New Causes For Outrage In Ridiculous Muslim Demands
In comments on the killings of 200 innocent Bombay commuters, the foreign minister of Pakistan, the dishonorable Khurahid Mahmoud Kasuri, suggested that if only India gives up Kashmir, then his government would cooperate in controlling the terrorists.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the leaders of Hezbollah said they will negotiate the possible release of two Israeli soldiers kidnapped today, but only if Israel releases all 9,000 prisoners in its custody, apparently including murderers, would-be suicide bombers and assorted other perverts.
And in Iraq, the insurgents say they mutilated and beheaded two American soldiers in response to the rape of an Iraqi girl and the murder of her family. This statement of equivalence comes from those guilty in the surge of sectarian crimes which are killing dozens of Iraqis every day, and in contradiction of the fact that the American rape and murders hadn't even become known publicly at the time the soldiers were kidnapped and killed.
All of these positions are the work of a fundamentalist strain of Islam which must be eradicated before the present war can end. Violence is widely endemic in that religion and tolerance of it by the rest of the world should have lapsed long ago, just as the Spanish conquistadors showed no tolerance for the Aztec and Inca human sacrifices. Yes, there are millions of "moderate" Muslims, but like the Germans of the Nazi period, precious few of them so much as speak out against their barbaric co-believers.
What, meanwhile, should be the answer to the demands?
First, India must not and will not give up Kashmir, which is integral to the integrity of the Indian state. India has 117 million Muslims, and being forced to give up Kashmir would jeopardize them all. Right now, India is a pluralistic state, with official respect for all religions. There is some backsliding from this position, but it is government policy.
Second, Israel must not and will not release its captives any more than we should give up the captives of Guantanamo Bay. Those people should stay in custody until terrorist actions stop without condition. That may be a long time, but of course those found innocent or finishing their prison terms will be released.
Thirdly, in Iraq, we have displayed far too much patience. If the Iraqis cannot govern themselves, then it may be necessary to dismember the country, split up the ethnic groups, and put the Sunni and Shiite killers under lasting restraint. The principal actors in the sectarian killings are so abominable they deserve nothing from us, and all rebuilding funds in those areas should be withheld until they give up their arms unconditionally.
These are hard, draconian positions, I know, but Muslim terrorism, unless controlled, could literally destroy the West. We have every right, nay obligation, to resist it with all the forces at our command.
If the Muslim fundamentalist demands were complied with, this would not be the end of the attacks. It would only be the beginning. Force should and will be our main response.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the leaders of Hezbollah said they will negotiate the possible release of two Israeli soldiers kidnapped today, but only if Israel releases all 9,000 prisoners in its custody, apparently including murderers, would-be suicide bombers and assorted other perverts.
And in Iraq, the insurgents say they mutilated and beheaded two American soldiers in response to the rape of an Iraqi girl and the murder of her family. This statement of equivalence comes from those guilty in the surge of sectarian crimes which are killing dozens of Iraqis every day, and in contradiction of the fact that the American rape and murders hadn't even become known publicly at the time the soldiers were kidnapped and killed.
All of these positions are the work of a fundamentalist strain of Islam which must be eradicated before the present war can end. Violence is widely endemic in that religion and tolerance of it by the rest of the world should have lapsed long ago, just as the Spanish conquistadors showed no tolerance for the Aztec and Inca human sacrifices. Yes, there are millions of "moderate" Muslims, but like the Germans of the Nazi period, precious few of them so much as speak out against their barbaric co-believers.
What, meanwhile, should be the answer to the demands?
First, India must not and will not give up Kashmir, which is integral to the integrity of the Indian state. India has 117 million Muslims, and being forced to give up Kashmir would jeopardize them all. Right now, India is a pluralistic state, with official respect for all religions. There is some backsliding from this position, but it is government policy.
Second, Israel must not and will not release its captives any more than we should give up the captives of Guantanamo Bay. Those people should stay in custody until terrorist actions stop without condition. That may be a long time, but of course those found innocent or finishing their prison terms will be released.
Thirdly, in Iraq, we have displayed far too much patience. If the Iraqis cannot govern themselves, then it may be necessary to dismember the country, split up the ethnic groups, and put the Sunni and Shiite killers under lasting restraint. The principal actors in the sectarian killings are so abominable they deserve nothing from us, and all rebuilding funds in those areas should be withheld until they give up their arms unconditionally.
These are hard, draconian positions, I know, but Muslim terrorism, unless controlled, could literally destroy the West. We have every right, nay obligation, to resist it with all the forces at our command.
If the Muslim fundamentalist demands were complied with, this would not be the end of the attacks. It would only be the beginning. Force should and will be our main response.
posted by Ken Reich at 9:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home