    Well, I was a Southern Baptist in a church that emphasized Bible study for twenty-one years. Not seminary, I grant, but…

  • The English Rose Sep 19, 2006 @ 12:06

    Aside: One of the things I keep thinking about relative to my writing is that I need to be more aware about stuff like this, to learn about everything (esp current), and read non-fiction, newspapers. Just a thought.

    (That said, the only thing I see disagreeable is Noel’s comment that the Bible is self-contradicting. It can seem it at face-value, but not so when people actually study the thing in-depth.)

  • Monica Sep 19, 2006 @ 11:40

    Well, I don’t doubt the Apocalypse nears.

    I’m curious about the factions within Islam, those Sunnis and Shiites trying to blow each other up?

    I conject after the Islamofascists have raised hell and destabilized everything, then the incredibly efficient Chinese will step in, blow everybody to smithereens and take over the world.

  • hollylisle Sep 19, 2006 @ 11:04

    A note: I agree that there are a lot of peace-loving Muslims who want nothing to do with Sharia and establishing a Wahabist-style world Islamic nation—escaping Sharia and Islamofascism are the reasons many of them emigrated to western nations. Muslims who practice Islam as a spiritual religion, while disagreeing with the goal of subjugating the rest of the world to Islam, are not the problem. However, now is the time that they need to stand up and be counted. Canada has already fought off one attempt to establish Sharia courts as “family law” for Muslims. Sharia law, once acknowledged as a valid form of law in the West, becomes very difficult to eradicate. There will be other attempts, as there will be attempts in the US, Britain, Australia, et. al.. Muslims who do not want to live under Sharia need to educate westerners about it, and make it clear that this is not a part of the religion they want anything to do with. (And we need to protect Muslims who do speak out from the Muslims who will declare them heretic for doing so, and condemn them to death. The stakes for freedom-loving Muslims are high.)

    And as for oil—NOW would be the time for the American oil companies to take out of mothballs all the alternative energy patents they bought up and buried over the years, put them into production, and free the whole world from Arab oil. If they keep sitting on all those workable sources of alternative energy, they’re going to start looking treasonous.

  • NoelFigart Sep 19, 2006 @ 9:36

    I’ve been trying for a long time to make sense of what’s been going on between the Middle East and a lot of Western Civilization. It makes a lot more sense when you approach it as the Islamic Nation. I’d not done that. (Possibly at least in part because “Nation of Islam” is an entirely different organization that bears about as much resemblance to Islam as Mormonism does to Christianity).

    This does raise some interesting questions, though. I would be unlikely to use the Bible too much as a guide for understanding Christian culture, as it has been my experience that A) the average Christian’s knowledge of the Bible is pretty limited, and B) You can manipulate quotes from it to “prove” a lot of stuff.

    I don’t know the Qu’ran at all, beyond having read some selected passages when doing a study of religious headcovering. Does it have the same rather self-contradictory flavor as the Bible? Or is the lack of a New Testament an advantage there? I’ve not studied.

  • Bettye Sep 19, 2006 @ 9:18

    What currently bothers me the most is that Bush and cohorts have used up ALL their credit and credibility. Now the real enemy shows itself. There is no way we’ll get the UN, Europe etc. to pay attention to us now. We cried wolf too soon and it was only a coyote. Worse yet the coyote was a hand shadow.

  • JaCop Sep 19, 2006 @ 8:46

    Perfect summation.

    A major flaw in Western psyche is that we keep labeling people like Osama bin Laden as “religious fanatics” and “ignorant savages”. He is neither. He is a highly motivated, intelligent, man with a specific mission: to create a cohesive Islamic state that controls as much of the world as porssible. The attacks of Sept. 11th were carefully calculated strikes, designed to bring specific responses from the Western world. Bin Laden had an agenda in mind and -sadly- I think he was succesful on all counts.

    The Islamic people hate the West, with reason, because of our political and monetary influence over their lives. Never forget that we were the ones who put Hussein, the Shah, and all the other despots there in power because they were willing to protect American oil interests. The people who had to live under those regimes hate us for it but they had no direct contact with us. We were a far off, intangible, faceless devil. One of the prime goals of Sept. 11th was to draw the American military into a ground war in the middle east, to provide a physical target for the people’s hate and anger. It is a way of solidifying them into a whole. Our leadership went -I believe- even farther than bin Laden had hoped by invading Iraq as well as Afghanistan. In addition, the Tower attacks were designed to frighten and weaken the West, so that we could not bring our full might to bear on Islam; just enough to anger the people of the region. Again, bin Laden was succesful. Remember, he has extensive experience and study in the West. I think the man knows us better than we know ourselves. We came together for a time, to recover and to honor our losses but almost immediately we began to bicker over response. Our politicians hijacked the issue for their own political uses and -as is all too often the case- the people became polarized between negotiation and annihilation. The media, under the guise of “presenting all sides” feeds us non-stop argument that serves no function other than to boost their ratings. Truth is sacrificed on the alter of income. As a result, we’ve sent our military into the region but with shackles on. We must “win friends” and “rebuild” Iraq, as we did with Japan and Germany after WWII. The difference is, exactly as you posted, we haven’t conquered an aggressor nation. We’ve taken -minimal- control of a very small region of the Islamic State and we are trying to declare victory and move on because of the political landscape here at home.

    Militant Islam is spread throughout the world and until its pursuit of global control is curbed we can’t begin to make peace with them. They will simply smile and nod, agreeing to whatever the West wants, then take the money, training, and weaponry we supply them and turn it all back against us in pursuit of a global Islamic state. As you point out, it is no crime for them to lie to infidels.

    Sorry for the long-winded reply. It’s just nice to know I’m not the only one who can see the long term dangers here. The Muslim populations in the Americas and Europe are growing at astronomic rates and part of me has to wonder if that is coincidental or planned? I am an ardent supporter of civil rights, and no fan of items like The Patriot Act and government wire tapping, but anyone can see the potential for danger that is right here in our midst. Do I think all Muslim are dangerous fanatics? No! But I do think that their dearest beliefs present a danger to anyone who is not Muslim. Most are not followers of violence but neither can they claim to be against it. Their entire “religion” is based on the need to conquer and convert. That makes it next to impossible to be at peace with Islam in any meaningful way.

    Great post.

    Later!

  • Nandini Sep 19, 2006 @ 8:39

    I have tears in my eyes from reading this post. What a profound sense of liberation to hear someone speak fearlessly about the true nature and intentions of Islam! In February this year, I read the Koran… twice: once in disbelief, once in anger. Every single page contains at least one call to arms against “disbelievers”! If I had made up this religion in a worldbuilding exercise, it would have been pooh-poohed away as ridiculous and utterly unlikely to gain any followers.

    But while I agree with 99% of your post, I think you’re wrong about Islam being a theocracy and not a religion. True, in Islamic nations this automatically becomes the case – but that is because they adopt Islam as the state religion, and any country that adopts ANY religion as its official one automatically becomes a theocracy, after all.

    I come from India, home to the world’s second largest Muslim population (second only to Indonesia), a secular country. A majority of Muslims living in India today are in fact peace-loving and freedom-loving; they identify themselves as Indians first and Muslims second. Sure, there are terrorist elements and frequent religious riots in certain hotspots – but it is to be expected when we have neighbours that actively incite such violence by smuggling Islamofascists into our country and stirring up the masses.

    I cite India as an example of many millions of Muslims freely choosing to be part of a secular nation, preferring it to the nightmare that is Pakistan.

    I know that doesn’t change what’s written in their Holy Book. The day Muslims in India decide to follow the Koran to the letter, we will be wiped out. But they aren’t going to — possibly for the same reason that a majority of Christians won’t follow the Bible to the letter either. Times have changed, People must move beyond the primitive wisdom of religious texts thousands of years old.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.