As long as Muslims continue to reap rewards for their aggression, it will accelerate. The above headline is only an extreme example of the widespread phenomenon. Here is another: one of the Danish cartoonists in hiding has decided to donate money to Muslims as a way of proving to them he means them no harm. Even one of my favorite bloggers has termed this appeasement "classy."
Of course, this phenomenom can be seen on a national scale:
It is universally believed in the Muslim world that 9/11 led to a wave of American conversions to Islam, seemingly confirming bin Laden's argument about people gravitating toward the "strong horse." Even Israel, facing an open campaign of genocide, has decided to pay money to Hamas through the PA. The US, as well, has responded to attack from the Muslim World by paying money to "moderates," who are defined as those who make weak anti-terror gestures in English while inciting terror in Arabic.
Even the most skillful conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer, can propose no greater response to Hamas' genocidal ambitions than financial cuts. (Otherwise the column is an absolute must-read, despite it being mostly a repriese of IRIS points made weeks earlier.)
Hamas' response to the debate over whether to lower its funding?
So what is the solution? The problem must first be understood. Mainstream Islam has, from the start, been about conquering the world. While the word "Islam" is generally translated as "submission," it literally means "to cause to submit," i.e. through conquest. The reason Muslims historically stopped their invasion of the West was defeat because of an utter mismatch in power. According to classical Muslim thought, jihad should be waged from a position of strength. When weak, regroup, gather strength, and then attack.
What bin Laden and the Islamists such as Hamas have shown is that Western strength has three Achilles' heels:
-The West will not defend itself if attacks are not made by an official army.
-Only the Muslim World is willing to kill enemy civilians.
-Westerners are afraid of death, which makes them vulnerable to blackmail in a nuclear standoff.
The debate between moderates and radicals is a tactical one. Is Islam strong enough to resume active jihad? The bold successes of the radicals has swayed large percentages of Muslims to agree. This can most readily be seen in the Palestinian areas. A majority of Palestinians did not suddenly convert to the "radical" Hamas ideology. They simply became convinced that the aggressive approach led to the retreat of the strongest military (per-capita) on earth from Gaza and Lebanon. This is why what happens in Israel has enormous, immediate implications for the safety of the West.
Only by confronting the new type of aggression with overwhelming force will the traditional Muslim belief of waiting to pursue jihad once again prevail. Currently we are largely denying the problem exists and not even punishing the most aggressive jihadists in a meaningful way.
Red Ken continues to incite
London mayor Ken Livingstone is continuing his anti-Israel incitement, this time by going so far as to offend the victims of the Munich massacre
Weblog: Tel-Chai Nation Tracked: Feb 09, 18:36
Outrage Over Danish Cartoons is Not "Hypocritical"
Here is a must-read by Charles Krauthammer that misses an important point:
As much of the Islamic world erupts in a studied frenzy over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, there are voices of reason being heard on both sides. Some Islamic leaders and organizat
Weblog: IRIS Blog Tracked: Feb 10, 15:18
Jackie Mason on the Cartoon Jihad
"I never saw a Jew going into meaningless fights. That is why there are also no Jewish hockey players. Hockey players spend all their time hitting each other in the mouth with sticks. When Jews saw how Gentiles played ho