More from Mark Steyn

[Keepitsimple]

THE SATURDAY INTERVIEW

What do the Tea Party victories this week and Mark Steyn’s recent banishment from a municipally owned London, Ont. convention centre have in common? Ask Mr. Steyn and you might be surprised at how directly the two seemingly unrelated issues can be connected.

“My big point is the unsustainability of the modern, Western democracy,” Mr. Steyn says, in Calgary this week to moderate a post-midterm-election panel, for the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“In a sense, it’s the same problem everywhere, whether you’re talking about the Toronto mayoral election, or the U.S. mid-terms, or Monsieur Sarkozy’s very modest proposal to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.”

Mr. Steyn would say that, of course. The decline of Western civilization, and its attendant capitulation to artful and aggressive anti-Western forces, has been the Canadian-born journalist’s prophecy for years, laid out most starkly in his 2006 book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. It envisions the United States as the only liberal power properly equipped, both demographically and psychologically, to withstand the undermining of its values by the growing global influence of Islamic fundamentalism.......................................

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/06/kevin-libin-what-do-the-u-s-mid-term-elections-china-and-omar-khadr-have-in-common-mark-steyn-knows/

[jbg]

I hope and pray that Steyn's wrong, at least about Canada, Australia and the U.K. Don't get me wrong; I love my country. I also love the concept of the English-speaking people being free.

[dre]

I hope and pray that Steyn's wrong, at least about Canada, Australia and the U.K. Don't get me wrong; I love my country. I also love the concept of the English-speaking people being free.

Yeah hes wrong and full of shit.

Check this part...

growing global influence of Islamic fundamentalism

This is just utter horseshit. Islamic fundamentalism is losing influence by any objective measure. The wave of global jihadism that guys like Steyn predicted never really happened and for the most part its fizzled and died.

The west IS in danger of decline but not as a result of Islam. Its in danger of decline because we are borrowing trillions of dollars from China to chase Mr Steyns ghosts.

[bloodyminded]

Yeah hes wrong and full of shit.

Check this part...

This is just utter horseshit. Islamic fundamentalism is losing influence by any objective measure. The wave of global jihadism that guys like Steyn predicted never really happened and for the most part its fizzled and died.

The west IS in danger of decline but not as a result of Islam. Its in danger of decline because we are borrowing trillions of dollars from China to chase Mr Steyns ghosts.

Further, his thesis often suffers even under its own standards (his mocking and laughter of Iraqi detainee sexual abuse aside, which calls his thunderous moral sanctimony into question). I'm trying to find his rather tepid response to demographic experts (whom he can't dismiss wholesale, since he uses them to buttress his thesis); they were saying he had misconstrued their studies on demographics, particularly on the birth rates of Western Muslims.

I get the feeling Mr. Steyn is making the usual polemical error: pounding square opinions through the holes of round facts.

[Argus]

This is just utter horseshit. Islamic fundamentalism is losing influence by any objective measure.

Really? Turkey is becoming more Islamist. So is Malaysia. Pakistan is becoming more unstable, due to Muslim fanatics, as is Yemen. There seem to be an incremental movement to more and more religious conservative rules of behaviour, dress, observance and law in almost all Muslim nations.

That's somewhat more of an indication than how many bombs go off in the West.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

That's somewhat more of an indication than how many bombs go off in the West.

And it's especially important to move the goalposts on such things as the attendant myths are rebuffed and discredited.

Why don't you supply us an objective measure of determining the level of insurgency in Canada, for example, and we'll monitor that stat moving forward ?

[Keepitsimple]

And it's especially important to move the goalposts on such things as the attendant myths are rebuffed and discredited.

Why don't you supply us an objective measure of determining the level of insurgency in Canada, for example, and we'll monitor that stat moving forward ?

There are more than 800,000 Muslims in Canada and according to a poll that I saw - and I apologize because I can't find it - at least 10% believe in violent Jihad. I believe the poll was very direct in what Violent Jihad meant - leaving little doubt that this segment of Islam was completely intransigent in their beliefs - in short - a powderkeg with a short fuse.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[jbg]

- a powderkeg with a short fuse.

Great summary. I couldn't have expressed it better.

[dre]

Really? Turkey is becoming more Islamist. So is Malaysia. Pakistan is becoming more unstable, due to Muslim fanatics, as is Yemen. There seem to be an incremental movement to more and more religious conservative rules of behaviour, dress, observance and law in almost all Muslim nations.

That's somewhat more of an indication than how many bombs go off in the West.

London School of Economics professor Fawaz Gerges did a good study on this recently, and looked a polls from every muslim country. The number of muslims that think violent attacks involving civilians are justified had dropped in almost every muslim country. In fact when asked if attacks against civilians are "sometimes justified" muslims poll lower than AMERICANS.

After 911 the popular narrative is that Islamic Jihadists were this sweeping movement in the Muslim world that would win over the arab street. This just flat out has not happened. Countries like Indonesia that seemed on the brink of falling into chaos after 911 have been stabilized by moderate elements in its society.

Rejection of jihadist ideology is also the product of Islamic scholars and religious leaders...

Salman al-Odah, one of Binladens most influencial saudi mentors wrote a leter accusing BinLaden of "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia issued a Fatwa against jihadism abroad accusing jihadists of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims."

Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious center of Islamic learning in the middle east has also condemned jihad, and the The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India that Alqaedas ideology is based on also now consistantly condemned it.

Of course these things, and the fact that moderate muslims have been 1000 times as effective at combatting terrorism than the ill conceived GWOT dont get much play in the western press. Unfortunately while Jihadism as a global movement has fizzled and died, spreading fear is still a potent political strategy in the west.

In any case, Mr Steyns claim is just flat out false.

[Michael Hardner]

There are more than 800,000 Muslims in Canada and according to a poll that I saw - and I apologize because I can't find it - at least 10% believe in violent Jihad. I believe the poll was very direct in what Violent Jihad meant - leaving little doubt that this segment of Islam was completely intransigent in their beliefs - in short - a powderkeg with a short fuse.

Google gave me a poll showing 10% support for violent Jihad... in Indonesia though.

I think we should keep looking.

[dre]

Great summary. I couldn't have expressed it better.

Smells like typical fearmongering with no empyrical support to me.

[dre]

Google gave me a poll showing 10% support for violent Jihad... in Indonesia though.

I think we should keep looking.

A number which is dramatically trending downwards I might add.

And you have to keep it in context. You can find 10% of ANY population that supports ANYTHING. Poll Americans on nuking Iran and killing all its inhabitants and I bet you get more than 10%. The fact is that at least 10% of ANY population is ultra conservative and generally supportive of any acts of violence.

The important thing is the trend lines which clearly show that Jihad as a sweeping political movement has been rejected in the muslim world.

I recommend this to you Mike...

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/11/the-jihad-against-the-jihadis.html

Read the whole thing... its very good. It talks a lot about the various turning points that lead to the rejections of jihadist ideology and its death as a substancial political movement in the muslim world, and the stimuli that lead to it. Some of the the biggest factors were AlQeadas brutal attacks on other muslims... a major strategic error. At some point muslims got their calculators out and realized that for the most part THEY were the ones getting killed by Jihadists, not westerners.

Edited November 7, 2010 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks, dre. I will check that one out later.

[Michael Hardner]

Google Search results for pro-Jihadist poll results from Canada.

[Jack Weber]

What Steyn talks about is food for thought...

I don't believe Islamofascism is the real problem that many people make it out to be.Yes terror gets the maximum effect for the minimum amount of effort,but the effect is psychological more than anything.

I believe the biggest threat to democracy is something I heared Pat Buchanan(sp) talk about about a year and a half ago...And please,I'm no fan of just about anything Mr.Buchanan says,but I think he did have a moment of lucidity here...

He felt that the biggest threat to democracy in the coming years was the influence of China,and how many "developing countries" see the ease with which the crypto-fascist Chinese can get things done do to their authoritarian style.This is true when these countries deal with China,because unlike the West,they never demand that countries change their human rights record,or their environmental stance,or,whatever...There is no Chinese interference into the internal affairs of some very bad governments.

Hew felt the creeping Fascism of the Chinese,and the appeal of that,would be the biggest threat to democracy...

[Argus]

And it's especially important to move the goalposts on such things as the attendant myths are rebuffed and discredited.

Why don't you supply us an objective measure of determining the level of insurgency in Canada, for example, and we'll monitor that stat moving forward ?

Did I say anything about the "level of insurgency" in Canada? I was responding to the suggestion that Muslim fundamentalism was weakening. That's nonsensical, and it's you who's moving the goalposts.

Or is it your suggestion we needn't worry until there actually is an active Muslim insurgency in Canada?

[bloodyminded]

London School of Economics professor Fawaz Gerges did a good study on this recently, and looked a polls from every muslim country. The number of muslims that think violent attacks involving civilians are justified had dropped in almost every muslim country. In fact when asked if attacks against civilians are "sometimes justified" muslims poll lower than AMERICANS.

After 911 the popular narrative is that Islamic Jihadists were this sweeping movement in the Muslim world that would win over the arab street. This just flat out has not happened. Countries like Indonesia that seemed on the brink of falling into chaos after 911 have been stabilized by moderate elements in its society.

Rejection of jihadist ideology is also the product of Islamic scholars and religious leaders...

Salman al-Odah, one of Binladens most influencial saudi mentors wrote a leter accusing BinLaden of "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia issued a Fatwa against jihadism abroad accusing jihadists of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims."

Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious center of Islamic learning in the middle east has also condemned jihad, and the The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India that Alqaedas ideology is based on also now consistantly condemned it.

Of course these things, and the fact that moderate muslims have been 1000 times as effective at combatting terrorism than the ill conceived GWOT dont get much play in the western press. Unfortunately while Jihadism as a global movement has fizzled and died, spreading fear is still a potent political strategy in the west.

In any case, Mr Steyns claim is just flat out false.

Given the tenor of the times, this is very important information, Dre. I wonder how many people will even refuse to consider it; and what this refusal says about cherished falsehoods.

And, disturbingly, why anyone should cherish such falsehoods?

If I lived in fear of being murdered by fanatics, and then discovered that maybe my fears were wildly overblown...I should think I'd rather enjoy that little revelation.

[Argus]

London School of Economics professor Fawaz Gerges did a good study on this recently, and looked a polls from every muslim country. The number of muslims that think violent attacks involving civilians are justified had dropped in almost every muslim country. In fact when asked if attacks against civilians are "sometimes justified" muslims poll lower than AMERICANS.

It's certainly true that the previously very high level of support for suicide bombings and attacks on civilians has eased considerably in the Muslim world. But why? Probably because when that support was highest those bombings were being largely directed against Israelis and westerners. Now, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, those bombings are more often being directed against Muslims. So it's true there is less support for that, but there is no indication there is less support for the hateful brand of extremist Islam which gave rise to those actions.

Countries like Indonesia that seemed on the brink of falling into chaos after 911 have been stabilized by moderate elements in its society.

I don't recall anyone every saying Indonesia was anywhere near the brink of "chaos". It had a few bomb blasts in Bali and elsewhere but there was never the level of strife as we see in Pakistan or Yemen. However, Indonesians are moving in the direction of more fundamentalism.

LAM: So on the ground level do you find that people are becoming a bit more intolerant or are these vocal groups do they have a higher profile and therefore, you see more reports?

ABSHAR: I think the thing is that in general we are witnessing in our country the rise of conservatism in religious life in general. So that's I think what is behind this

Fundamentalism Growing In Indonesia

Rejection of jihadist ideology is also the product of Islamic scholars and religious leaders...

Some, and some support it, or speak against it in English but then for it in Arabic.

Salman al-Odah, one of Binladens most influencial saudi mentors wrote a leter accusing BinLaden of "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia issued a Fatwa against jihadism abroad accusing jihadists of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims."

And yet Saudi Arabia continues to pump billions into madrassas schools around the world where their rigid, intolerant version of Wahabi Islam is taught. Do you really think the Saudis are against Muslim fundamentalism? What do you call their society anyway? Do you think it's okay for Muslim fundamentalism to spread when it's not done by bombs? When it's done by ballots instead, or through the creeping influence of Fundamentalist Imams and Mullahs?

In any case, Mr Steyns claim is just flat out false.

You have presented no evidence to support that.

[Argus]

Google gave me a poll showing 10% support for violent Jihad... in Indonesia though.

I think we should keep looking.

12% identified themselves as extremist Muslims and said they supported violent Jihad

Survey on Canadian opinions

[dre]

What Steyn talks about is food for thought...

I don't believe Islamofascism is the real problem that many people make it out to be.Yes terror gets the maximum effect for the minimum amount of effort,but the effect is psychological more than anything.

I believe the biggest threat to democracy is something I heared Pat Buchanan(sp) talk about about a year and a half ago...And please,I'm no fan of just about anything Mr.Buchanan says,but I think he did have a moment of lucidity here...

He felt that the biggest threat to democracy in the coming years was the influence of China,and how many "developing countries" see the ease with which the crypto-fascist Chinese can get things done do to their authoritarian style.This is true when these countries deal with China,because unlike the West,they never demand that countries change their human rights record,or their environmental stance,or,whatever...There is no Chinese interference into the internal affairs of some very bad governments.

Hew felt the creeping Fascism of the Chinese,and the appeal of that,would be the biggest threat to democracy...

By far the biggest threat posed by extreme Islam is not what THEY do but how we react to them. We have literally emptied our treasuries and borrowed trillions of dollars on a policies that are not only unsustainable in the long term but have been completely ineffective.

We are by FAR our own worst enemies, and we have literally played right into their hands.

Heres what the director of intelligence for the CIA said...

But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush’s policies – including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.

“Certainly,” the CIA’s Miscik said, “he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years,

In fact according to the CIA, Alqaeda has designed its message around political events in America and done everything possible to make sure hawks stay in power.

the CIA’s strategic assessment that “bin-Laden’s [Nov. 2004] message was clearly designed to assist the President’s reelection“:

At the five o’clock meeting, [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: “Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President.”

McLaughlin’s comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table. Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, suggested that the al-Qaeda founder may have come to Bush’s aid because bin-Laden felt threatened by the rise in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; bin-Laden might have thought his leadership would be diminished if Bush lost the White House and their “eye-to-eye struggle” ended

The result? A bunch of ragtag dirt farmers has tricked the west into spending trillions of dollars into destroying nations then rebuilding the exact same nations they just destroyed. They have caused the US to create the largest new branch of government in modern history that will bleed US tax payers for centuries to come.

In BinLadens own words...

We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.

He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

Note Bin Ladens reference the US corporations and the profiteering that he knew would happen as a result of the GWOT. Amazingly precient since the majority of the money spent by US tax dollars has wound up in the pockets of government lobbying corporations.

Note also how he alludes to tricking the US to invading other countries...

All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there

The best analogy I can think of to the way the west has responded to 911 is that of a man using a large rock to crush a bee that has landed on his face. Yes... the bee posed a threat. It had just stung you in the face and was threatening to sting you again. The problem is that the ROCK not only failed to crush the bee, it smashed in the entire front of your skull to a pulp.

[bloodyminded]

By far the biggest threat posed by extreme Islam is not what THEY do but how we react to them. We have literally emptied our treasuries and borrowed trillions of dollars on a policies that are not only unsustainable in the long term but have been completely ineffective.

We are by FAR our own worst enemies, and we have literally played right into their hands.

Heres what the director of intelligence for the CIA said...

In fact according to the CIA, Alqaeda has designed its message around political events in America and done everything possible to make sure hawks stay in power.

The result? A bunch of ragtag dirt farmers has tricked the west into spending trillions of dollars into destroying nations then rebuilding the exact same nations they just destroyed. They have caused the US to create the largest new branch of government in modern history that will bleed US tax payers for centuries to come.

In BinLadens own words...

Note Bin Ladens reference the US corporations and the profiteering that he knew would happen as a result of the GWOT. Amazingly precient since the majority of the money spent by US tax dollars has wound up in the pockets of government lobbying corporations.

Note also how he alludes to tricking the US to invading other countries...

The best analogy I can think of to the way the west has responded to 911 is that of a man using a large rock to crush a bee that has landed on his face. Yes... the bee posed a threat. It had just stung you in the face and was threatening to sting you again. The problem is that the ROCK not only failed to crush the bee, it smashed in the entire front of your skull to a pulp.

.....also, shards flew off into the faces of a lot of innocent bystanders....

Anyway, excellent post.

[Jack Weber]

.....also, shards flew off into the faces of a lot of innocent bystanders....

Anyway, excellent post.

I agree...

But it does'nt answer the real threat to democracy,again in Buchanan's and my opinion....

The appeal of the modern corporate Fascist state(China) to developing countries around the world,as opposed to democratization...

Edited November 7, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Keepitsimple]

12% identified themselves as extremist Muslims and said they supported violent Jihad

Survey on Canadian opinions

Thanks....that's the one that I was referring to......and even if it was HALF of that, that's 40,000 Muslim Canadians who identify them selves as extremists who believe in violent Jihad. Talk about scary.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[dre]

12% identified themselves as extremist Muslims and said they supported violent Jihad

Survey on Canadian opinions

Like I said... a given part of any demographic supports the use of extreme violence against percieved enemies. I read somewhere that almost 15% of Americans support a nuclear attack on Iran that would likely cause millions of deaths.

Do you have any real evidence that westerners support the use of violence in lower numbers than muslims? I highly doubt it.

I think at least 10% of people are just plain nuts.

I bet youd be suprised how westerners answered similar questions.

Edited November 7, 2010 by dre

[Argus]

Like I said... a given part of any demographic supports the use of extreme violence against percieved enemies. I read somewhere that almost 15% of Americans support a nuclear attack on Iran that would likely cause millions of deaths.

The difference is that those Americans don't have the ability to carry out a nuclear attack on Iran. Whereas individual Muslims DO have the ability to carry out attacks on soft targets in Canada and the US.