Comments

The McMaster scuttlebutt — 44 Comments

1. This palace intrigue stuff is just killing Trump. Obama had nothing like this.

2. I have been a fan of McMaster’s since I read his book years ago. I have no idea about how true some of this stuff is but It has shaken me a bit. He has fired some NSC people and we will see. There does seem to be an Arabist trend among senior generals.

3. Circular firing squad among Republicans, with the Democrats and Media standing outside the circle and shooting in.

   I have commented on other sites along the lines of your analysis, Neo. Yes, the allegations are troubling, and they would be even more troubling if credible sources were identified.

   Trump seems to support McMaster as of a few days ago. The General is reportedly one of the more brilliant thinkers in the the U.S. Army, and he has a sterling operational record as well. I also noted that he was chosen by General Petraeus for his inner circle as he reworked failing strategies.

   One participant on another blog, who is generally negative, criticized McMaster simply because he is a General Officer, implying that he should not be part of the Administration when he leaves the service. This historically challenged person is apparently unaware of the civilian contributions of General Officers such as G.W. Washington, U.S. Grant, D.D. Eisenhower, or George Marshall; to name a few at random.

4. I’ve been following the reports and stories about McMaster closely and from day one, when I read that, as the new NSA, in his first meeting of the NSC… he’d forbidden the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism” and adamantly insisted that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. That right there is proof positive that the man is either a willfully blind fool or, far more likely a knave and, who must have been deceitful in his brief interview with Trump.

   I’ve concluded that when the reports and stories are examined in toto, it’s beyond reasonable doubt that McMaster is a quisling. IMO, just his actions alone since assuming that office, compel that conclusion. He’s been quite consistent in those actions and there have been a multitude of them.

   Those actions amount to a campaign to oust anyone who opposes McMaster POV on the NSC and, the policies he advocates bear a remarkable similarity to McCain’s and Obama’s.

   Time will prove that he’s a sycophant with a leftist agenda.

   Nor is it just McMaster. Sec. Def. Mattis has in several instances pushed to bring on board former Obama administration officials with histories of support for Obama’s POV.

   While multiple actions by Sec. State Tillerson’s raise huge red flags. Now we learn that CoS Kelly is expressing support for McMaster, which at the least is a yellow flag.

   Given all of that, I think it problematic that Bannon, Gorka and Miller will last much longer.

   Trump is being seduced by the dark side.

5. Geoffrey Britain:

   I read those initial reports at the time, too.

   I have the same attitude towards them as I have towards the later reports, which is that I have no reason to believe they are true. They might be, but I’m actually highly skeptical of them.

   I forget every detail of the sources—but a brief perusal now convinces me (once again) that those initial reports were almost entirely the left reporting on it (CNN for example), and unnamed sources. I believe these sorts of reports of various figures on the right who are doing something that goes against the right—and I’ve seen them for years, long before Trump was president—are designed by the left (and others) to stir up trouble on the right for whatever figure is the target du jour. The left and the press love to manipulate people on the right that way, and I have seen the right fall into the trap over and over.

   That’s why I am very skeptical and reserve judgment.

   Quite a while ago (pre-Trump) I wrote a post on this subject, saying that the press manipulates the right to exacerbate the right’s divisiveness, and the right falls for it. Can’t find the post now.

6. Lots of palace intrigue, but I’m not sure Trump isn’t the source of some of it. Who knows?

7. I’d be more amenable to that POV neo had attendees at those meetings who were later fired, disputed the reports of McMaster’s initial words. I’d be more agreeable were McMaster not firing those who have concluded that Islam itself is the problem.

   He’s also on record strongly indicating his belief that groups like ISIS are promoting a “Perverted Interpretation of Religion Used To Justify Violence”

   “General McMaster has pronounced on the subject of Islamic terrorism twice in the last year, in almost identical language, and what he said suggests that he has missed something important about the ideology of Islam.

   In May 2016, in a speech he delivered on “Harbingers of Future War: Implications for the Army” at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, General McMaster referred to “groups like ISIL, who use this irreligious ideology, this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence. They depend on ignorance, and the ability to recruit vulnerable segments of populations to foment hatred, and then use that hatred to justify violence against innocents.”

   Apparently well-satisfied with his original formulation, General McMaster repeated it, almost verbatim, in a speech to the Center for Leadership and Excellence at the Virginia Military Institute on November 21, 2016, ringingly declaring that “we will defeat today’s enemies, including terrorist organizations like Daesh, who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to incite hatred and justify horrific cruelty against innocents.”

   A few have said that McMaster’s forbidding of the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism” is correct since there are only devout Muslims and those Muslims less committed to faithfully following all of Muhammad’s edicts. But that POV does not correlate with the above quotes. And in that video of McMaster’s speech we see him speaking those exact words. No attribution of sources needed.

   It’s a POV in basic agreement with George Bush and Obama’s POV, that Islam is a religion of peace that’s been hijacked by ‘radical fanatics’. Well they’re fanatics all right but no hijacking was needed.

8. Geoffrey Britain:

   Do you really know what the people who were there said or didn’t say? Just because the MSM doesn’t report disagreement about what happened doesn’t mean they agree about what happened. I think you are being naive about the amount of propaganda the MSM will deliver, and the filters they apply, that are designed to stir up trouble and shape opinion on the right.

   And yes, I read those sorts of quotes from McMaster some time ago, when they were first reported. They are absolutely commonplace standard stuff, and do not indicate anything about what he believes in terms of policy. Not everyone—in fact, most people—aren’t going to go there in terms of the most extreme “Islam is the problem” statements. Even Trump doesn’t always say that sort of thing. I do not fault McMaster at all for what he is saying.

   I have written on the subject myself many many times. See this:

   So I repeat: although in many respects Islam goes beyond what we think of as a religion, into the governmental and political (you can see some of the results in Iran), religion definitely has something to do with it. And if Islam did not call itself a religion, it would not be so difficult to rally support for fighting against jihadis, who present the added problem of masquerading as being followers of a regular religion rather than a murderous apocalyptic death cult.

   Are all Muslims followers of a “murderous apocalyptic death cult”? No, but (a) they are followers of a religion that in its most fundamental form can easily become one, and often has; and (b) they are followers of a religion which, if adhered to at all strictly, is antithetical to our Western doctrines of liberty and human rights.

   See also this, a lengthy piece I wrote on the concept of moderate Muslims.

   I am also tired of what I would call the insistence on the absolute letter of un-PC thought. As tired as I am of the insistence on PC thought.

9. Trump picking McMaster highlights a fundamental problem with a true outsider taking the reins of the presidency.

   For the most part, he was relying on the advice of the establishment as to who were the best choices for his administration, especially in the national security arena.

   McMaster came at the recommendation of Tom Cotton and an aid to John McCain. In some sense, it’s not surprising he’s not as ‘radical’ as some of President Trumps other picks– such as Tillerson, or DeVos or even Ben Carson for HUD.

   He was confirmed 86-10. With the amount of Democrat support, he was going to be ‘mainstream’. And mainstream in American politics no longer means unwavering support of Israel.

   Trump’s professed support of Israel seems genuine, so if McMaster skews to far afield, I would expect Trump to take action. At this point, even if McMaster was purging Trump’s hardline supporters, it’s unlikely he would act in the short or medium term.

   At to Neo’s point, there is more than one legitimate explanation why McMaster fired the three that’s ignited the concern/hysteria.

10. Geoffrey Britain:

    The whole McMaster attack reminds me of the attacks on Carly Fiorina for referencing a “Golden Age” of Islam during a speech she had given years earlier as CEO immediately post-9/11. Her star was rising during the primary season, and suddenly you saw hosts of pro-Trump people fanning out to all the blogs and discussion groups and talking about this horrible horrible thing she supposedly said in that speech that meant she was soft on Islam and a leftist and all sorts of things. I wrote about it quite a few times; you might want to refresh your memory on one of those discussions in the comments section here.

    The upshot was that a great many people who were just getting to know Fiorina and like her, but didn’t know that much about her, dismissed her as soft on Islam, which she was not.

11. A purge is a purge.

    McMaster is tied in with Soros and the Leftist POV WRT Islam.

    It’s going to take Kelley to purge Bannon.

    For Bannon is too far away from the NSC.

    One must keep in mind that ALL of these generals were lifted to the highest rank by Barry Soetoro.

    They share an institutionalized version of Barry’s notions.

    President Trump has had to nix a couple of McMaster’s war projects — like sending 150,000 men into Syria to reverse the flow of events.

    Saudi money is flowing like a river to keep Washington in harness. It’s working like a charm.

    Russia is an export rival to KSA. Which goes a LONG ways towards explaining why Congress adopted the anti-Moscow sanctions law. It was greased into position.

    Riyadh could see that with Tillerson as SoS ANY warming of economic ties meant a SURGE in Russian oil exports… as in from the Arctic.

    For those unaware, Russia’s best deposits are right along the polar coast, often above the Arctic Circle.

    It was THIS very project that Tillerson was advancing in his days at Exxon Mobile.

    So, yes, KSA sabotaged Russia… something they told Moscow they would do if Moscow didn’t give way in Syria.

    At the time, brilliant Putin didn’t see this coming.

12. McMaster is like many other soldiers who have served in the ME area of operations. They have known and worked with Muslims who do not subscribe to Wahhabism. They know that not all Muslims are radicals or will ever be attracted to radical Wahhabism. IMO, Islamist = Wahhabist. Therefore, to describe the enemy as radical Islamist terrorists seems right. But the Generals may have other, better ideas. I think what McMaster, Mattis, Petraeus, and others are trying to do is not pick a fight with 1.5 billion people. Better to confine it to those 10-15% who may be believers in Wahhabism. They may be wrong, but they do have personal experience in Muslim countries with actual Muslims. Unlike most of us who only know what we have read about Islam, their knowledge is hands on.

13. neo,

    Time will tell the tale. For the good of the country I hope you’re right. I remain unconvinced but welcome events persuading me otherwise.

14. J.J.

    Rich Higgins is MORE switched on than McMaster — by FAR.

    Flynn understands jihad, too.

    The Deep State has swallowed the Islamic narcotic — well illustrated by the reasoning of your post.

    The splitting that you hope of can NEVER HAPPEN.

    1400 years has proven that.

    I give you Erdogan, the despot. He’s no Wahhabist but has proved to be the top supporter of ISIS … along with Barry Soetoro, Qatar and KSA.

15. In line with what J.J. said above, here’s Eli Lake this past February looking at McMaster’s approach to radical Islam — couple of excerpts:

    McMaster and [Michael] Flynn are very different in their assessment of America’s relationship with Islam and how this influences the long war on terror. In recent years, Flynn has focused on defeating the ideology of radical Islam. McMaster, on the other hand, has focused on getting radical Muslims to turn on al Qaeda and other terrorists. …

    [McMaster] helped rewrite the Army’s counterinsurgency doctrine during the Iraq war, to apply the lessons of this kind of asymmetric warfare to the Muslim world. This meant in practice that he learned how to make allies out of Muslim fighters who had killed Americans, to turn the local population against al Qaeda. In McMaster’s war, ideological purity was a hindrance to an effective campaign for the hearts and minds of pious Muslims.

16. blert:

    Sure, a purge is a purge, but calling this a purge doesn’t make it so.

17. Neo:

    Shame on you for stating the obvious; that some may be naive (though others are “blind”), and some know what is going on (It’s a purge or a coup, because I say so!).

    Who knew we had so many flies on the wall?

    J.J., you didn’t know you were part of the “Deep State” did you. I’m shocked, shocked! 😉

18. Ann,

    Thank you for that excerpt. Anyone who seriously promotes the idea that the ‘hearts and minds’ of violent, fanatical jihadists can be persuaded to become our allies is selling gullible people snake oil and telling them what they want to hear.

    Con men are by definition, persuasive and McMaster is slick but no one can sell you something you don’t want. Unless they can persuade you that you need it. People who buy into that hogwash simply can’t handle the truth and want someone to tell them that there’s a ‘better way’ to handle the Islamic threat.

    “McMaster, on the other hand, has focused on getting radical Muslims to turn on al Qaeda and other terrorists.”

    Those radical Muslims only turned on al Qaeda because the al Qaeda fighters were slaughtering members of their tribe. It was purely self-defensive in nature. After the al Qaeda threat was defeated, they remained ‘radical’ Muslims, who if doing so advantaged them, would happily kill more Americans. Then Obama announced a date for when our troops were leaving and those radical Muslim ‘allies’ realized all they had to do was wait a bit. And that now, killing more Americans would be counter-productive, as it might lead to our troops staying longer.

    The same dynamic occurred in Afghanistan and Trump just railed at his top military people that we’re losing there too.

19. om,

    You’re right. No matter how much smoke there is, it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s fire. People blow smoke too.

20. It’s fine if you want to ignore the hearsay a la “McMaster hates calling it radical Islam” or “McMaster opposes the president’s agenda.” Every insider can claim to speak for a president’s agenda and say that those who disagree with himself are disagreeing with the president. Probably happens all the time.

    What you can’t ignore are the firings. They’re the fire behind the smoke and they’re real.

21. Just finished reading neo’s thoughts on Islam, looks like the lady’s woke (mostly).

    Everybody loves to talk about moderate Muslims as proof that Islam isn’t the problem but, in reality, a moderate Muslim is like a moderate Nazi. Your moderate Muslim neighbor may be friendly to you but his belief system isn’t friendly to you. Sure, he might be a good neighbor, pay his taxes, maybe even help you fix your car, but do you really think having millions of moderate Nazis in the country is a good idea? Would you be okay with them gradually taking over your neighborhood?

    As our European cousins are finding out, people behave differently when they’re a tiny minority than they do once they’ve taken over an area. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that every single one of those Muslim No-Go Zones in Europe was founded two generations ago by “moderate” Muslims who never thought about making their new neighborhood a No-Go Zone. Founded by “moderate” Muslims who had no problem getting along with the natives. What changed? Was it that the natives became more insulting to Islam, thus radicalizing the Muslims?

    I always use the analogy from when I worked at a gym. We had a few gay customers who’d come in by themselves and do their workout. While they were there, they behaved like everybody else. But one day, one of our sales reps, a gay Asian guy, gave out free passes to all his gay friends and the next thing you know, there’s 10-15 gay guys in the gym, lobby, front desk area and they’re acting like it’s a meat market. You’ve got guys feeling each other’s biceps, sitting in each other’s laps in the lobby, checking out people (i.e. me) in the locker room, etc. They were totally shameless and even my female co-workers were revolted by it.
    There’s not a doubt in my mind that these guys would have behaved like everyone else if they’d come into the gym to work out in ones and twos. We were all tolerant of them, nobody said or did anything. Their behavior wasn’t a response to ours – it was produced by their increased numbers. Just like Islamic chauvinism (radical or moderate) is a product of their increasing numbers.

    In the long run, “moderate” Islam is a far greater problem than radical Islam, in the same way that HIV in the long run is a far greater problem than Ebola, despite the fact that the latter is more immediately deadly.

22. Sean:

    In transitions and set-ups of new administrations, there are plenty of firings. Unless you have access to the memos saying why each person was fired, you have no idea what’s behind it. The firings are real, but the spin on the reasons behind them ain’t necessarily so.

23. Sean:

    And your idea that being a moderate Muslim is like being a moderate Nazi is preposterous. Nazism and belief in Nazi ideology is by definition a form of vicious extremism, and the same is not true of Islam.

    See this.

24. I’ve been on the record here at Neo’s place as a believer in attacking the ideology of Wahhabism and the Shia doctrine of Ayatollah Khomeini, (A cross between Wahhabism and Twelver beliefs.) because it is that strain of Islam that believes in worldwide theocracy, forced conversion, and worldwide sharia law imposed through violence. Beliefs with which there is no coexistence.

    Since 2001 the U.S. government has contemplated undermining Islamism. From Wiki:
    “There have been calls to create an independent agency in the U.S. with a specific mission of undermining Islamism and jihadism. Christian Whiton, an official in the George W. Bush administration, called for a new agency focused on the nonviolent practice of “political warfare” aimed at undermining the ideology.[256] U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for establishing something similar to the defunct U.S. Information Agency, which was charged with undermining the communist ideology during the Cold War.[257]”

    Thus far, nothing has been done.

    For an edifying review of Islamism/political Islam/Wahhabism/Salafism/ check out this Wiki article:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
    Al Qaeda , ISIS, Hamas, Palestinean Authority, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood are just a few of the Islamist groups in the Muslim world. Islamism is more diverse than most of us know. Not monolithic at all. The key financiers are Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Stop the money and challenge the ideology – IMO, those are the keys. I’ve been saying so for some years now. (I’m beginning to sound like artfldger.) 🙂

25. J.J.

    No, you aren’t sounding like artflgger; you try to be understood, and take the time to write in sentences and paragraphs.

    So you aren’t “scroll by.” Being told “I told you so” gets old.

    Nope, you’re not sounding like artfldger, at all.

26. “Nazism and belief in Nazi ideology is by definition a form of vicious extremism, and the same is not true of Islam.” neo

    Islam’s core tenets, more than 100 specific and clear calls for unrelenting, murderous violence against non-believers, Muhammad’s personal participation in repeated instances of rape and murder and 1400 years of history argue otherwise.

    J.J.,

    “the ideology of Wahhabism and the Shia doctrine of Ayatollah Khomeini, (A cross between Wahhabism and Twelver beliefs.) because it is that strain of Islam”

    Those “strain(s) of Islam” are not ‘outliers’. They are simply factions who assert that Muslims should do exactly as Allah and Muhammad repeatedly and consistently commanded Muslims to act.

    Yes, there are vague and ambiguous parts in both but each is fairly clear on it’s agenda and an interpretation that contradicts the clear passages (those would be ‘moderate’ interpretations) cannot be a valid one without invalidating the entire theology or document.

    So they are NOT ‘interpretations’ of Islam, anymore than a strict constitutionalist judge can be said to be in general ‘interpreting’ the Constitution.

27. clarification: Yes, there are vague and ambiguous parts in both (the Koran and our Constitution) but each is fairly clear on it’s agenda…

28. Here are some questions Paul Mirengoff of Powerline asked of McMaster supporters.

    Neo, care to take a shot at answering them?

    1. “a good starting point in discussing McMaster is to ask how many Obama holdovers (a term McMaster has tried to ban) he has fired. Having sacked three Trump loyalists, he obviously is not averse to firing staff members. If, as I understand to be the case, he has sacked few or none of the Obama holdovers, this would suggest that he is comfortable with Obama-era foreign and national security policy.”

    Neo, has McMaster sacked any Obama holdovers?

    2. “I quoted reports that he opposes scrapping the nuclear deal and that he has refused to publish the side deals Obama signed with the Iranians and then hid from the public. I have seen no refutation of the latter claim.”
    Neo, can you refute this claim? Has McMaster refused to publish the Obama side deals? Do you think he should?

    3. “As for withdrawing from the deal, McMaster mostly danced around this question … I have no personal knowledge of whether Iran is complying with the letter of the deal. However, I’m inclined to believe Senators Cotton, Cruz, Perdue, and Rubio on the subject. In a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, they listed four publicly reported examples of Iran’s violation of the agreement. They also argued compellingly that the deal is not in America’s vital national security interest.”

    Neo, do you agree with McMaster’s seeming acceptance of the Iran deal?

29. G.B. “So they are NOT ‘interpretations’ of Islam, anymore than a strict constitutionalist judge can be said to be in general ‘interpreting’ the Constitution”

    All religions have differing interpretations. At one time the Catholic church was the only interpretation of Christianity. Then came printing and lay people reading the Bible. Now there are multiple sects of Christianity. The Thirty Years War was so vicious and brutal that it brought about an understanding that tolerance of differing versions of Christianity was far better than intolerance and constant warfare.

    Islam has differing versions. The Salafi/Wahhabi version has become very prominent since the 1930s with the writings of al Banna and Qutb. Most of the renewed interest in radical Islamism is due to the general feelings of inferiority of Muslim culture since the end of the Ottoman Empire. Violent extremism has been seized upon by a percentage (10-20% ?) of Muslims as the way for the Muslim world to regain past glories. Such radical beliefs require constant hate of both infidels and apostates. Such a level of hate is very hard to sustain. Particularly when it is not achieving the success you expect. I have read widely about the varying strains of Islam. It is not a monolithic religion with iron clad tenets accepted by all, which is your opinion of the way Islam exists.

    Here’s one description of the sects.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
    There are many others out there.

30. Then of course there is the principle of abrogation. Allah changes his mind and the latest revelation is the one the faithful must follow.

    Not all Muslims agree what abrogation mean, and it’s not always obvious which is the most current revelation.

    The moderate Muslim operates under the principle that Islam is a religion of peace. The radical Islamist follows the principle to kill the infidel.

31. There’s more than one Deep State and secret society, working against each other here.

32. The US has a king now and it is now talking about palace intrigues. It fits.

    The US Constitution was supposed to prevent a king from rising, but it doesn’t work when the super majority of Americans demand a king. They just demand different kings.

    As for Al Anbar, the only way to convert Muslims to the Western side is to have religion or the holy spirit convert them to Christianity, which means exposing Islam as not being derived from divine truths. This usually happens when Muslims get visions or near death experiences. Even ISIL fanatics have converted and given up jiihad as a result.

    Something GB, Hussein, Trum, and the entire Might of the United States military is incapable of doing.

33. Wheels within the wheels within the wheels…… and we have a king. Better look up that word. I don’t think it means what some say.

34. neo,

    I know there’s a lot of coming and going in new administrations, especially in public positions like Spicer’s. But is the Trump admin’s turnover rate normal or does it look abnormal because of the press? Seen any studies comparing his to previous admins regarding this? I haven’t.

    And your idea that being a moderate Muslim is like being a moderate Nazi is preposterous. Nazism and belief in Nazi ideology is by definition a form of vicious extremism, and the same is not true of Islam.

    Most Nazis by most accounts were go-along-to-get-along types, people who joined the party because it was the only game in town. I don’t know what definition of “vicious extremism” you’re going by but it is was more than possible to be a moderate Nazi. If my using ‘Nazi’ is aesthetically unpleasing on account of Godwin’s Law, then I can just switch the analogy to Communists.

    In any case, I didn’t claim to make an apples to apples comparison but you would have to show me how Nazism (or Communism, if you prefer) is extremist in a way that Islam isn’t. The imperative to world conquest is intrinsic to both belief systems as well as an abiding fixation on the inferiority of the Other. In fact, the Koran complains in a couple of places about Muslim “moderates,” i.e. all those people who didn’t want to fight non-Muslims on Islam’s behalf.

    And again, serious question: how would you feel about moderate Muslims gradually taking over your neighborhood?

35. J.J.,

    It’s common for people in the West to differentiate between the Salafis/Wahhabis and the rest of the Islamic world in order to defend the latter while attacking the former. And yes, the Salafis and the rest may hate each other but their differences are quantitative, not qualitative. All versions of Islam believe in the imperative of Islamic world domination, full stop. The fact that most Muslims are too lazy or good-natured to go to war on their religion’s behalf doesn’t change that. All that means is that most Muslims are nicer than their religion and the man who founded it.

    Islamism is the belief that Islam should expand until it rules everywhere. Islam teaches that Islam should expand until it rules everywhere.

    Ergo, Islamism is Islam.

36. Most of the renewed interest in radical Islamism is due to the general feelings of inferiority of Muslim culture since the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    That’s only half of the truth. The other half is that radical Islam is inspired by Islam’s teaching that Muslims are morally and spiritually superior to non-Muslims and that Allah made the ummah for the express purpose of ruling everyone else. This teaching, conflicting with the obvious fact that Muslims no longer rule everyone else but are in fact being ruled by kaffirun, produces an overwhelming sense of cosmic injustice throughout the Muslim world, a feeling of injustice that even most moderates share. The extremists just happen to be the ones who react accordingly.

37. War on Terror and Islam. A professional’s analysis and comment:

    https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2017/08/are-we-losing-global-war-on-terror.html

38. Matt_SE:

    “I’m not sure Trump isn’t the source of some of it. Who knows?”

    Talk about “unsourced gossip posing as news”!

39. Sean: “Ergo, Islamism is Islam.”

    If you read the Quran literally and believe the later verses are dominant, you will arrive at that conclusion. However, not all Muslims interpret the Quran that way. If they do, how do we account for the Kurds, the Indonesian Muslims (The largest population of Muslims in the world), the Muslims in India (The second most populous Muslim country.), and other mostly peaceful Muslims? We should not tar the entire group because of the Wahhabi/Salafi sect. Instead, point out the insanity of the idea of a worldwide theocracy formed through violence. Point out that there are 5.5 billion non-Muslims in the world who must be killed or converted to achieve worldwide theocracy. Point out the impossibility of such an enterprise and how much more fruitful it is to live in peace and understanding with the rest of humanity. A program to counter the Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine has not been attempted. Why not give it a try?

40. J.J.,

    If you read the Quran literally and believe the later verses are dominant, you will arrive at that conclusion.

    Literal vs allegorical = conservative vs liberal is a western Christian paradigm that doesn’t apply to the Koran. Allegorical interpretations of the Koran easily lead to violent conclusions. In any case, all Muslims, including the peaceful ones, believe the Meccan surahs take precedence over the Medinan ones wherever they conflict.

    However, not all Muslims interpret the Quran that way. If they do, how do we account for the Kurds, the Indonesian Muslims (The largest population of Muslims in the world), the Muslims in India (The second most populous Muslim country.), and other mostly peaceful Muslims?

    Simple. The SE Asian Muslims were among the last people to convert, they’ve had the least influence from the Arabs, tropical climates tend to breed lax attitudes to religion, and last but not least, the Arabs are putting in over time to change the Indonesians’ easygoing attitude to religion and by all accounts it’s working. The Muslims in India are a minority and the legacy of centuries of Islamic war, conquest and exploitation that far outweighed even what the conquistadors did to the New World. Cf. Mahmud of Ghazni and Mahmud of Ghor, two the greatest mass murderers the West has never heard of.

    We should not tar the entire group because of the Wahhabi/Salafi sect.

    I’m not tarring them because of the Wahhabis, I’m merely pointing out what the religion has always been since the very beginning. The Salafis are just the joyless people who take it seriously.

    Instead, point out the insanity of the idea of a worldwide theocracy formed through violence. Point out that there are 5.5 billion non-Muslims in the world who must be killed or converted to achieve worldwide theocracy.

    This is only a problem for those who don’t see conquest in terms of centuries. Islam’s been fighting everyone around it for 1400 years and they’re still going. They don’t look like they plan to stop any time soon.

    Point out the impossibility of such an enterprise and how much more fruitful it is to live in peace and understanding with the rest of humanity. A program to counter the Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine has not been attempted. Why not give it a try?

    You can’t defeat the Salafis by telling Muslims that their religion requires them to be peaceful. They won’t listen to non-Muslims anymore than Christians will listen to liberals telling them how to live their religion, and besides, Islam encourages violence. It’s right there in the holy book, the sira, ahadith, shariah, etc. The idea that religion is supposed to be a source of peace and harmony from which war is excluded is a Western/Protestant notion that Islam has never recognized. To the Muslim mind, and also to the pre-Reformation Catholic mind, religion never has precluded war.

41. Shorter Sean: “Reforming Islam is impossible. Kill ’em all.”

    We could do that, if we could first subdue the progressives and Code Pink. 🙂 So, that’s the plan?

42. Shorter Sean: “Reforming Islam is impossible. Kill ’em all.”

    We could do that, if we could first subdue the progressives and Code Pink. 🙂 So, that’s the plan?

    God, that sounds beautiful, but no. You can’t kill 1.3 billion people. I would settle for:

    A) Not letting any of them into the West, and then
    B) Conquering them and treating them in the name of Christianity to the exact same Shariah-type laws that they subjected the dhimmis to for 1400 years. In the long run, it’s those laws about taxation, corvees, legal inferiority, etc. that will gradually convert them to Christianity and lay down roots for Western hegemony in Muslim lands. But it would take centuries, just as it took centuries for the once predominantly Christian Middle East to convert to Islam.

    Sound good?

43. Sean: “Sound good?”
    It might work, if we had a government of Seans to carry it out over several hundred years. Unfortunately, we will get another Obama/Clinton/Carter type C-in-C and you know what happens then. 🙁

44. It might work, if we had a government of Seans to carry it out over several hundred years

    I know, but we can dream, right?

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>