Peace Mongers and Jihadeers
According to a recent news item, Iranian TV entertains its viewers with a weekly ER-like program whose main story line depicts Israeli doctors stealing organs from Arab children.
Israel, as usual, effortlessly lives up to its abysmal reputation. According to another recent news item, Israeli doctors discovered a vaccine restoring the immune system of people suffering from AIDS. It is not a cure since it does not kill the virus. But it partially reverses the devastation inflicted by the virus on the immune system of the sufferer.
With the help of the Israeli vaccine, AIDS patients will be able to lead longer, more normal lives. Among other things, this means they will have more sex partners. As a result, some of their partners will inevitably become infected with HIV.
This will give people of good will all over the world a perfectly valid reason to blame Jews for the spread of AIDS. This also makes all of us, friends of Israel and anti-Semites alike, wonder what miracles Israel would have been able to bestow on humanity had it not had to fight for its life every single day of its existence.
Since, for a number of perfectly obvious reasons, nobody on earth wants Israel to turn into a superpower, even a miniscule one, this explains why the entire world actively supports Israel's enemies, even though Israel's enemies never tried to conceal their hostile intentions towards the entire world. Those intentions are mandated by their religion, which demands that its followers conquer the world, force its inhabitants to convert to Islam, and rule it according to the laws of Sharia.
Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to ponder what would have
happened in Israel or elsewhere had there been peace on earth. Thanks
to peacemongering demagogues of all creeds, the very idea of peace has
finally become an abstraction as unattainable as the idiotic dream of
72 heavenly virgins awaiting every jihadeer in heaven once he receives
his just reward on earth.
More and more commentators agree that the next world war has already begun. They only disagree on its number. Some call it World War III; some others set the number three aside for the Cold War, making this one World War IV. At least one pundit insisted on V, but most experts disagreed. One thing is clear: we have lost count of our world wars.
That's sad, but hardly surprising. When was the last time this planet enjoyed even an hour during which people didn't shoot at each other anywhere in the world? I'll tell you when: exactly one hour before shooting was invented, and that was a very long time ago. Not that there was peace before that either.
Of course, nobody calls it a world war officially. Officially, we
pretend that armed conflicts that flare up wherever Muslims see a
chance to wrestle something from non-Muslims are unrelated to each
other. The fact that Muslims participate in every single one of those
conflicts, can mean one of three things.
First, it can be a coincidence; second, it can be an expression of extreme Islamophobia widespread among the "infidel"; and, finally, it can be jihad on a planetary scale. You must be an idiot to believe the first hypothesis. You must be a Muslim or a liberal to believe the second. Therefore, if you are not an idiot, or a Muslim, or a liberal, you must know by now that all these conflicts are various fronts of jihad. There are simply no other possibilities.
A clever reader wrote to me once that if the nations attacked by Hitler had not resisted his invasion, World War II would have never happened. This is a perfect reflection of the point of view aggressively promoted by peacemongers. The peacemongers define peace as the absence of war. Those who accept this point of view usually usually tend to believe that the Bill of Rights includes the right to an equal income.
I don't accept their definition. European Jews did
not resist Hitler, but their emulation of Gandhi did not save them
from extermination. You may hope that the six million dead Jews have
been enjoying their peace ever since they were murdered, but the truth
is we don't know. They may be forever frozen in the last moments of
their agony. Or they may simply no longer exist. They would have been
better off if they had died fighting, like the Jews of Warsaw did. I
strongly prefer an all-out war to this kind of peace.
Every culture has its own definition of peace. Muslims, for instance,
divide the world into two zones: Dar el Islam, which translates as the
domain of Islam and encompasses the parts of the world ruled by
Muslims, and Dar el Harb, which translates as the domain of war and
comprises the rest of the world.
They equate peace with Islam while designating everything outside it for conquest and destruction. Of course, it would only be destruction from our point of view; from theirs it would be bringing us into Dar el Islam, the domain of peace. Actually, it's even better than that: they believe it would be bringing us back since the entire world belongs to their deity and every human being, beginning with Adam, comes into this world as a Muslim.
As you can see, Muslims do not lie when they call their abominable superstition a religion of peace: according to their definition, it is. We find their definition unsuitable based on statistics rather than religious arguments. According to statistics, most Muslims who die a violent death are killed by other Muslims. I don't want their kind of peace either.
Despite my utmost contempt for Islam and the abysmal way of life it
has generated for its followers, I still believe in the sacred right
of Muslims, along with everyone else on this planet, to live the way
they see fit for themselves as long as they do not interfere with
other people's right to do the same. This is how I define peace: the
freedom of a nation to live according to its own ideas of right and
wrong without imposing those ideas on other nations or having other
nation's ideas forced on them.
I don't approve of "honor killings", of genital mutilations, of public executions for deeds that aren't even considered crimes in our society. However, I don't believe I have a right to object to them as long as I am not forced to participate. Unfortunately, Islam directs the faithful to force me into participation. It's called jihad. It's mandatory. And it's upon us. And practically every armed conflict that goes on earth today is a front of jihad.
Islam assigns different priorities to these fronts. The most important of them all is the genocidal war of Arabs against Israel known around the world as the Middle East peace process. Although, at first glance, the term may seem Orwellian, it makes perfect sense according to the peacemongers' definition of peace. Without Israel, Arabs would not have been forced to conduct their genocidal war against Israel, and, therefore, there would have been peace in the Middle East.
Therefore, the process of destruction of Israel is a peace process according to their definition. As you can see, it is, as always, Israel's own fault, even though Israel is probably the only country in the world that has not committed an act of aggression in the last 2,000 years.
There is a reason why even the US-led invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq are not as dangerous to Islam as the peaceful wellbeing of a tiny Jewish state. Of course, the United States wields sufficient military might to direct the wrath of Allah on the heads of the believers. Compare, for example, the Gulf War of 1991 with the recent tsunami.
In both cases, the majority of the dead were Muslims, although, according to some sources, the death toll of the war was greater. But while the tsunami was an act of God (and those who feel like blaming it on the Jews only demonstrate that even in the eyes of anti-Semites, Jews are closer to God than they are), the war was entirely our doing.
And we didn't even use our most fearsome weapons. I often think that if we could conduct exit interviews for Iraqi soldiers killed during their hasty retreat from Kuwait, the Islamic theology would be changed forever. But even without it, Muslims have a huge reason to fear the United States of America. At the same time, if the superpower never uses the most feared weapons in its arsenal, not even to retaliate for the most devastating attack it has ever suffered, the existence of such weapons can no longer serve as a deterrent.
Besides, Muslims know that no power can remain a superpower forever. Superpowers come, make lots of noise, replace rulers, redraw borders, shed some blood, and, eventually, fade away, unable to even scratch the surface of the eternal stagnation of Dar el Islam.
Israel is a different matter. Arabs outnumber Jews to such a degree
that one would expect them to be able to stamp Israel out by simply
walking across it unarmed. And yet, they have miserably failed to win
any of their wars against it.
Israel survives in their murderous midst, vibrant, prosperous, democratic, attracting tourists and immigrants even during its hardest times, while Arabs, no matter what happens to them, remain essentially the same savage tribesmen they were many centuries ago, before they deprived themselves of any hope for a meaningful future by opting to follow their pedophile non-prophet.
Arabs and Jews sharing common genes and living next to each other should be living similarly. Instead, there is a contrast more striking than the contrast between a cancerous growth and the sound of Yehuda Menuhin's violin.
No matter how you may prefer to explain the disparity, as long as Israel is alive, it remains living proof of the pathetic impotence of Islam in all areas of life that extend beyond murder of the defenseless.
There are two ways to win a competition: one is to excel, the other
is to eliminate the competitors. That presents Muslims with a
difficult dilemma: on the one hand, other people's excellence is
perceived by them as an insult to their religion; on the other, Islam
dismisses excellence in earthly affairs as sinful vanity.
The only way to solve this dilemma for a faithful Muslim is murder, or, even better, mass murder. It is important for us to understand that the Arab war against Israel is not a temporary thing. It is a manifestation of Dar el Islam's inherent incompatibility with Dar el Harb.
It won't stop by itself. It cannot be stopped by giving the Arabs something that shouldn't be theirs, like the annual stipend of $2 billion dollar paid by the United States to Egypt since 1973 for not attacking Israel, or handing Gaza, Judea, and Samaria to a terrorist organization that should have been eliminated to the last member decades ago.
A military victory of Israel over the Arab terrorist organization or any country supporting that organization, including even France and Germany, won't stop it either. Jihad, the war against the "infidels", is the core of Islam.
The most hated "infidels" of them all are Jews. Therefore, there will be no peace in the Middle East until either Israel is erased from the map or Islam is globally defeated to the degree that will make jihad an impossibility.
I wish there was a third alternative. I wish it was possible to
reform Islam into something peaceful. That would inevitably mean
forswearing jihad. Unfortunately, it you take away jihad out of Islam,
all that will be left is a collection of rituals as meaningless as
Sh'ma Yisroel delivered by a parrot. Islam is the ideology of jihad
just like Nazism is the ideology of conquest and enslavement.
The two express their ideas in very different terms, but conquest and enslavement are nevertheless the essence of both. There are two major differences between them: one is that Islam is much older, the other is that while Nazis saluted their idol by raising their arms, Muslims do it by raising their behinds.
What matters however is that, given the opportunity, both of them will kill you, your parents, and your children and will do it with a righteous glee, as if doing a mitzvah.
I know how difficult it is for a Western reader to take this
literally. I am an enemy of Islam the same way and for the same reason
that I am an enemy of Nazism; you might be right to doubt my
objectivity. Frankly, I am not even trying to pretend that I am being
objective; under the circumstances, it's perfectly enough to be
truthful. That's why I urge you not to limit your reading to my
There are plenty of great authors that are more familiar with the facts than I am: Hugh Fitzgerald, Daniel Pipes, and Alyssa Lappen are the first names that come to mind. But they are also enemies of Islam, so don't trust them either. Read the Koran and Hadith; go to Islamic web sites; read online English editions of their newspapers.
I promise you, what you will find there is hundreds of times more grotesque than anything I can possibly bring to your attention. I urge you to do it: we must know the enemy.
If I am right and the only alternative to the destruction of Israel and our entire civilization is the global defeat of Islam, the next most important question is: How practical is it to expect it to happen?
So, here's the question: Can we defeat Islam?
I won't keep you in suspense. Here is my answer: We could if we had
the will, but we don't and so we can't. This pains me more than I can
possibly tell. I keep saying that the six million defenseless,
unarmed, harmless Jews would have been better off if they had died
resisting the Germans in whatever tiny, totally impractical way they
What can I say then about the most powerful country in the world that is able to smite its enemies the way God Himself wouldn't want to top, but prefers to keep its hands clean and, as a result, perish?
The gentleman for whom I was working in 2001 had a TV set in his office. On the morning of September 11, he opened the door and invited everyone in. The invitation was uncharacteristically informal and had obvious notes of urgency in it. We crowded in and watched the attack live. As the horrible events unfolded, one of my coworkers, a Vietnam vet, his face pale, his lips trembling, said,
"I am afraid of what's gonna happen now."
"Why?" I asked.
"We're gonna nuke them," he said. "There is no way around it."
Every now and then, something reminds me of that brief
conversation. The more I think about what he said, the more respect I
feel for the guy. He knew right away that a terrible retribution was
absolutely necessary, and he was ready to support it, but he did not
feel elated at the prospect; instead, he was terrified by it. His
sentiment immediately betrays him as a non-Muslim.
Actually, he was Roman Catholic, but that's not important in the context of the event. A Protestant, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an agnostic, an atheist, and even the most contemptible of all God's creatures, a Jew, would feel the same way. That pretty much defines the basic difference between Muslims and the rest of us. Nobody can push us to the point where we would celebrate death, because no such point exists.
Unfortunately, my colleague did not moonlight as a foreign policy adviser for President Bush. The next day, declaring his War on Terror, the president pointedly announced that the war was not against Islam. Mecca, Medina, Qum, and other unholy places of our enemy were in no danger even for a split second. Thus, President Bush repeated the tragic mistake of President Carter who, in 1979, miserably failed to provide an adequate response to the Iranian aggression against the United States.
I've heard a rumor recently that there was no major attack on the United States after 9/11, because the president threatened to nuke Mecca in retaliation. I find this rumor hard to believe.
First, our next president is not going to be bound by quiet promises made by this administration to our Muslim "allies", especially considering that our next president is, most probably, going to be a Democrat. Therefore, this deterrent is going to work only for the next 4 years, which means that we all live on borrowed time.
Besides, Mecca is located in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, despite its well-known ideological and financial support for terrorism, inexplicably remains on the list of our allies. Prince Abdullah, the de facto ruler of the kingdom, is our president's personal friend. (Tell me who your friends are?) I seriously doubt that the president is ready to take such drastic measures against his bosom buddy's country.
There are many other considerations. But let us believe for a
moment that despite all the drawbacks, President Bush has chosen this
particular threat as a deterrent. Suppose the Muslims nevertheless
attack us again, and we, within hours, obliterate Mecca.
Imagine also that a few hours later, a little-known group of South American (and, therefore, Christian) revolutionaries claims responsibility for the terrorist attack on the United States. That would immediately make the long-term (say, 24 hours) survival of the administration awfully problematic. That's why the retribution will not follow the attack immediately. The nuking of Mecca will be inevitably preceded by a "due process".
In a grave matter like this, the "due process" will take years and, without doubt, will become public knowledge. Use your imagination. By the time it's over, Bush will be retired and Mecca will be the safest place on earth, just as it is today. Consider it an example of protection Allah, the all-merciful, grants to those who preach mass murder in his name.
Having said that, I still believe that announcing to the entire
God's universe the presence of intelligent life on this planet by
making Mecca glow all the way from here to Alpha Centauri and beyond
would have been the most appropriate immediate reaction to 9/11.
Among other things, it would have provided a deterrent that no one would dare to call a bluff. Thanks to the Muslim fatalistic belief that not a single hair can fall from a man's head without the will of Allah, it might even trigger a process of revision of the Islamic dogma that would eventually turn the devil worship it is today into "just another religion."
That, of course, would effectively amount to the eradication of Islam, since, without jihad, Islam is nothing but a set of meaningless rituals.
Instead of eradicating Islam, however, the United States decided to
enhance it with democracy. I have, on several occasions, expressed my
utter skepticism at the prospects of the success of such an
Despite the wide-spread belief (especially among the Europeans) in Mr. Bush's stupidity, I see no reason to assume that he is any more na�ve than I am. Therefore, all his talk about democracy in Dar el Islam is nothing but normal political double-speak.
If this is so, we must ask what he really has in mind while sacrificing the lives of American soldiers (and Israeli soldiers and civilians) to conduct elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and, unbelievably, among the Arab terrorists occupying Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
I think I know the answer, and I don't like it at all. I think
President Bush is merely trying to replace bad Muslim leaders with
good ones. A good Muslim leader is apparently defined as someone with
whom Colin Powell can work towards achieving American goals in the
region. And what exactly are te American goals in the region? We are
not after their oil, which is a pity.
We can't possibly hope to bring Afghan and Iraqi rocket scientists to the United States, like we did with Wernher von Braun after defeating Germany in World War II. What's left? Democracy in the Middle East, I guess?
So, tell me please, why every logically possible alternative to the eradication of Islam inevitably leads either to a fiasco (like Papa Bush's attempt to tame Saddam) or an absurdity?
Our policy towards Dar el Islam is most certainly an absurdity. Its
most damaging part is that it completely ignores the very worst danger
this country is currently facing.
That danger transcends the destruction of our landmarks and even the loss of lives of our citizens. It threatens the very existence of this great country. It does not come from Islamic militants. It comes from those who, in the eyes of peacemongers and useful idiots, personify the concept of a "moderate Muslim."
Of course, there are Al Qaeda sleeper cells in this country,
waiting for their marching orders from Osama bin Laden and his
lieutenants. But as long as they remain sleeping, they do no real
harm, and as soon as they wake up, they are liable to be detected and
Many of them will never strike at all. Few of them will be able to strike more than once. (Although those who tried to disseminate anthrax remain at large.)
They are deadly dangerous, but not as dangerous as the ongoing "peaceful" invasion of this country by "moderate" Muslims. They undermine this country without doing anything illegal, and that makes us defenseless against them.
If you doubt that they constitute a clear and present danger to the very existence of the United States of America, take a good look at the gradual transformation of Europe into Eurabia. Today, European cities have turned into safe havens for terrorists, but terrorists did not transform the cradle of our civilization into a province of the Caliphate. Europe was invaded and conquered by perfectly peaceful Muslims without a single shot fired, without a single law violated.
If you think that the United States is immune to the cancer of
"moderate" Islam, you are sadly mistaken. The number of Muslims in
this country is steadily growing, thanks both to immigration and
conversion. In fact, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the
United States. Their influence is growing as well.
It's easy to dismiss an Arab grocer in your neighborhood as just another backward immigrant whose children will grow up to be as American as apple pie. It's impossible to dismiss their growing presence on faculties of the best American schools where they spread the poison of anti-Semitism mixed with anti-American propaganda.
To be fair, they drop their poisonous seeds into the soil carefully fertilized for them by legions of useful idiots, with Jews prominently standing out among them.
We can't touch them. They are protected by the First Amendment, by the sanctity of academic freedom, by the ACLU, by our ignorant misconceptions ("Islam is just another religion", "There are no bad nations, only bad leaders"), by our own willingness to put up with anything at all as long as our hands remain clean. Well, here's the good news. Our hands will be practically sterile when they bury us.
From time to time, the FBI discovers that a Muslim professor or a
Muslim "charity" has ties with terrorists. The professor gets
handcuffed and escorted to jail where he will be met by an
enthusiastic herd of lawyers, many of whom are bound to be Jewish.
The "charity" will be closed; its organizers will have their wrists slapped; and, a few weeks later, they will reopen under a different name. (The true purpose of Muslim "charities" in this country and elsewhere has been greatly clarified by the recent tsunami whose victims, mostly Muslims, are being assisted by people of Dar el Harb, while Dar el Islam dutifully attends to the more urgent business of jihad.)
An article that appeared on November 17 in the Times of London, described how imams in German mosques routinely preach hatred towards the Germans. This aroused my curiosity as to the goings on inside American mosques. Surely American mullahs and their congregants pray to Allah to be merciful to American soldiers fighting to liberate Iraq from the stranglehold of terrorists and to destroy enemies of this country. Or do they?
It isn't easy, by the way, to satisfy this kind of curiosity. While
you, regardless of your religion or ethnicity, would be welcome in any
church, synagogue, or Buddhist temple, mosques do not normally extend
their hospitality to the "infidel".
In fact, Muslims believe that the mere presence of an "infidel" on the premises desecrates the mosque. Furthermore, some of them seriously think that until the violator is killed for his crime, the mosque cannot be cleansed. I suppose that different mosques exercise different strictness in defending themselves from unwanted visitors, and, in some of them, your life will not be threatened with imminent extinction.
Nevertheless, I strongly recommend that you do not attempt to visit a friendly mosque in your multicultural neighborhood: better safe than sorry.
There are facts, however, that can give you a hint as to how Muslim preachers influence their congregants. For example, in the course of our war in Iraq, every act of treason committed in the US military was committed by a Muslim soldier.
I would like to emphasize once again that my call for the
eradication of Islam does not constitute a call for genocide against
Muslims. Remember that Nazism was eradicated without genocide against
the German population.
Nor do I call for indiscriminate sanctions against the entire Muslim population of this country. While every anti-Semite will tell you that some of his best friends are Jewish, I can do better than that, because some of my closest blood relatives are Muslim. (What else can you possibly expect from a Jew hiding behind a Japanese pen name?)
And yes, I do have Muslim friends. The absolute majority of Muslims I know personally are truly wonderful people. They are bright, decent and trustworthy. They are pleasant, and warm, and nice to be around. And they cook much better than most Americans I know, including even myself.
In a way, these people took 9/11 harder than most of us, because, for no fault of their own, they felt partially responsible for the atrocity.
Fortunately, it is very easy to tell good Muslims from bad ones.
You see, my Muslim friends and relatives never set foot inside a
mosque. They are not observant. An unobservant Muslim can be a friend
of this country or its enemy, just like a Christian or a Jew.
An observant Muslim does not have that choice, simply because Islam commands him to live according to the laws of Sharia rather than the Constitution of the United States, and these two sets of laws are as incompatible as Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb.
In fact, according to Daniel Pipes, leaders of some, presumably "moderate" Islamic organizations in the United States, admit that their long term goal is to replace the Constitution with Sharia. In simple terms, it means conversion of this country into another Muslim state. This is exactly what every observant Muslim wants.
But the Constitution does not allow the government to outlaw Islam
or to prosecute people on the basis of their religion. Neither are we
prepared to demand that the government treat Islamic institutions the
same way it would have treated Nazi institutions had the Nazis tried
to open them on our soil during World War II.
Therefore, we cannot defeat Islam. Therefore, Islam will defeat us, and one day soon, we will wake up to discover that all our sacred freedoms are gone and we have become dhimmis in our own land.
Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology
consultant, who can be contacted at email@example.com. The
author's recent essays can be read on the Yashiko webpage of the
Middle East Facts website
- Eurabia: The road to Munich (and Destruction of Europe by Islam)
- Dhimmitude in Virginia: Teaching Ramadan in public schools
- Europe will be Islamic by the End of the (21st) Century
- The Swiss Ban on Minarets: A Possible Turning Point (Against Islam)
- Islamism 2.0 - an even greater threat (than Islamic Terrorism)
- Fear of Islam is not Islamophobia
- Europeans Victims of (Muslim) Colonialism
- Deist Examination of Islamic Trinity
- Mohammed the Man as Islamic Ideology
- Why Muslims Can't Build a Lightbulb
- Bacon is not a Hate Crime
- Press Tries to Cover Up Muslim Violence
» Archive 1 » Archive 2 » Archive 3
» Archive 4 » Archive 5 » Archive 6
» Archive 7 » Archive 8 » Archive 9