In order to understand Al Qaeda, it is not enough to watch videotapes of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri understand that these will be translated into English and read in the West.
In order to understand them, one must read that which was not intended for Western consumption. One must read what they wrote, in Arabic, to the Muslim world.
Fortunately, a book entitled The Al Qaeda Reader allows one to do exactly that. It is a collection of English translations of Al Qaeda's most fundamental texts. It is Al Qaeda's version of Mein Kampf.
If you read these texts, you will immediately understand that Al Qaeda's war against us is total, absolute, and utterly uncompromising. It is not limited to any one country or issue. Rather, Al Qaeda's war aim is nothing less than the conversion of the entire world to Islam. Osama Bin Laden's offer to the US to end his war against us if we agree to convert was serious. Until the West converts, agrees to pay Jizya to Muslims, or destroys Al Qaeda, the war will continue.
The first essay in the Al Qaeda Reader was written by Osama Bin Laden. The essay was motivated by an exchange of letters between American and Saudi intellectuals. The Americans started the exchange with a letter entitled What We're Fighting For. It was an affirmation of American values and an explanation of the American response to September 11. The Saudis replied with a letter entitled How We Can Coexist. It welcomed a dialogue with Americans and explained certain points of agreement and disagreement with the American letter.
Bin Laden was deeply offended by the Saudi letter, not least by its title. He therefore wrote an open letter to the Saudis entitled Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West.
Bin Laden gets right to the point in his opening sentence:
Praise be to Allah, who said: "O People of the Book [Christians and Jews], let us reach an agreement: that we worship none beside Allah, nor assign partners to Him, nor take each other as masters in place of Allah.
The essay -- and in the English translation, it is 40 pages long -- repeats, restates, and expands on this point, over and over. The following passages illustrate:
What the West desires is that we abandon the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity [Zawahiri's doctrine that Muslims must be loyal to each other and hate non-Muslims], and offensive Jihad [the struggle to force non-Muslims to convert or pay Jizya]. That is the very essence of their request and desire of us. Do the intellectuals, then, think it's actually possible for Muslims to abandon these two commandments and simply to coexist with the West?
Battle, animosity and hatred -- directed from the Muslim to the Infidel -- is the foundation of our religion. The West perceives fighting, emnity, and hatred all for the sake of religion as unjust, hostile, and evil. But whose understanding of justice and righteousness is right -- our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?
Furthermore, how can [the Saudi intellectuals] claim that we have no right to force a people to change its particular values, when they transgress the bounds of nature? Such are lies. In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the land of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their system of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Sharia from being publically voiced . . . .
Having read these passages, you should not fool yourself. Al Qaeda will not be satisfied by American withdrawal from Iraq, from Afghanistan, or by any other concession, short of American conversion to Islam, or agreement to pay Jizya. Instead, these partial concessions will merely encourage Al Qaeda, smelling success, to step up its war against us.
This is not a pleasant truth, or a truth Americans want to hear. But it is the truth. As a nation, we must make our decisions based on that which is real, not based on that which we wish were real. We must understand the truth of Al Qaeda's intentions, accept it, and act on it. That is not the path we want to follow, and it is not an easy path. But if we wish to maintain our values, it is the only path that is open to us.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
John McCain for President
I am coming off the fence and declaring my support for John McCain. He has been right very often:
In 2003, McCain says more troops are needed in Iraq.
In 2004, McCain says that more troops are needed in Iraq.
In 2005, McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq.
In 2006, McCain says more troops are needed to stabilize Iraq.
In 2007, McCain is a supporter of more troops in Iraq.
McCain calls for Alberto Gonzales to resign.
McCain believes that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.
McCain believes in evolution
McCain supports NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and WTO, and opposes subsidies
McCain is against earmarks -- and doesn't even try to get them for his own state.
McCain says that rising costs are the fundamental issue facing American health care -- and adds that he will not tolerate deceptive practices by the industry.
McCain supports the death penalty.
Is he right about everything? No. There are some issues where he is half right:
McCain is against medical maraijuana -- but at least he doesn't want to arrest very sick people for using it.
On gay rights, he is all over the place. One gets the feeling that he wants to support it, but knows it would anger a lot of his supporters. Even Mr. Straight Talk sometimes makes the politically expedient decision.
McCain would be comfortable with a gay President.
McCain supports gay marraige.
McCain opposes gay marraige.
McCain supports leaving gay marraige to the states.
And on a few issues he is wrong:
McCain generally opposes abortion rights.
McCain opposes gun control.
Overall, McCain is right far more often than he is wrong. And he is right about the most important issue. A withdrawal from Iraq would be wrong, wrong, wrong, dead wrong; possibly as dramatically and disastrously wrong as Neville Chamberlain's surrender of the Sudetenland to Hitler. Therefore, I support John McCain for President.
In 2003, McCain says more troops are needed in Iraq.
In 2004, McCain says that more troops are needed in Iraq.
In 2005, McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq.
In 2006, McCain says more troops are needed to stabilize Iraq.
In 2007, McCain is a supporter of more troops in Iraq.
McCain calls for Alberto Gonzales to resign.
McCain believes that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.
McCain believes in evolution
McCain supports NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and WTO, and opposes subsidies
McCain is against earmarks -- and doesn't even try to get them for his own state.
McCain says that rising costs are the fundamental issue facing American health care -- and adds that he will not tolerate deceptive practices by the industry.
McCain supports the death penalty.
Is he right about everything? No. There are some issues where he is half right:
McCain is against medical maraijuana -- but at least he doesn't want to arrest very sick people for using it.
On gay rights, he is all over the place. One gets the feeling that he wants to support it, but knows it would anger a lot of his supporters. Even Mr. Straight Talk sometimes makes the politically expedient decision.
McCain would be comfortable with a gay President.
McCain supports gay marraige.
McCain opposes gay marraige.
McCain supports leaving gay marraige to the states.
And on a few issues he is wrong:
McCain generally opposes abortion rights.
McCain opposes gun control.
Overall, McCain is right far more often than he is wrong. And he is right about the most important issue. A withdrawal from Iraq would be wrong, wrong, wrong, dead wrong; possibly as dramatically and disastrously wrong as Neville Chamberlain's surrender of the Sudetenland to Hitler. Therefore, I support John McCain for President.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Duke University still doesn't get it
When you've wronged someone, try to silence them. That's how Duke is handling the aftermath of the Lacrosse case.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Doomed to repeat it?
The West may be on the verge of repeating one of the greatest blunders of history. Let us look at the similarities between Al Qaeda and the Nazis:
1. Before 1938, Hitler had set forth his plans for Europe. (Mein Kampf) Hitler openly said that he wanted to defeat France then turn on Russia to get living space for the German people.
1. Al Qaeda has set forth its plans too. (letter from Zarqawi to Al Qaeda) (Letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi). In these letters, Al Qaeda discusses its plans -- to slaughter innocent Shiites in order to get the US to leave Iraq; and Zawahiri's plan, after the US is kicked out of Iraq, to establish a government there and, once that government is strong enough, to use it to create a "Jihad wave" in neighboring countries.
2. Before, 1938, the Nazis' murderous nature was already perfectly clear. (Night of the Long Knives; Kristallnacht)
2. Today, Al Qaeda's murderous nature is also well established (September 11; slaughter of 500 Yazidis by truck bomb; Africa embassy bombings)
3. In 1938, Hitler promised peace if he could only have part of Czechoslovakia. (at 3:30-3:50 in the video).
3. In 2006. Osama bin Laden promised a long-term truce if the US will only pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and leave them under the control of Al Qaeda.
4. In 1938, the leader of the free world was Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain was a pacifist. His convictions were deep and sincere -- he was even working on a book entitled "the struggle for peace"
4. In 2008, the leader of the free world is George W. Bush. He is not a pacifist. But Barack Obama has a good chance of becoming the next leader of the free world. He is a pacifist. And his plans for handling foreign policy bear an eerie resemblance to Chamberlain's.
5. In 1938, Chamberlain met with Hitler in an effort to solve Europe's problems.
5. Obama has said that if he is elected, he will meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
6. In 1938, Chamberlain's solution was to give Hitler control of part of Czechoslovakia in return for a promise of peace.
6. Today, Obama promises that if elected, he will pull US troops out of Iraq. This is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants and was one of his preconditions for a "long term truce". Obama does also say that he will maintain some troops in the region for "targeted strikes" on Al Qaeda (in case Al Qaeda follows its stated plan of setting up a base in Iraq after US withdrawal). However, the realism of this approach is highly questionable. With lots of US troops in Iraq, the locals can feel confident in fighting against Al Qaeda. A few US troops at a far-away base would not inspire the same confidence.
In 1938, at Munich, the free world surrendered part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in return for a false promise of peace. At the time, the decision was widely popular.
Today, there is a dangerous possibility that the US will surrender in Iraq, leaving the way open for Al Qaeda to take control of much or all of the country. This would be done in the false hope that it would bring peace. If the US does this, the decision will be widely popular.
Are we doomed to repeat history?
1. Before 1938, Hitler had set forth his plans for Europe. (Mein Kampf) Hitler openly said that he wanted to defeat France then turn on Russia to get living space for the German people.
1. Al Qaeda has set forth its plans too. (letter from Zarqawi to Al Qaeda) (Letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi). In these letters, Al Qaeda discusses its plans -- to slaughter innocent Shiites in order to get the US to leave Iraq; and Zawahiri's plan, after the US is kicked out of Iraq, to establish a government there and, once that government is strong enough, to use it to create a "Jihad wave" in neighboring countries.
2. Before, 1938, the Nazis' murderous nature was already perfectly clear. (Night of the Long Knives; Kristallnacht)
2. Today, Al Qaeda's murderous nature is also well established (September 11; slaughter of 500 Yazidis by truck bomb; Africa embassy bombings)
3. In 1938, Hitler promised peace if he could only have part of Czechoslovakia. (at 3:30-3:50 in the video).
3. In 2006. Osama bin Laden promised a long-term truce if the US will only pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and leave them under the control of Al Qaeda.
4. In 1938, the leader of the free world was Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain was a pacifist. His convictions were deep and sincere -- he was even working on a book entitled "the struggle for peace"
4. In 2008, the leader of the free world is George W. Bush. He is not a pacifist. But Barack Obama has a good chance of becoming the next leader of the free world. He is a pacifist. And his plans for handling foreign policy bear an eerie resemblance to Chamberlain's.
5. In 1938, Chamberlain met with Hitler in an effort to solve Europe's problems.
5. Obama has said that if he is elected, he will meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
6. In 1938, Chamberlain's solution was to give Hitler control of part of Czechoslovakia in return for a promise of peace.
6. Today, Obama promises that if elected, he will pull US troops out of Iraq. This is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants and was one of his preconditions for a "long term truce". Obama does also say that he will maintain some troops in the region for "targeted strikes" on Al Qaeda (in case Al Qaeda follows its stated plan of setting up a base in Iraq after US withdrawal). However, the realism of this approach is highly questionable. With lots of US troops in Iraq, the locals can feel confident in fighting against Al Qaeda. A few US troops at a far-away base would not inspire the same confidence.
In 1938, at Munich, the free world surrendered part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in return for a false promise of peace. At the time, the decision was widely popular.
Today, there is a dangerous possibility that the US will surrender in Iraq, leaving the way open for Al Qaeda to take control of much or all of the country. This would be done in the false hope that it would bring peace. If the US does this, the decision will be widely popular.
Are we doomed to repeat history?
The sheer stupidity of the Democrats on free trade
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lately been arguing over who is more anti-NAFTA. The argument is two-fold: NAFTA allegedly costs Americans jobs. Additionally, both have said they think the US should have gotten a "better deal" from Canada and Mexico.
Here is what Obama had to say:
We don't want to set off trade wars. What we want to make sure of is that our farmers are treated fairly,’ Obama said. ‘The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities.
And Hillary:
Time-out for Trade. • Hillary has called for a trade "time out" from new trade agreements as President, and she will not enter into new trade agreements until her Administration has reviewed all existing agreements and designed a genuinely pro-American, pro-worker trade policy that is appropriate for the 21st Century.
Have they forgotten the central lesson of modern history? Freedom works. Open societies, with free trade, have prospered. Closed societies, with closed markets, have stagnated.
One of the great and enduring strengths of the United States has been its large and free domestic market. This freedom is enshrined in the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states . . .
Without this clause, it would be possible for Oregon to enact a law against software products from the state of Washington (Sorry, Microsoft). Or for Nevada to tax the importation of movies from California (Good-bye, Hollywood). Or for New Jersey to forbid the use of financial services from New York (So long, New York Stock Exchange). And so on.
It's not just the United States. Emerging from the devestation of the Second World War, Europe has made repeated moves towards free trade. It started with the European Coal and Steel Community, which protected free trade in coal and steel among West Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux countries. From that humble beginning has grown the European Community, which promotes the free movement of people, goods, and services among 27 European countries. Ireland and Spain were
In the modern era, Singapore, China, and South Korea have all prospered through free trade. And all did so even before opening up their political systems.
Unfree economic policies have been tried. For example, in 1930, the United States ignored warnings from over 1,000 economists and enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, which was intended to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on 20,000 different imported goods to record levels. Other countries retaliated by raising their tariffs. Economists generally agree that this worsened the Great Depression.
Today, Germany and France, while enjoying political freedom and free trade, have generally unfree labor markets; for example, it can be difficult to fire workers. (German regulations are summarized here; French ones are described in numerous news articles; please let me know if you can find a more direct source.) Unsurprisingly, France and Germany also have two of the worst unemployment rates in Europe -- generally running around 8-9%.
On the central economic issue of our time, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both just plain wrong.
Here is what Obama had to say:
We don't want to set off trade wars. What we want to make sure of is that our farmers are treated fairly,’ Obama said. ‘The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities.
And Hillary:
Time-out for Trade. • Hillary has called for a trade "time out" from new trade agreements as President, and she will not enter into new trade agreements until her Administration has reviewed all existing agreements and designed a genuinely pro-American, pro-worker trade policy that is appropriate for the 21st Century.
Have they forgotten the central lesson of modern history? Freedom works. Open societies, with free trade, have prospered. Closed societies, with closed markets, have stagnated.
One of the great and enduring strengths of the United States has been its large and free domestic market. This freedom is enshrined in the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states . . .
Without this clause, it would be possible for Oregon to enact a law against software products from the state of Washington (Sorry, Microsoft). Or for Nevada to tax the importation of movies from California (Good-bye, Hollywood). Or for New Jersey to forbid the use of financial services from New York (So long, New York Stock Exchange). And so on.
It's not just the United States. Emerging from the devestation of the Second World War, Europe has made repeated moves towards free trade. It started with the European Coal and Steel Community, which protected free trade in coal and steel among West Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux countries. From that humble beginning has grown the European Community, which promotes the free movement of people, goods, and services among 27 European countries. Ireland and Spain were
In the modern era, Singapore, China, and South Korea have all prospered through free trade. And all did so even before opening up their political systems.
Unfree economic policies have been tried. For example, in 1930, the United States ignored warnings from over 1,000 economists and enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, which was intended to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on 20,000 different imported goods to record levels. Other countries retaliated by raising their tariffs. Economists generally agree that this worsened the Great Depression.
Today, Germany and France, while enjoying political freedom and free trade, have generally unfree labor markets; for example, it can be difficult to fire workers. (German regulations are summarized here; French ones are described in numerous news articles; please let me know if you can find a more direct source.) Unsurprisingly, France and Germany also have two of the worst unemployment rates in Europe -- generally running around 8-9%.
On the central economic issue of our time, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both just plain wrong.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The New York Times does it again
Once again, the New York Times publishes a highly questionable story, insinuating sexual improprieties by someone whose interests are aligned with its political opponents. For those who remember its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case, this comes as no surprise.
This is further confirmation that the New York Times simply cannot be trusted.
This is further confirmation that the New York Times simply cannot be trusted.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Why I voted for Hillary Clinton today
Barack Obama, who has a sincere desire for peace, believes that peace can be attained if the world's leading English-speaking power surrenders a foreign nation to an irredeemably and unrelentingly evil enemy who promises peace if we only give him what he wants.
This has been tried before.
McCain will not surrender. Hillary, if you listen to her carefully, probably won't, either. Obama will.
This has been tried before.
McCain will not surrender. Hillary, if you listen to her carefully, probably won't, either. Obama will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)