Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The War on Terror II

Over a month ago I wrote an article on the "War on Terror" and given current events I thought I would write another.

From out of the blue, in a speech trailed as dealing with transforming the home office, reforming the immigration and nationality department, and "rebalencing the criminal justice system", we got this from Dr. John Reid, secretary of State for the home office.

Others have covered the timing, and I share their concerns. Its not that I think the whole thing is made up, but that the fore knowledge has been used for political ends to justify the unjustifiable.

We are told that terrorism is the biggest threat since the Second Word War. That is patent rubbish.

George Bush described these people as "Islamic fascists".

This language is dangerous. It is not that we do not know who George Bush means, it is that it gives the enemy a weapon to use against us.

When these groups are trying to recruit young disaffected Muslims, they are not going to tell them that George Bush does not mean you, he means nutters like us. No they are going to twist the language for their own recruiting purposes.

As I said in my last article on the subject, this struggle is on two levels. The first is the tactical level, where we try to intercept and prevent acts of terror and they try to commit them. The more important level is the strategic level, which in this case is the political and propaganda level.

The French won every battle in Algeria yet lost the war. They lost the strategic war. That is the most important one.

In the strategic sphere they are trying to cleave as many Muslims away from us and into their ranks as possible. We need to be combating them there. Failure on the strategic level means losing. We can't afford to lose, just for the sake of using silly language.


Ben Redsell said...

Benedict, my first post here and it is a criticism. Shame really because I agree with your thoughts. It's just the poor grammar and spelling! Strewth man, proof read before you publish!

Benedict White said...

Thanks for the comment, That article was based out quickly from home, using googles spel checker!

I will try to fix it later.

Dave Hill said...

Benedict, I think you make a good point about Bush's use of language (see my link to it). I'm not crazy about any of the terms in current useage. Even "terrorist" gives me problems. Food for thought.

Now, where's your contribution to my Big England series!?!?!?!?!?

Best Wishes.

towcestarian said...

Out of the mouth of Bush it is not good, but an expression like Islamo-fascist is a powerful weapon in the strategic propaganda war. Don't forget, it is not only muslims we are fighting; there are plenty of well-meaning folks of the left-liberal persuasion who seem to be supporting Islamo-fascism because it is the only anti-capitalist game in town.

Anonymous said...

I can understand your desire not to tar them all with the same brush, but in this case, I'm not so sure it is unjust.

The goal of the Islamic extremists is to bring about a world consisting only of Islam.
The destiny, if not the goal of your average muslim is to seek the empowerment of Islam within their own surroundings. In this case, in European countries.
Do you doubt, that given sufficient muslim voters that they would not elect a muslim candidate. Do you doubt that given enough elected muslim officials that we would see them chipping away at the current system in order to mould it into something more to their liking, i.e. Islamic?
Do you doubt that given the influx of muslims, and their high reproduction rates, and the declining rates of reproduction from non-muslims that they will not be able to achieve this in a matter of a few generations, even less given the current voter apathy?

My point is that unless you desire your great grandkids to live under Islamic rule in a country that retains no memory of its former self, then surely you should oppose any measure which would bring this to fruition, whether it be by Al Quedas sword, or the 'moderate' muslims vote?

Regarding language, Islam is Fascism. What else can you call a religion that stones gays by dropping walls on them, removes all rights from women, allowing their murder in the name of honour, and even imprisoning them for the crime of being raped, prevents the playing of music, games and other entertainment, and prevents the drinking of alcohol?

Most religions tell you how to live your life. Islam tells you how everyone else should live their life. Ergo, you can be a good christian despite the behaviour of those around you. With Islam, you cannot be a good muslim while surrounded by infidels, and indeed the Koran says the hottest places in hell are reserved for muslims who are not willing to wage jihad.

Benedict White said...

towcestarian, I take your point, and i presume you mean the loony left like George Galloway.

However we need to beat the threat, and language is important in doing it. beating Galloway is less important because politically he is irrelevent.

Benedict White said...

Anonymous, You appear to be making the case for controlled immigration, in which case I do not disagree.

If the majority of people in this country are Muslim, then the odds are we would end up as a Muslim country.

That would be a bad thing, and frankley we do need to reproduce faster.

On your comment about Islam and facism, I think that you have a very rosey view of how other religions have been used in the past.

Anonymous said...

Just a short comment in relation to the fact that the link does no longer seem to work which the article refers to. Relevant quotes inside the blog as well as links may be useful in the future for unstable links?

Anonymous said...

Benedict, I disagree with the use of comparing Islam today with the use of religion throughout history, particularly since it is one of the favourite arguments of Islamic Terrorists.

While many religions may have shed much blood throughout history, it was done so within the context of the civilization at the time. Modern day moral standards should not be compared equally with standards from a thousand years ago.
Neither should it be used to shame those who oppose low moral standards in todays evolved society.