War Against the Jihad

Why a Democrat Will Not be Leading The War Against Islamofascism Anytime Soon…….

The reasons are legion, but if anything can describe the current malaise effecting the Democratic party, is that they act more Eurabian than American. The current Democratic party lacks the traditional American resolve that has thwarted many a foe, and is typified by their pandering to a defeatist mentality. The current administration has its share of faults and shows some dangerous signs of wavering as it heads into its final year. That said, by comparison, the Bush administration stands much taller than anything the Democrats could have achieved during the past seven years.

It’s only out of outside pressure that the Bush administration has (wrongly) caved in to the Left’s vision that we are once again waging a “War on Terror”. The badly misnaming (once again) of what the free world is fighting against, shows that even the most determined of leaders can fall prey to the PC crowd echo chamber, in refusing to identify the enormous elephant standing in the room.

The global war against the Islamist jihad ideology is the fight of this century, and that demands that we choose wisely who is going to lead us in that fight. There are many who say that we need to focus once again on keeping this a matter of international policing, and work to build bridges with the Islamic world in order to stave off a future generation of Islamic terrorists. Oops, I already committed a PC no no, by connecting the word terrorism with Islam, but too bad.

We already have examples coming from both the Democrat and Republican parties, that show just how far from the realm of reality these potential leaders actually are. Democratic senator from N.Carolina, John Edwards, believes that the “War On Terror” is not real, but merely an ideological “bumper sticker“, while the Republicans have the embarrassment of Ron Paul as a member within their ranks, who is an isolationist of the extreme kind. The former declares that the foe does not exist while the latter wants the US to draw up behind fortress America, because he believes the US has been on the receiving end of “blow back” due to its foreign policy over the past two decades.

I say nonsense to the lot of it. The sole reason why the enemy (Islamonazis) “hates the US and the west, is not due to anything we have done or not have done, but that they sense a window of opportunity in this moment of history, to advance their Islamist agenda through the utilization of the jihad ideology. The jihad ideology is not an errant “modern” reinterpretation of Islam, but a resuscitation of one of Islam’s guiding principles. The subjugation of the infidel, whether through conversion, paying of the jizya (poll or dhimmi tax) or the death of the non-believer has always remained an intricate part in the spreading of Islam.

The fact is, the Jihadist Ideology has remained dormant until the pushing out of the Soviets from Afghanistan in 1989, coupled with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini as the head of the Islamic Shiite Republic. The Saudis have helped to further the current “Islamic Crusades” with the funding of Sunni jihadi terrorists, mosques and madras’s around the world, in order to compete with the Shiites for an eventual Sunni domination of Islam. This is what is happening in our world today. The rise of violent, radical Islamism is something that others would have us to believe, is the fault of the west, a result of our own meddling in the Arab/Muslim world.

This naive understanding is far from the truth and reflects a complete disregard for the factual reading of history. The newly found self assertiveness in the heart of Islam, is once again feeling that “an opportunity is at hand” to create enough momentum that will create a world wide caliphate, and place Islam once again in the drivers seat that it has lost decades, if not centuries ago. This thinking finds wide appeal amongst many within the Islamic world, though many might disagree with the ways and means in achieving it. Nonetheless, the eventual goal of Islam finding a permanent position of power and authority throughout the world enjoys strong support by many of the world’s Muslims.

That is the reason why the US needs political leaders not only willing to say the obvious, but enact policies that will counter the threat that an unreformed Islam poses for not only the west, but for the whole world itself. While many in the US are rightly upset or disappointed with some of the current Republican administration’s policies, they will be even more upset when the jihadists come knocking at their doors or blowing them up in their pizza parlors or dance clubs. Right now however, the candidates being fielded by the Democrats do not have “the right stuff”, and be election time, the American people will realize it. *L* KGS

6 Responses

  1. The only candidate in EITHER party who seems willing to confront the Saudi petrochemical lobby is Rudy Giuliani. Beyond him, there really isn’t anyone.

    I’d also add that for all their shortcomings, some Democrats might treat homeland security more seriously than our present administration.

    The Bush Administration couldn’t even get a conviction on Sami Al-Arian. Man! That’s pathetic!

  2. I would fault the lawyers that inundated the jurors with way too much to decide on.

    Homeland security perhaps is an achilles heel for the Repubs, but there has been no shortage of calls from the Dems to repeal huge portions of it.

    Besides, that is only one side of the war against Islamofascism/jihadist ideology, the determination to take the battle to them, is noticable absent on the other side of the aisle.

  3. I am only vaguely familiar with past US presidents, but Harry Truman seems to me a reasonably good Democratic president.

    The problem with Democrats is the fact that their main agenda has usually little to do with America’s global role but they tend to concentrate on domestic matters. Therefore, their foreign policy tends to be reactive and the influence of State department becomes stronger than it would with a Republican administration.

    Still, I don’t think Hillary Clinton would be a disaster in terms of foreign policy, but I do think that Giuliani is a better option and he will be better equipped to push through the American interest in World affairs.

  4. Thanks for the comment Phil,

    The jihadists are not just picking on the United States, more Muslims by far have died at the hands of these murderers than non-Muslims.

    The US is viewed as being a paper tiger –until the recent drubbing they have received in Iraq– and as the linch pin that keeps their movement from gaining steam.

    If the US is handed a series of devestating defeats world wide, then al-Qaida and other like minded islamonazis who rally around the pirate flag of jihad will be that much closer in realizing their dream of an Islam on the rise with a world wide caliphate waiting in the wings.

    Sound “far fetched”? As nonsensical as it sounds to the ear of a non-Muslim westerner living in the modern age, these people are deadly serious.

    Oh, one more point, the Brits have been attacked as well as the Spanish, plots are being uncovered all the time in the west. If not for the military ops around the world that find these jihadists lap tops and other information that they have on themselves or left behind, there would be more attacks in Europe and the US.

    We are in this for the long haul, with Iraq and Afghanistan being just the beginning.

  5. Basically, the Jihad was reborn once the Muslims acquired enough guns, money and know how to take the West on some terms. God forbid if they really got together and built a decent army too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *