Thursday, September 15, 2005

Defining Islamophobia

In Robert Spencer’s recently published The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), an entire chapter is dedicated to the analysis of Islamophobia as ideological warfare. According to Spencer, the term “Islamophobia” is a relatively new word invented by “moderate” Muslims in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s and is frequently used as a propaganda tool and as a tool of intimidation in order to silence criticism of radical Islam and, indeed, of Islam itself.

What is the proper definition of “Islamophobia”? According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “phobia” means “an irrational persistent fear or dread.” Therefore, “Islamophobia” should mean “the irrational persistent fear or dread of Islam.” What has happened, however, is that the charge of Islamophobia is used to silence the exposure and criticism of one of the most dangerous aspects of Islam—jihadism.

Spencer cites the following example from January, 2004 (199-200):
“The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is routinely used to shift attention away from jihad terrorists. After a rise in jihadist militancy and the arrest of eight people in Switzerland on suspicion of aiding suicide bombers in Saudi Arabia, some Muslims in Switzerland were in no mood to clean house: ‘As far as we’re concerned,’ said Nadia Karmous, leader of a Muslim women’s group in Switzerland, ‘there is no rise in Islamism, but rather an increase in Islamophobia.’

“This pattern has recurred in recent years all over the world as ‘Islamophobia’ has passed into the larger lexicon and become a self-perpetuating industry….The absurdity of all this was well illustrated by a recent incident in Britain: While a crew was filming the harassment of a Muslim for a movie about ‘Islamophobia,’ two passing Brits, who didn’t realize the cameras were rolling, stopped to defend the person being assaulted. Yet neither the filmmakers nor the reporters covering these events seemed to realize that this was evidence that the British were not as violent and xenophobic as the film they were creating suggested.’”
The fact is that the Koran and the ahadith, the latter considered to have the same or nearly the same weight as the Koran, promote violent jihad as the best deed one can do, aside from becoming a Muslim, because jihad is active and militant service in Allah’s cause. As proof of the elevated status of waging warfare in the name of Allah, Spencer cites these words from Mohammed the Prophet (34):
“’A journey undertaken for jihad in the evening or morning merits a reward better than the world and all that is in it.”
And the promise of eternal reward has proven to be a powerful motivator, even for numerous jihadists who previously experienced the freedoms of Western society.

Instead of crying “Islamophobia!” or “Hate crime!” when thought-provoking or realistic observations of Islam are made, Muslim organizations which present themselves as Islamic moderates would do better if they were to explain how those troublesome passages from the Koran and the ahadith can be made compatible with Western society. Attempts to silence or thwart by lawsuit both Muslim and non-Muslim discussion of Islam appears to be stonewalling. Stonewalling difficult issues doesn’t satisfy, but rather conveys the impression of secretiveness and complicity.


At 9/15/2005 8:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 9/15/2005 8:22 PM, Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Quite right as always! These cheap intimidation tactics get me riled because I hate to be manipulated. I accept honest disagreement but name-calling has the opposite effect on me.

When speaking of hate, let’s remember that 90% of Arabs readily and proudly admit they hate – America and Jews. When speaking of paranoia … well I needn't explain the dysfunctional Islamic culture on that account – we all know the story. I like turning the table around. They hate it.

At 9/15/2005 9:00 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

This may come as a shocker but on pure numbers Muslims are more likely to commit a hate crime then be a victim. In 2003 Anti Jewish hate crimes were four times more numerous according to the FBI. Intrestingly 1/4 of all hate crimes
against Muslims in that year were commited by blacks. Is this due to the NOI being added ?

At 9/15/2005 9:49 PM, Blogger David Schantz said...

A few years ago we were out of town to attend a family reunion. We made motel reservations in advance. When we got to the motel we found that it was owned by someone I would guess was Muslim. I happened to be wearing a t-shirt with a picture of an eagle with a tear in it's eye. Under the picture it said "Remember 911". The owner said there was no record of our reservations and refused to rent us a room. Would that be a hate crime? I don't think I could have slept there to well anyway.

God bless America, God Save The Republic

At 9/15/2005 10:09 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Yes, David Schwart, that would be a hate crime. Of course, if you reported it, you would be considered the hater, and the person you reported it to would not take you seriously enough to actually file the report.

Always on Watch, this is a great article. Thanks. I would say a journey taken against Jihad is the best thing we can do for Western Civilization.

At 9/15/2005 10:12 PM, Blogger G_in_AL said...

Honestly, I cant explain it, but I have a feeling that things are going to change (if they already havnt) for the worse for Islam.

I think the eyes of America have been opened, and almost a reverse multiculturalism is taking place.

More and more people are trying learn things about Muslims, China, Korea, Iran... but not to learn how to accept them better, but to learn how not to let them subvert our culture.

I have noticed that people (Lord knows not the media though) are no longer bashful of calling out radical Islam for what it is. Along this same track, have you noticed the nation's tolerance for illegal immigration?

I actually, for the first time in awhile, feel optimistic about where things may be going... we'll see if thats just dippy glee, or prophetic thinking in about a year or so.

At 9/15/2005 11:10 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Thanks to all of you who stopped by so quickly! I'll add here a few more of my thoughts, while I have the time to do so.

When any individual or group starts hurling names or labels as defense or as an attempt to silent voices or as a substitute for a reasoned discussion, I get suspicious of motives. I see the term "Islamophobia" as a red herring and an appeal to emotion, instead of dealing with the issue at hand. Namely, is there something dangerous about Islam(ism)?

Several incidents which CAIR labeled as manifestations of Islamophobic hate crimes turned out not to be so. One involved the burning of a Koran in Blacksburg, Virginia; the incident turned out to be a Muslim's leaving a charred Koran on the steps of a mosque so that the book damaged in an accidental fire would receive proper disposal. For a few days, the case made headlines, and CAIR led the condemnation. Then a student came forward and explained the real story. I cannot say for certain, because I don't hang around CAIR's web site 24/7, but I don't recall any retraction. In another case, a Muslim business owner burned down his own business; then the truth came out: he had torched his own business, in part for the purpose of being able to claim being the victim of a hate crime--on his way to the bank to collect the insurance money. And let's not forget the desecration of the Koran at Gitmo, particularly that special toilet which could flush an entire book.

The al-Qaeda Manual specifically suggests using tactics which will impress the public with the persecution of Muslims so as to enlist public sympathy and to inflame Muslims against infidels.

Are Muslims ever discriminated against? Of course. But so are Christians, Jews, Americans, African-Americans, Sikhs--and any other group you can name. Whining about discrimination can actually increase the incidence of it because such whining feeds the ego of the persecutors.

Now, I am not, by any means, advocating that we ignore the blatant, physical, and violent persecution of any group. But I would like to see some equanimity in the attitude toward persecution and discrimination.

For example, we hear sweet little about the persecution of Christians in Nigeria. Just a few years ago, a young Christian boy was nailed to a cross and left in the desert to die a most painful death (He survived). I don't recall hearing anything about this young boy's having been a victim of Christianophobia, but he certainly was the victim of Muslim persecution against Christians.

Just yesterday, the new design for The Flight 93 Memorial, The Crescent Embrace, came under reconsideration. But on CAIR's site, CAIR said that Tancredo was Islamophobic because he dared to suggest that using a red crescent, the symbol of Islam, would bring dishonor to a site which is supposed to be dedicated to the memory of heroic Americans who took down the 9/11 jihadists before those jihadists could take more innocent lives. The story from CAIR can be found @

Also, here's an interesting story about hijabobsession (Islamic correctness):

The pr machine of Islam grinds on, and the term "Islamophobia" is a major element of that machine. Americans, for the most part, try very had not to be bigots, and the pr machine uses that desire for fairness to promote an agenda which attempts to make Islam immune from criticism.

At 9/15/2005 11:11 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Yes, the survival of Western civilization is at stake. The aim of jihadism is to destroy our way of life.

At 9/15/2005 11:19 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Honestly, I cant explain it, but I have a feeling that things are going to change (if they already havnt) for the worse for Islam.

I think the eyes of America have been opened, and almost a reverse multiculturalism is taking place.

More and more people are trying learn things about Muslims, China, Korea, Iran... but not to learn how to accept them better, but to learn how not to let them subvert our culture.

I think you might be correct. The London bombings was the turning point, in my opinion. Do you agree?

But the important thing is for Muslims themselves to do some of the questioning and some answering, instead of remaining silent. Irsad Manji is one who has been quite open about some of the problems with Islam. There are others, too, but I can't recall the names just this minute.

I'm carefully watching the outcome of CAIR's lawsuit against anti-CAIR. The outcome will have important repercussions, IMO.

At 9/15/2005 11:21 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I'm full of typos lately. Above lengthy comment reads " try very had' and should read "try very, hard"

At 9/15/2005 11:33 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

You are correct. The hate crimes against Jews presently far outnumber the hate crimes against Muslims.

As to blacks and Islam, Arab Muslims absolutely despise blacks. But Muslims will use blacks and then turn on them in the same way the Muslims used, then turned on, the Communists.

At 9/15/2005 11:38 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

See my experience @

Yassir has never returned--the realtor always sends an American now.

At 9/15/2005 11:48 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Somehow, the London bombings were a turning point for me. I don't understand why (after 9/11, Madrid and Beslan), maybe it's just an emotional reaction, as in I've had enough.

I think what it is is how Muslims refuse to accept that the problem emanates from their community. See, they ought to be worried about how other people feel, but instead they lash out at us.

I guess that's what it is.

At 9/16/2005 12:19 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

My turning point was 9/11, but that could be because I'm so close to D.C. I've noticed that many who were not in the immediate areas of the 9/11 attacks didn't respond as strongly as I did. Also, going to the 9/11 sites had a great impact on me, perhaps Shanksville most of all.

Part of the reason that the reaction to the London bombings was so strong was that the bombers were not foreigners in the traditional sense. They had experienced the economic and cultural benefits of Western civilization, and then consciously rejected those benefits and freedoms. The bombers' possible connections to the madrassahs of Pakistan revealed the power of jihadic brainwashing, and the power of brainwashing has now become a realization for many.

The Finnsbury Mosque is another disturbing factor in all this. The authorities had a hands-off policy for the mosque while Wahhabist hatred was spewing forth; eventually, that hatred resulted in poisoning minds which, to a Westerner's way of thinking, should've been immune to feeling such hate.

We Westerners tend to think of the British--indeed, all the inhabitants of Britain--as so cultured and so attuned to the rule of law. The internal attack on London shocked many of us. Also, we Americans share an Anglo-Saxon heritage with the Brits. We just don't share the same bond with Spain or with Russia.

One final thought...If such bombings can happen in a city as openly multicultural and as security conscious as London, it can happen here as well.

Vulnerability exposed has a way of waking people up.

At 9/16/2005 1:11 AM, Blogger Esther said...

9/11 did it for me. Change DOES need to come from within but if it doesn't, we can't sit by and let things play out. We can't afford to do that anymore, if we ever could.

Great post, AOW!

At 9/16/2005 3:10 AM, Blogger tempo dulu said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 9/16/2005 7:18 AM, Blogger G_in_AL said...

AOW, I think the London bombings only opened the eyes of Europe (and then the American left since they are in love with Europe trends).

While there are still plenty protesting the "war in Iraq", they have pretty much shut up about the Patriot Act, religious tolerence, and/or other philosiphies/ideals that defied the logic of effective national security.

At 9/16/2005 7:51 AM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Just to clarify, 9/11 did it for me as well, in the sense that I have been completely on board with the War on Terror since that day. Even though I was a liberal Dem up to that day, I never whined or complained about Bush, the Patriot Act, or any of the other Halliburton stuff other Dems get worked up about.

Why? Because 9/11 changed me instantaneously.

What has changed for me since the London Bombings is I have despaired at the idea of the West being able to win the hearts of the large percentage of Muslims. It seems that they are set against Western values and the momentum seems to have increased away from us, rather than been moved towards us by the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is confounding.

(By the way, I say despaired, meaning I am doubting and sad, not that we absolutely can not. But, it certainly seems that we can not.)

This brings us to a situation where we are possibly going to have to learn how to get along with those in our midst. How do we get along with people who do not want to live by Western values?

As Tony Blankley points out, 60% of Muslims in Britain say they would rather live under Sharia, than under the British system of law. We don't know the percentage in the U.S., but do we have any reason to think it is much different? I don't think so. Britain is not like France. They don't house their Muslims in ghettoes. The Muslims live in the heart of the city right along with everyone else. And, from what I saw, they are successful.

So, you see, this is why the London bombings change me. I just don't know what we are going to do about this problem? How do you address it? When two groups of people who live in the same space decide they don't want to live by the same rules, what do you do?

And, by the way, for whatever reason, I think this change and this question has come to many, many people since the London bombings. I have noticed a sharp increase in the number of people who offer extremist solutions to the problem; mass deportations, closing down Muslim immigration altogether, etc.

By the way, g is mostly right about the Left having been changed because they love Europe. But then why were they not changed by the Madrid bombings? Something about the Londond bombings really got to people.

Could it be that even the left recognizes now that Muslims ought to be happy about the changes in Iraq?

I don't know. I don't understand what's going on. I'm just observing.

At 9/16/2005 8:45 AM, Blogger G_in_AL said...


I think you will see at some point, common sense will overcome these people. They dont quite get it yet that the stric Islamic rule they want cannot afford the economic and social freedoms they enjoy.

That is when most will realize that living under the oppression of a theocracy will never be satisfactory.

btw, AOW, got a post on Bush's speach... would like your input.

At 9/16/2005 1:01 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Some will. Some won't, it seems. That's the thing. Muslims have lived in Britain for years. Some have learned to love their freedom and the good things that come with it, and some have not.

Muslims are human beings just like the rest of us, so I would expect that they would like to be free.

The question is, how long will it take them as a mass population living in the West to come to a consensus that they want to live here, so that they will squash the Jihadis in their midst?

I think what I should have said, is I am very worried that they won't come to a consensus in favor of freedom before something really bad happens in the West. I am worried about what Europe would do if say we get hit by WMD's. I am not as worried about what Americans would do. America has been amazingly fair, throughout the years.

At 9/16/2005 1:04 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

oh, by the way, I was thoroughly overwhelmed by the erudite Mr. Ducky.

At 9/16/2005 1:43 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

The Duck is beginning to bore me because he's just trying to get some attention by hissing and quacking. "Toni" was much more interesting, and though we often disagree, we have reasoned discussions without resorting to name-calling and foul language.

I think I'll just disengage. Duck and I don't agree and cannot find any common ground, not even with regard to 9/11.

Time to go to work right now, anyway.

At 9/16/2005 3:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AOW - per 11:10 post above regarding flight 93 memorial design. . .

What I find confounding is the response of supporters of this design, especially those intimately connected to flight 93.

Sandy Dahl, for instance, is the widow of the pilot of flight 93. She has been on the memorial committee since 9 mos. after 9/11. She followed the design progress through the competition, voted for the "Crescent of embrace" and firmly believes that the negative interpretations of the crescent are
misplaced. She states in this radio interview:

She would much prefer that the aerial view of Murdoch's design be ignored since one can find something evil in every design. She feels islam doesn't own the crescent moon and people should see the natural beauty of the crescent moon instead.

How sad, the islamic terrorists slaughtered her husband and she still cannot or (heavens forbid) she refuses to see why.

Perhaps she should be lauded for refusing to surrender the crescent to islam.

I, on the other hand, could never disconnect the meaning of the symbolism of Islamic evil - especially since the last recorded sounds heard over the screams of the frightened passsengers, crew and engine roar . . .were 'alahu akbar'.

At 9/16/2005 6:36 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Symbols have meaning. I feel that there has to be a better design than that of the crescent, which has Islamic overtones no matter how beautiful the crescent moon we see in the sky during certain phases of the moon.

The Shanksville site is moving, just as it stands right now, and my husband would rather it stay as it is. He particularly likes that people leave as tribute personal items: jewelry, license plates, flags, etc. There might indeed be some merit in the idea of leaving the Flight 93 site as undisturbed, hallowed ground, but I can understand that some people want some sort of memorial design there.

At 9/16/2005 8:17 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

Where is Elmer Fudd when we need him ? Duck season

Ducky still no answer bird brain
1300 years of ethnocide , genocide, Jim Crow , colonialism , slavery and a whole string of abuses against a wide range of people bird brain. Let me guess Wahabi Duck everyone else is at fault. They just do not understand the religion of peace. Number of Christians singing Gospel hyms while beheading unbelievers 0.

Your next intelligent comment will be your first.

At 9/16/2005 8:42 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I needed to find time to read the link you posted:
2005/09/religious-freedom-under-threat-in.html , where I read The Islamists are definitely growing in numbers, and attitudes are hardening.

Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Islam again. Seems to come down to that if the percentage of Muslims gets high enough. Too many don't want to believe that the dogma is that simple--but it is. The term "Islamophobia" is a manifestation of that dogma.

At 9/17/2005 5:37 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Like you, I wasn't aware of the word "Islamophobia" until quite recently. But perhaps the term was in use in circles other than mine well before 9/11.

I absolutely agree on its multiple uses. The last portion of your comment, If you don't want to submit to sharia law. You are Islamophobic, is a very dangerous idea, isn't it? The old us-versus-them tyranny again, so the word is a form of intimidation used to squelch free thought.

Makes me think of the phrase "the thought police."

Here's a related blog article:

At 9/17/2005 5:48 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

Any phobia is an irrational fear of something. Thus if I fear Jehovas Witnesses there is no articulate reality attached. The worst they can do is interupt a football game.

Islamo phobia yes the fear of being pushed of a cruise ship in a wheel chair or shooting scores of school kids in the back. These are reality based fears . FYI if you post actual history Muslims and some far left people will threaten you. I have had the threats made against me in NYC. You blaspheme the prophet if we were.... Hey Abdul you are in my country and freedom of speech is my birthright.

There will come a time when you and your readers will face the same problem. The question is what will we do.

At 9/17/2005 11:22 PM, Blogger Cubed © said...

Wish I'd been able to come to the party earlier--so many great comments!

BTW, am I alone in thinking that terms like "racist" and "Islamophobic" are losing their credibility as a weapon in the War of Intimidation? More and more, I see people simply dismissing them.

Hmmm...I wonder if Muslims ever consider that fear and loathing of their belief system isn't evidence of a phobia, but rather, since it advocates the death and destruction of all non-Muslims, it's perfectly rational.

I think the objections being launched against things like the "merely coincidental" crescent shape of the memorial to Flight 93, and the Postmodern Propaganda Palace on the site of the Twin Towers in NYC, as well as to the enormous support garnered by Michael Graham after he DARED (snort!) to tell the truth about Islam are all MAJOR signs that many of us are "getting it."

Is it safe to assume that you all know about CAIR's defamation lawsuit against AJ Whitehead of AntiCAIR has resulted in his call for donations to his legal defense fund? Thought I'd better pass it on, just in case.

Oh, and there's another victory we can declare: Father Menezes' book, "The Life and Religion of Mohammad"--you know, the one that CAIR successfully intimidated the Conservative Book Service to remove from its list of offerings--is available from them again. You can also get it from We just got ours (it's reviewed on, and it is worth every penny! Five stars!

I think that the truth about Islam is like the magma chamber under a volcano; we are the magma chamber, growing larger and larger, while our PC politicians are the crust on the surface of the crater. Pretty soon, the truth, growing ever larger, will blow the stupid crust off, and we'll be able to deal with the problem as it must be dealt with, a la Ralph Peters!

At 9/18/2005 5:03 AM, Blogger David Schantz said...

Always On Watch, if Yasser was offended he can always pack up and go home. I figure if I don't offend at least one person a day I'm doing something wrong.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

At 9/18/2005 7:19 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

The deliberate misuse of 'phobia" is part of the propaganda machine.

Your point about reality-based fear is well taken.

For me, what used to seem like isolated incidents has taken on a different meaning, one of a pattern of atrocities inspired by Islam.

I've read on your blog about the threats you've received. How twisted that some of those who claim the right to freedom of speech react in such a way when an opposing view is expressed! And not just twisted--dangerous.

My bottom line: I condemn any ideology which doesn't allow for criticism and reasoned debate.

At 9/18/2005 7:25 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

LOL about how to discourage Jehovah's Witnesses, who are sometimes a nuisance, but never a threat.

Stop the ACLU is an excellent site/organization and has a way of pointing out the extensive use of the double standard, of which Islamophobia is a manifestation. If fact, the ACLU and CAIR teamed up in North Carolina; the issue was using the Koran in the courtroom. Nowadays, the ACLU will defend the use of the Koran, but not that of the Bible.

At 9/18/2005 7:51 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Thank you for leaving such a comprehensive comment!

I, too, believe that more people are waking up. Both the London bombings and the firing of Michael Graham caused many previously unaware people to say, "Hey! What's going on here?" Of course, the volcano had been bubbling up for a very long while. (I love your analogy, btw.) A few months after 9/11, I found out about the volcano of Islam through extensive research, some of which required some creative searching. More materials are available now, and that availablity is another good sign. Reasoned thought is the best weapon against any propaganda machine, but the victory over an ideology which aims to suppress information takes time.

The outcome of CAIR's lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead will be criticial, I think. We are a nation which values the rule of law, and a ruling in favor of CAIR would have a terrible impact.

The last time I checked, CAIR was still whining about the objections to the crescent at the Flight 93 site. But the word about the underlying symbolism of the crescent got out, didn't it? I take that as a positive sign.

Thank you for reminding us about The Life and Religion of Mohammad. One can tell a lot about any ideology by studying the leader and his deeds. One thing about Americans: tell us not to read something (as CAIR and other Muslim groups did about Father Menezes' book), and we've got to have a look.

At 9/18/2005 7:56 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I've given up on worrying about offending people, particularly if not offending means suppressing my rights as an American.

Keep doing something right every day. I am! In fact, I did so at a party last night when someone asked, "What's the theme of your blog?" My answer: "Telling the truth about the Islamification of American society."

PS: I don't miss Yassir.

At 9/18/2005 2:35 PM, Blogger Σ. Alexander said...

Mr. Ducky,

I regret that I do not find your blog posts. Please show your own opinions, rather than simply criticizing someone else.


I visit this blog occasionally. It seems to me that those who leave comments here are preoccupied with the Islam-West clash. Jihadists make use of such perception. Majority of people in the Middle East do not support terrorists, nor repressive regimes. As Reza Pahlavi mentions in interviews with Fox, BBC, and other leading media, they are natural allies to the US.

Also, too much attention to the Islam-West conflicts may lead to fatal partnership with Russia and China. The United States and its allies should not appease these authoritarian regimes, simply in order to curb Islamic threats.

Everything must be in balance.

At 9/18/2005 7:19 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Thank you for stopping by. I visit your blog from time to time, but not as often as earlier this year because I have now returned to work.

I'm do not agree that I am preoccupied with the Islam-West clash. Rather, I am concerned about whitewash and intimidation, both of which are now approaching censorship of freedom of speech in part due to the multiple uses of the term "Islamophobia."

Interesting that you mention the term "clash." Immediately following the London bombings, I heard some in the U.S. media put forth the idea that no clash exists between Islam and the West. Certainly there is a clash between Islamism and the West, between Islamism and political/social freedom. It seems to me that inhibiting discussion by using the term "Islamophobia" is an Islamist strategy, yet Muslim groups self-declared as moderate are the ones using the term. This question then arises: Is there truly a moderate Islam? Ibn Warraq speaks of the realities of Islamic doctrines. The extension of those doctrines into civil law results in a suppressed society.

Other ideological clashes also exist, as you pointed out. I agree that we should be wary of those clashes as well. The book The Clash of Civilizations contains much valuable information with regard to matter of whether or not different civilizations can live in harmony on this planet; this book was written before 9/11, I think.

We certainly need to be careful of allies who will band with us for a short time, only to turn on us later. Of course, history is filled with temporary alliances, some which worked and some which didn't.

China is an often overlooked, dormant threat. You have more knowledge in that area.

Majority of people in the Middle East do not support terrorists, nor repressive regimes. Nevertheless, many of those regimes remain in power. Most recently, Iran's leader has been rattling his sabers.

The few can oppress the many--through mind, body, and thought control. I respect Reza Pahlavi, but I'm not sure that he understands the political dynamics of the grip of totalitarian rule. Furthermore, few are the voices such as Pahlavi's, and many who believe as he does hold little to no power.

PS: Jihadists make use of all perceptions. The truth and the freedom to tell the truth are among the best defenses against terrorism.

At 9/18/2005 7:57 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...


Dead wrong our future is directly tied to China and India. China will eventualy take sides.

Russia is in this fight no matter what Putin thinks,

At 9/18/2005 8:13 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

China is already taking sides--their own, of course, which is all about its own power at this point. But I've heard there are a few "Muslim troubles" in China now, in certain portions of that country.

I don't trust Putin, but I think that he knows what the Islamist threat represents.

At 9/18/2005 8:18 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

NY Girl,
PC amounts to censorship and intimidation, sort of like the ultimate and worst peer pressure.

Good turn of phrase in your words code of silence. Silence is not golden when its goal is to suppress open discussion and critical analysis.

In certain Muslim countries, anything even remotely questioning Muslim law could be called "Islamophobic." The penalty is death.


Post a Comment

<< Home