Quote:
|
99.9% of all Muslims have a deeply-held secret agenda (wish) that Islam will conquer their host country and turn it into an Islamic nation. Such is their indelible religious conditioning. This obvious fact has been completely neglected, ignored, avoided and shunned by the leadership of western democracies to their great detriment, including America.
|
Respectfully, with comments like the above how can anyone take Sobiesky seriously? Islam is definitely a challenge we have to face. Barring the psychic ability to know what millions of people are thinking, it seems discussions here fall into two camps on the topic.
1) Islam is static and thus different from any other religion, impervious to any evolution, it has always been this way it will always be this way.
2) Islam is dangerous and must be dealt with, but like any religion it is composed of people. People can diminish or force the evolution of any political or religious entity, especially with the emergence of strong leaders.
If I were in camp one I would be very worried, since this argument taken to fruition equates Islam and thus “99.9% of all Muslims” according to Mr. Sobiesky as an eternally static non sentient hostile mass, very similar to a malignant tumor. There is no negotiating with or influencing a tumor, it must be destroyed either surgically or irradiated. So basically if Islam is such we are not safe until we kill every Islamic man, woman, and child. Moral questions aside, I believe we have the weapons to do so, Genghis Khan, Stalin, or the Nazis may have had the will to do this, America will never do this. So if this camp is correct we are in a lot of trouble because if you haven’t the will to use a weapon, you don’t have the weapon. If you are in camp one what is the solution if you aren’t willing to simply “exterminate the brutes”?
People have brought up the point Christianity was quite capable of barbarism over time, citing the Inquisition, heretics, burning people at the stake, with trials and the suppression of art, etc. The counter argument here is yes but Christianity went through this stuff ages ago, Islam hasn’t evolved. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were Christian nations who plunged the world into a war that killed millions only 70 years ago. Take the Holocaust for example, six million plus Jews lost their lives. Were their murderers Nazi’s or Christians, the answer is both. At the same time the King of Denmark also a Christian ordered all Danes to wear yellow stars under occupation to protect their Jews. So is this an inconsistency in Christianity or is it simply the age old separation between good and evil in men? What is the logic in saying Sadaam Hussein was just another evil Muslim leader (he was never particularly religious), but Hitler was just an evil despot, conveniently ignoring his faith.
Perhaps it’s that human beings are herd animals who need to be led, and the West has on the whole been blessed with better leaders of late, men like our founding fathers, Churchill or Reagan. You only have to watch an old Nazi movies reel or endure an Obama rally to see the power of a charismatic leader. ( No I’m not equating the two). I also saw the argument made the Crusades were defensive in nature. If British and French Knights are fighting Saracens in Normandy I buy this, how is it defensive if Jerusalem is the battlefield? Was this truly a Holy War or war for land, resources, and power as usual. Islam needs to be confronted on several planes, it has glaring vulnerabilities, there seems to be little in it for women, and its fundamentalist nature focused on the past ignores quality of life advances.
Americans in 1944 were saying the Japanese were feudal radical zealots who wouldn’t surrender, used suicide attacks, and lived by an ancient and rigid code. Look at the Japanese now; they are a modern liberal democracy and economic power that has outlawed war in their constitution. People will change if it’s to their benefit, especially if led.