Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Getting to the Root in the "War on Terror"

"The Allah That Failed" by Jack Wheeler

The above is an excellent article from a logical standpoint since the clearer we understand our terms, the clearer our judgement is regarding the truthfulness of our propositions. The question is just how do we define the term "War on Terror?" I think Mr. Wheeler gives us plenty to chew on.

What is immediately disconcerting after reading this article is what is implied in the "what or who" that we must do battle. I see that it cuts deep into our knee-jerk political correctness. With the many terrorist organizations (one of whom who struck London that is separate from Al Quaida), it seems futile to try to strike back at them just militarily. These terrorist groups are multiplying and dividing almost at will, which makes our attempts to stop their growth very frustrating and seemingly fruitless. The only way to achieve victory is to deal with the real root of the war: the problem of Islam itself. I think we are afraid to face it, for the implications require us not only to change our tactics, but to do a massive rethink about our own beliefs and philosophies of life individually and as a nation.

Now, I am aware that there are millions of peace-loving Muslims in the world today who are NOT to be faulted with propagating this deadly ideology against Israel and the United States. However it is fair to say they do not follow all the teachings of Mohammed. The "peaceful Muslims" are typified by Islamic "purists" as hypocrites. The ideology of the Islamo-fascist movement is not a perversion of the words of Mohammed, but a direct application of all his teachings from the Q'uran; it's as though his violent ideology that initially established the "religion of Allah" is making a resurgence, although in a more sinister way.

So what is the cure? Perhaps it's with the "dissenters" of Islam that Wheeler refers to who have seen the evil that is from "the inside." Hopefully, this reactionary movement grows, for any external resistance to the Islamo-fascists may stave off the movement, but doesn't alter it from within. Yet I'm not as optimistic as Wheeler; I don't think Islam has the substance within it as a religion that can renew itself. As the Bangladeshi writer Mohammed Bin Abdullah states: “Mankind will not lose a single moral precept if Islam is not there tomorrow.”

So, we must engage our enemy in this war on terror using tactics that are both militaristic and ideological, since Islamo-fascism is a conglomeration of political and religious ideas. We know how to do the military tactics but how do we do ideological combat? I assert that the rampant moral relativism in our culture has no power to defeat the tactics of extreme Islam. I contend that moral relativism is a cowardly belief system that embraces Islam as one of the many acceptable ways in which to believe, even to the point of celebrating it. This will not stop Islamo-facsim; the Islamic killers will ultimately kill the nice moral relativists.

There are no easy political or military answers; we are dealing with a 1400 year-old politico-religious problem. The battle is the same, only the Islamic adherents have changed their tactics from being sword wielding raiders on horseback to bomb-strapping human death machines. Perhaps now, we can drop our smugness and begin appreciating the difficulties the Catholic Church and Catholic kingdoms faced during the Middle Ages against the raging Islamic hords of the Turks and the Moors. Maybe we can learn something from the moral absolutism of our ancestors and the lessons gleaned from their failures. We need to see this struggle for what it is: a cataclysmic struggle for the future of mankind.


At 7:18 AM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut said...

A well-written, excellent summary. Thank you for the link, as well.

At 7:58 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Thanks for dropping by, Saur!

At 12:12 PM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut said...

Underground, I am very discouraged today. It seems that people don't really want to THINK. They simply want to have their own beliefs validated, whether or not they are correct beliefs to have.

I am in a discussion in another blog, and it concerns ID. ID is becoming more accepted by scientists and medical doctors due to the irrefutable proof of it. It doesn't mean that you have to be a religious zealot to buy into it.

Athiests believe the intelligent designer is a space alien / otherworldly being. Agnostics think it is *A* god but don't know which one. Religious people ascribe it to their god. But it isn't something that is debatable anymore! If you read the book "Darwins Black Box..." you can read the fascinating information about ID on a microcellular level.

And yet, people are treating my comments with patronizing comments, such as ...it's nice to have faith but science... It is science! I keep telling them that they can't comment on this unless they are actually read up on it! And instead of saying, OK, we'll read up on it and get back to you, they keep idiotically repeating that it's faith based.

I don't get it!!!??? Are there NO genuine thinkers out there anymore???

At 1:48 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

God Bless You!

I mean it. I too have been down lately simply because of the same issue, people would rather spout their beliefs and demand that it be accepted as true without doing the hard work of discovering whether it meets the demands of the truth. You are spot on with your assessment and yes, it can be very discouraging.

My discouragement comes from my desire to persuade others and putting it on myself to convince them. I actually create my own discouragement. I'm not saying this is what you may be doing, but I think we need to identify what is a realistic expectation to have when trying to persuade others.

In terms of ID, stick to your guns! This is a philosophical issue in general, and a metaphysical issue in particular. With the dearth of knowledge that people have of metaphysics, they will not understand what you are trying to say. Don't give up, little warrior!!!

For some great bulking up of the "little gray cells," go to "The Radical Academy" and do a search on Thomas Aquinas and the argument from design. Also, poke aroung "Medieval Logic" and see what you find. The Scholastics are a goldmine of truth for us moderns. The more knowledge you have, the greater your confidence. And, if no one buys what you say, you have made the investment in yourself that NO ONE can take away!

As to convincing others, I bet you impact more people than you think. I have people I know that access my blogspot and do not comment but thank me profusely for the education they are receiving. Saur, you may have quite a contingent of people who read and value what you say. Keep up the good work.

At 1:52 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...


In addition, the atheists who claim a "space alien" as the designer, at least they admit of a designer. Another argument that is quite convincing is the unmoved mover argument, or the first uncaused caused argument. The question to ask them is "who caused the space alien?" Did he/she cause himself? If he/she is an uncaused cause, then they fall into the definition of God.

You get into the meat of these ancient arguments, you become a formidable foe to ignorance!!!

At 4:02 PM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut said...

Underground, thank you so very much. I really needed those words today.

I hate it when people try so hard to dismiss me as a troglodyte simply because some of my views may be different than others.

I know I'm weird. I don't think Bush is a Christian, and I don't think he's a good president, so I don't fit in with all the Christian Fundamentalists that do (though many of them agree with me). I miss Reagan. I didn't like Clinton. Come to think of it, I haven't liked any president except Reagan. I would probably vote for Lieberman.

I am highly educated, but I'm also a Christian. People who aren't Christians don't understand that you can be both without having to suspend intelligence. It drives me crazy. They're happy when *I* see their point of view, but put me down when I assure them that I have a different one that is valid.

I am probably blogging in the wrong blogs.

It's not that I'm an argumentative person. But I'm a truthful one, and I want to share what I know. This is different than sharing what I believe (Christianity). But are people so threatened by alternative ways of thinking that they are threatened by me? I try so hard to be non threatening and kind, but truthful. I know sometimes I fail because I'm blunt. But I am never unkind.

I guess I don't understand people that rail about ignorance, and then easily dismiss scientific ideas like I.D. without having read up on it themselves.

I like Thomas Aquinas BTW. And Martin Luther (sorry *g*). I haven't read a great deal by Aquinas so I will look up that site you mentioned.

I'm familiar with your thoughts in the last post (who moved the mover, etc.) If you haven't read "Of Pandas and People" I would highly recommend it. I know the authors. But I am in awe of "Darwin's Black Box..." it is beautifully and compellingly written. Some people might flinch at all the scientific jargon but I still think it's worth tackling if anyone is interested in the theory of ID.

Lately my readership has fallen off, I don't know if I have that many people that are reading for whatever reason (summer vacation?). But I hope that I can share some of my knowlege. I promised my parents I'd never be a teacher (too little money) but I still love to teach anyway.

I think yours has fallen off because of your clashes with others (you know who I mean). I still have hung in there, but it gets so vicious in some blogs if you disagree.

I have been branded a racist because of my beliefs (I certainly am not). I have been branded ignorant (I have a doctorate). I try to be open minded and discuss issues with everyone. I fail to understand why liberals, who claim to be open minded, simply aren't. I guess I'm just a little naive there, huh?

At 5:02 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Not naive. I think you care about people experiencing the positive effects of the truth. Nothing is so damaging to us personally than to build our lives on lies. So, when we see it in others, our heart aches. But, we can't do the hard work for others...the hard work of knowledge. If they don't want to put out, they remain idiots their entire lives.

The whole reason I am in a Ph.D. program at Marquette is precisely because the HUGE education need. We are like the sower in the Gospels where Jesus teaches that the sower scatters the seed over the hardened path, the rocky soil, the weed infested earth, and the good soil. You and I don't know the soil of people's hearts, we scatter the seed and let the seed fall where it may.

Perhaps the blogs you're at are the hard footpath and the birds are coming in to eat the seeds. Let it be. But those who cruise through those blogs and see what you say may drop by your blog. They might be the good soil that produces fruit 60-fold.

We scatter the seeds of truth, we let the power within the seed to sprout and grow within people's hearts.

I heard a Catholic theologian speak about the truth. The truth is like a lion...all we need to do is let it out of the cage!!!

I appreciate you dropping by, I'm glad to know that there are others like yourself who care about others and what/how they think.

At 8:17 PM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut said...

You know, what's funny is they consistently say they don't believe I.D. Isn't that blind faith at it's finest???

"Don't bother me with the details, I don't want it to destroy my belief..." Their blind faith is stronger than most Christians'...

At 10:42 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Yes. sigh!

At 11:46 AM, Blogger greatwhitebear said...

UL- it sounds to me as if you are proposing a cure that is as bad as the disease. sigh.

Let me remind you that before there were raging Turkish and Moorish hords attacking Christian kingdoms, there were raging Christian hords attacking Muslim Sheikdoms. We call those raging Christian hordes "The Crusaders".

double sigh. Organized religion is the curse of humanity.

At 2:40 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

I am well aware of the Crusaders. It was the failures and misdeeds of the Crusaders from which I was referring that we learn. Their actions, though, were not ALL bad. I was wondering who was going to come up with the standard comeback about the Crusaders being as bad if not WORSE than the Mohammedans.

Since we are doing "who was bad first," let me ask, what revisionist history have you been reading? Or, are you relying on Sir Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven?" If you go back just a few more centuries, say the seventh, you'll find that there was a vast Christian contingent in North Africa prior to Mohammed's "revelations" from Allah to kill the infidels and Jews. Are you making the unhistorical suggestion that Christianity spread like Islam, by the use of force? Mohammedanism spread through these Christian areas by the deadly force of Islamic raiders, from Syria across all of North Africa. The Moors later attacked in Spain threatening France, and the Turks took out the Byzantine Empire and marched all the way to the gates of Vienna, Austria. Islam was the greatest threat to Christendom from the 7th through 16th centuries. If you're going to try and make a moral equivalence between the two religions, don't attempt it. History doesn't back your "cherry-picking" fallacy, my friend.

GWB, since you think my cure is as bad as the disease, what do you propose we do? It's easy to fall into the popular practice of lamenting the presence of organized religion. Let's get really practical. What do you say to the radical Islamists? Give me something more substantial than the standard "we apologize, give reparations, be more open to Palestine, etc." I mean real solutions in handling a people group who have every intention of killing infidels like you and me out of conviction of their religion. Will you suggest to them they disorganize? Will you suggest atheism or agnosticism is the cure for this? If so, how?

If an Islamist walks into a bar where you and I are having a cool one and wants to take you and me out for the sake of his religion, I WILL GUARANTEE YOU that before he says "Allah Akbar!" I will do all that I can, for the sake of justice, that Mr. Radical Islamist meets his "Allah" prematurely, without the prize of our heads dangling from his belt. This is a ideological battle as well a physical battle, and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow myself and others to be lulled sleep with the pathetic lullaby of beliefs that is typically sung in our country today. This is a life and death struggle that has not gone away, and will not go away with political stategies alone.

At 4:00 PM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut said...

First, I do certainly admit that many atrocities have been performed in the name of God. In fact, all faiths have had atrocities committed in their names.

It's human nature! Do something wrong, blame it on your god, and who will dare question you?

But, that isn't the essence of most faiths. The Christian faith has endured primarily because of some of these precepts that everyone has heard: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Judge not, lest you be judged accordingly. The 10 commandments. Etc., etc. These are rules that most christians adhere to, and the ones that don't follow it are condemned by the majority of the christians that do.

However, the Muslim faith is different. There are no major clerics that decry the vicious killings that continue in the name of Allah. They don't dare, because it would go directly against the Quran if they did.

So although we can hang our heads in shame for those Crusaders (who we had nothing to do with and lived centuries before us), the Muslims do not regret their atrocities that are happening right now.

At 4:04 PM, Blogger Saur♥Kraut said...

I check another blog regularly:
The Belmont Club.

There was a quote in there today that I'll copy and paste here:

When General George Napier was governor of Sind province in India in the 1840s, he vigorously enforced the ban on suttee, the practice of throwing a Hindu widow on to the funeral pyre of her husband. A delegation of Brahmins came to him to explain that he must not prohibit the practice at the funeral of a particular maharaja, as it was an important cultural custom.

“If it is your custom to burn a widow alive, please go on,” Napier responded.

“We have a custom in our country that whoever burns a person alive shall be hanged. While you prepare the funeral pyre, my carpenters will be making the gallows to hang all of you. Let us all act according to our customs” The Brahmins thought better of it, and the widow lived.

At 4:51 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...


Great story, Saur!


Post a Comment

<< Home