September 12, 2010

Invite / Invade

Leon Wieseltier writes in The New Republic about America and Islam:
So: Cordoba House in New York and a Predator war in Pakistan—graciousness here and viciousness there—this should be our position.

Makes sense to me! What kind of moron would worry that anything could possibly go wrong with such a prudent, intellectually sophisticated grand strategy?

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Abortions for all!

Boooooooo!

Very well, abortions for none!

Boooooooo!

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

Yay!

Fjordman said...

As I demonstrated in my essay On the Illusion of a Moderate Islam, the chance of ever seeing a "reformed" Islam is pretty much zero. Given that we can also never trust what Muslims tell us, the only possible solution is to remove Muslims from our lands.

Anonymous said...

If Islam is so bad then:

1. Why are millions converting to it every day?

2. Why do European women like Muslim men?

Brandy said...

Steve,
you don't get it. You are way out of your depth on security issues. In addition you are too old to figure out the consequences of the pill, nukes, alphas and Israel.
You see those guys have nukes, so we have to shoot missiles at them lest they bomb NY. OK, we hit the odd goat-arse now and then, but by and large they and their families are being roasted.

Just imagine the loss of babe material if they were to nuke-bomb NY! With a container ship, I think. All those betas can no longer drool over the women they are never going to bed. We need to maintain those women so betas have a reason to learn something awful and contrived such as "game".

Anyway, the main thing is Israel feels safe. There is a tangential and very real reason why our troops need to nuke, er.. I mean missile Pakistan. Those Muslims there are plotting to send ICBM's on Washington and Tel Aviv. They even have the sat-based guidance systems in portable form so they can steer those nukes from their tents.

Bloomberg is just misguided. He does not act out of ethnic interest, no way. He means it good, but having bedded too many babes as an alpha means he does not connect to with the ordinary American anymore. So you should ignore Cordoba house as some anomaly which has nothing to do with the security interests of Israel, or less importantly the US.

Thripshaw said...

America is truly a magical place. As soon as any person crosses our borders, they become instantly Americanized and pose no threat to anyone. Weaseltear probably thinks that more immigration from Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan would reduce the possibility of terrorism.
Of course, we know that this particular weasel only sees things in terms of what's good for his tribe.
This is what happens when "conventional wisdom" is formed by hostile elites with no concept of loyalty to the people of the host nation.
Talk about chutzpah...

eh said...

Apparently the full passage reads this way:

So: Cordoba House in New York and a Predator war in Pakistan—graciousness here and viciousness there—this should be our position. For those who come in peace, peace; for those who come in war, war.

It's hard to look past the clumsy prose, but in any case here's an obvious question: Who's doing the 'coming in war' again?

The comments -- at least those that got published -- are right from the 'Invade the World, Invite the World' script. Depressing.

And I'm sure this Jewish columnist is also gung-ho in favor of generous muslim immigration to Israel.

l said...

Wieseltier implies a case for encouraging Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank: Get those fanatics out of the US.

Anonymous said...

Yeah. Muslims are irrational.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/12/former-mossad-chief-world-must-attack-iran-now/

Anonymous said...

It's a good thing that we have disinterested humanists like Wieseltier to put things in the proper order.

Big bill said...

I do feel sorry for moderate Muslims and moderate Jews. Many of them regret the policies of their leaders and want to be exceptions to the rule. Sadly, both groups remain committed to their respective tribes rather than assimilating and it winds up going badly.

Of course the same holds true for other groups that do not assimilate such as the millions of German peasants across Eurasia who were ethnically cleansed after WWII.

Big bill said...

Anonymous, I would take the "nuke Iran" talk with a grain of salt. As Didi Remez suggests here, much of the talk may be political theater. The Israelis are still trading comfortably with the "enemy" in spite of the supposed embargo.

If you can pave the lobby of the biggest bank in Israel with what everyone knows is Iranian granite/marble and no one goes to jail or is even fined for "trading with the enemy" what does that tell you about how serious they really are?

Weiseltier and the other neocons are never going to bring this stuff up, nor are they going to tell you about the every-day-back-and-forth-trips made by Iranian Jews from California to Iran to visit and vacation with their extended Jewish families and grow their embargo-busting businesses.

The latter are almost as bad as the Cuban "refugees" in Florida who get welfare for "escaping Cuban tyranny" and then immediately turn around and fly back to visit their families in Cuba.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

If Islam is so bad then:

1. Why are millions converting to it every day?

2. Why do European women like Muslim men?"

Why did french girls go for those german men in their feldgrau uniforms and hobnailed boots? Why did persian girls go for those short, squat Mongols on horseback?

TH said...

If Islam is so bad then:

1. Why are millions converting to it every day
?

They aren't. "Millions every day" would mean at least hundreds of millions, if not billions, of converts a year, whereas there are no more than a 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. In the West, Islam is probably behind Buddhism, Mormonism, and even Scientology when it comes to attracting converts.

2. Why do European women like Muslim men?

By and large, they don't. Some do, but then again, some are also attracted to rapists, serial killers, and other notorious criminals--perhaps there's a connection?

Anonymous said...

Is it good for the Jews?

Anonymous said...

I've always wondered why people like this Weasel-tier are promoted endlessly in the media. Their every thought gets promoted as the current profundity. The masses need to be tutored by the deep thinkers, I suppose. I wish shills like him, along with the others like Friedman, would just go away and take their loudspeakers with them.

cherub's revenge said...

Anonymous said...

"If Islam is so bad then:

1. Why are millions converting to it every day?

2. Why do European women like Muslim men?"

You got the cart before the horse there Tonto. Those are just more to add to the list of why Islam is so bad. And I don't think it's anywhere near "millions" converting per day, but any number greater than zero is too many.

No sane society makes policy based on women's sexual preferences. Sane societies dictate those preferences and the women oblige.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone seriously think we'd have a Muslim problem if it weren't for this country's slavish posture vis a vis Israel?

Anonymous said...

They want to bring Muslims into America, the ONLY place where they post a threat to us. But take them out in the ME so Israel can be the hegemon.

Chris said...

This Wieselter isn't, to borrow a phrase from Udolpho, a high-functioning gypsy, is he?

Mac said...

"Why do European women like Muslim men?"

Paging Whiskey..........

Svigor said...

Millions convert to Islam every day?

Okay, lemme do the math...carry the four...730 million converts to Islam every year...carry the nine...

If these calculations are right, I'm already a Muslim!

If you tell me how long millions have been converting to Islam every day, I may be able to prove that the world is not only entirely Muslim, but several times over!

And you're right, we do love them Muslim wimmenz.

Svigor said...

I think invade/invite is the best way forward. HOWEVER, to show solidarity with Israel, our greatest ally and friend, we're going to deny ourselves the luxury of invade/invite and peg our immigration policy to Israel's.

It'll be tough, but our best friend is worth the sacrifice, this show of solidarity.

Svigor said...

I do feel sorry for moderate Muslims and moderate Jews. Many of them regret the policies of their leaders and want to be exceptions to the rule. Sadly, both groups remain committed to their respective tribes rather than assimilating and it winds up going badly.

Well said, except, "moderate Muslims and moderate Jews" finance their leaders. The choice you leave between mute loyalty and assimilation is a false dichotomy; why can't they close their checkbooks, open their mouths, and leave assimilation a separate issue?

Jews, at least, know this perfectly well. We've all heard how ordinary Germans were guilty for letting it happen, turning a blind eye, right?

David Davenport said...

If you can pave the lobby of the biggest bank in Israel with what everyone knows is Iranian granite/marble ...

Steve, regarding Persians/Iranians living in Southern CA: I wonder if some of them are involved in some fishy import/export business, such as trying to obtain parts for Iranian aircraft or missiles under a cover story of equipment for Iranian civilian airlines or other industries?

//////////////////

Why did french girls go for those german men in their feldgrau uniforms and hobnailed boots? ...

Or maybe a Deutsch boyfriend in the spring of 1944 et un Ami in autumn of that year?

Anonymous said...

Yes. Invade/Invite is quite possibly the most foolish combination of policies that could exist.

Why not do what Japan does? No immigration and no overseas adventures. Don't kill them and don't let them in. Japan, by the way, has no Islamic terrorim problem.

European women don't like Muslim men. That's why there's so much rape by immigrants.

Anonymous said...

1.' Why are millions converting to it every day?'

Because Islam is a low to moderate IQ religion.

none of the above said...

There's nothing especially gracious about following our own laws, which say the cordoba guys can build a mosque where they like, with no more restrictions than a catholic church or synogogue would have. It's just us continuing to be the US.

And the problem with the drone strikes in Pakistan et al isn't the viciousness, it's the fact that those strikes look to be counterproductive. Blowing people up to achieve some sensible goal like ensuring the Germans won't start another world war in a couple more decades is ugly but necessary. Blowing people up because the president triangulated his way into a middle position between the left and right sides of the polling numbers and now can't find a way to disengage that won't cost him votes, that's a hundred times worse than merely viscious.

Whiskey said...

A predator strategy is the bare minimum. Note: it REQUIRES bases and active forces in Afghanistan, in order to launch on minutes notice to nail various AQ/Taliban/unfriendly ISI folks. Who are the same thing. Killing the main organizers of mass jihad attacks is probably the main reason we have not seen a 9/11 style attack.

Let me note that Lawrence Wright documented in "Looming Tower" that AQ since its formation in the mid 1980's has had a wing dedicated to obtaining among other WMDs, chemical weapons. State of the art WMDs in 1915.

And yeah, Steve is out of his depth on security issues. We should kick out most Muslims, but that won't happen (because we cannot even kick out illegal aliens) and in a vast nation of 300 million plus and a vast border, and many ethnicities, even the best police state is vulnerable -- see Russia under Putin.

Whiskey said...

As for Islam, there are considerable converts to Christianity within Islam. Hence considerable martyrdom of those Christians in places like Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, and so on. Muslim women in the West often convert to Christianity. Risking death.

As for European Women, yes some do like Muslim men, after making European men androgynous neuters.

The problem is, that the Muslim world is a technological and economic (outside oil) failure, and modern technology puts Islamabad right next to say, Des Moines. The internet, satellite TV, and everything else shrink the globe.

This shows Muslims how much of a technological/economic failure they are, and how the infidel lives in defiance of Sharia. It really is not about "us" but them. Every ambitious young would-be new leader knows Mohammed made his rep in exile in Medina by attacking caravans. Building an exile army.

Thus the quickest and surest way to win followers and power is not to attack "Mecca" directly but do what Mohammed did -- attack caravans. Which is us. Particularly as Muslims see us as weak, divided, and decadent. No risk.

Being "nice to Muslims" or retreating from their advance is no solution, both only invite more attacks because it projects weakness. Particularly since Muslims feel that America has been in retreat from them since the 1979 Hostage Crisis.

What America needs to do is create fear and respect (within rational limits) in the Muslim world. This is particularly true for Iran, which has overt ambitions in reconstituting the Persian Empire, and acts as the "Protector" of Europe's Muslims, and Pakistan, filled with rivals and factions each seeking power.

Does anyone seriously think that under this President (or even McCain) that if NYC were nuked, by some "group" (Pakistan or Iran did not directly claim it) that we would do anything more than impotent Clintonian missiles?

Rome after the Third Punic War was not troubled by Carthage again, but buying off the Visigoths did not work so well. There's a lesson in that.

Difference Maker said...

If Islam is so bad then:

1. Why are millions converting to it every day?

2. Why do European women like Muslim men?


It's because Islam is a manly, warmongering religion.

I'd convert if I were religious, and I were sure it wouldn't lead to the dark ages. We're having enough trouble avoiding that already

CJ said...

"Does anyone seriously think we'd have a Muslim problem if it weren't for this country's slavish posture vis a vis Israel?"

I do, and no, I am neither Jewish nor a sock puppet for Whiskey/Evil Neocon/Testing99. I simply note that countries like France, Sweden, and Norway, which do not have a "slavish posture vis a vis Israel" nonetheless have Muslim problems.

While we're at it, I also don't believe that the demise of Israel would mean the end, or even the diminishing, of strife in the Middle East. Observe Algeria, racked by 30-plus years of murderous civil war. What exactly does Israel have to do with that? Or any other western country, since Algeria is completely decolonized and independent.

That said, Israel's troubles are primarily Israel's problem, and the USA should act according to its own interests. However, Muslim problems are Muslim-generated. Just because you have no interest in them does not mean they have no interest in you.

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone seriously think we'd have a Muslim problem if it weren't for this country's slavish posture vis a vis Israel?"

You know when the Battle of Tours took place, right?

slyboots said...

32 comments in and nobody has mentioned LW's *important hair"??

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone seriously think we'd have a Muslim problem if it weren't for this country's slavish posture vis a vis Israel?"

This mixes up two separate issues: immigration and foreign policy. Our slavish posture vis a vis Israel causes us foreign policy problems with Muslims, yes, which would go away if we ceased to involve ourselves in such matters. We didn't need an "ally" like Israel in the middle east, because formerly we had no enemies in the middle east. The USA's reputation in the middle east prior to 1967-73 was golden; since then, not so much. This makes anything the USA tries to do in the middle east much harder and more expensive than it has to be, thanks to Israel.

But even if Israel had never existed, we would still have a Muslim problem if we allowed Muslim immigration. Muslims have plenty of other real or imagined or old historical grudges against the West, so they'd simply cite these as reasons for their aggression towards the natives. They act as hostile minorities, hostile to the natives, the same as do other non-white minority groups who have no foreign policy objections to what the USA government does. By letting them in, you're creating a domestic terrorism (and common crime) problem that would not otherwise exist. The point is not to let them into your country in the first place: good fences make good neighbors.

none of the above said...

Sideline innumeracy comment: at a million converts a day, the whole world would be Muslim in about 13 years. When making up numbers to support your arguments, a little numeracy and sense of scale is your friend.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

We should kick out most Muslims, but that won't happen (because we cannot even kick out illegal aliens) and in a vast nation of 300 million plus and a vast border, and many ethnicities, even the best police state is vulnerable -- see Russia under Putin.

Wait a minute. We can project a navy, an air force, an army ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. We can pluck terrorist suspects up from the Middle East and fly them to Syria, Egypt and Cuba for a good working-over. We can build huge bases and embassies and install a puppet government. We faced down the Soviets, globalized Asia, but when it comes to the barbarians in our very gates there's nothing we can do?

How about we stop spending a hundred zillion simoleons a year enforcing other nations' borders and use those resources to enforce our own? I hope you realize people like you are why there won't be an America in a couple of generations.

Has to be said...

"We didn't need an "ally" like Israel in the middle east, because formerly we had no enemies in the middle east. The USA's reputation in the middle east prior to 1967-73 was golden; since then, not so much."

Don't know much about history, do you?

For example, do you know which event is the greatest cause of the Iranians' hatred toward the US (or at least they say so.) Hint: it happened before 1967 and had nothing to do with Israel.

Or take Al Qaeda. Go read Ben Laden's interviews given before about 2003 (better yet, before 9/11). It's clear that what really gets his blood boiling is the fact that the Muslim holy land is ruled by the degenerate, materialistic, pretend-pious Saudi dynasty. He hates USA insofar as we installed the Saudis in the first place and now prop them up. Again, a policy that has nothing to do with Israel (which Bin Laden then hardly ever mentions.)

Svigor said...

We should kick out most Muslims, but that won't happen (because we cannot even kick out illegal aliens)

Erect straw man (kick out illegals, as if anyone cares how or why they leave), then defeat him soundly. A time-honored tactic - like character assassination and the unfounded smear.

Employers tend to follow laws that are enforced. They would overwhelmingly tend not to play reverse-lotto with their livelihoods if they knew it meant asset forfeiture (like it does with drug-dealing).

Suddenly unemployable, a pen-stroke (no more government goodies) would send them all home.

No more illegals, and nobody's been "kicked out."

Take away the carrots, something even cave men understood, is a strategy beyond the ken of immigration-boosters (YES, if you can't put even this much thought into the issue, you're an immigration-booster).

They come here because they know our immigration law enforcement is a joke.

Silver said...

Wieseltier might find comments like the following, which appeared in the New Republic in '92, come back to bite him.

Three cheers, I say, for [complaining Spectator writer's Islamic] neighbors. I hope that they pray noisily, and that they pray five times a day, and that the evening prayer comes just as the Moores and the Mellors are turning to the claret ... It is amusing to watch the colonizers complain about being colonized.

That's the sort of doctrinaire uber-tolerance that you can get away with while people are in the mood for a bit of self-criticism. I'm not sure how much longer after people realize that, yes, they actually are being colonized that mood can endure.

Anonymous said...

So: Cordoba House in New York and a Predator war in Pakistan—graciousness here and viciousness there—this should be our position.

Pretty much the "good for the Jews" position, which just happens to be the exact opposite of the good for the Americans position.

It's interesting how, from the Jewish perspective, Islamic immigration is twice as good as ordinary non-White immigration: not only does it reduce the influence of the White majority, but it increases hostility toward Muslims among Whites which can then be used to furnish support for more wars for Israel! And it provides an outlet for racialist sentiment among Whites that might otherwise be directed elsewhere, such as toward immigration restrictionist movements! Such a deal!

What's amazing is how many seemingly well-intentioned conservatives have been swindled by this anti-Islam crap, thinking that they are "defending the West" by burning Korans and whatnot, when they are really just contributing to their own decline and dispossession.

adfadfasdfasdf said...

The two-faced nature of Jewish politics. Use Christians to bash Muslims OVER THERE while using Muslims to bash Christians OVER HERE. Just like what Jerry Springer does on his show with dumb goyim.