-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
A Further Perspective
Clash Warfare
A misty-eyed challenge to Samuel Huntington’s seminal view.
Are “nationalism” and a fervent quest for “dignity” motivating the revolts across the Arab world? New York Times columnist David Brooks thinks so, suggesting that current turmoil across North Africa and the Middle East disproves the late Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a “Clash of Civilizations.”
In his seminal 1993 article, Huntington argued that Muslims generally and Arabs specifically are motivated by religion rather than nationalism, that they do — and we should — view their relationship with the West as much more than competition; it is a conflict (whether or not bullets are flying at any given time) that persistently joins the Islamic world, including our superficial allies, against the U.S. and the West.
Brooks, however, clicks his intellectual heels together hoping to be magically transported to the land of “can’t we all just get along,” arguing that “underneath cultural differences there are these universal aspirations for dignity, for political systems that listen to, respond to and respect the will of the people” and that the various revolts are evidence of “a universal hunger for liberty.”
It’s the same solipsistic “let’s give them a rhetorical hug” approach that President Obama has used with such great effect to get the Muslim world, especially the Iranian regime, to love and respect us. Or not. And it’s an approach that Huntington implicitly warned could be dangerous or fatal to Western civilization.
Brooks reaches his conclusion based simply on the existence of revolts against multi-decade dictators and other autocrats across the Arab world. But there’s nothing about being angry at living on $2 a day while your president amasses billions, nothing about objecting to being dominated by a lunatic of a tribe other than yours (and with truly embarrassing fashion sense) that implies a preferred outcome of liberal democracy rather than some slightly, superficially, and often temporarily less bad autocracy or, more likely, theocracy.
Did Mr. Brooks note the irony that he predicted a victory for “universal political values” on the same day that the Washington Post’s headline story is “Obama administration prepares for possibility of new post-revolt Islamist regimes.“ That article begins: “The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region’s politics.”
Predicting that the governments resulting from these revolts are at least as likely to be religious as secular, and at least as likely to be anti-American or at least skeptical of America as to be our allies, strikes me as the odds-on bet. Certainly Huntington would make that bet. But somehow David Brooks misses repeated lessons of history in an unstoppable quest to see the world as he wishes it were rather than as it is.
In 2006, an election was allowed in the Palestinian territories and the result was a victory by Hamas, perhaps the most anti-American, anti-Israeli, violence-prone and tyrannical political party in the Arab World. The Iranian Revolution, while overtly Islamic from the start, nevertheless shows that Muslims are perfectly willing to replace one tyranny with another. Even Turkey, long a model of “moderate” Islam and in the grip of a secular military, is drifting more toward Islamic government, away from its historic relatively cooperative relationship with the U.S. and Israel, and perhaps even toward Iran.
Furthermore, other than in Libya, the most active revolts are in nations whose governments are perceived as supportive of and supported by the U.S. Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and Egypt all fit this mold. This is not to say that the various revolts are motivated by hatred of the Great and Little Satans or the democracy and freedom they represent; indeed there is a notable absence of American flag burnings and anti-American chants. But one can’t draw the opposite conclusion, as David Brooks has, that the uprisings represent a universal desire for the hallmarks of free, liberal, and successful societies.
In Iran, the one nation where one could imagine a successful and relatively free Muslim society, in part — as Huntington might suggest — because they’re not Arabs, a nascent freedom (and freedom from Islamofascism) movement was crushed in 2009 as President Obama stood silent. This was perhaps the most important foreign policy mistake by any president since Jimmy Carter allowed those same Islamofascists to hold fifty-two American hostages for 444 days — and both errors taught the ayatollahs the same lesson: that the liberal elite (like Brooks) and the Democratic establishment they influence (like Carter and Obama) are willfully blind to Huntington’s lesson and are thus surrendering the West in the Clash of Civilizations.
Islamic clerics are moving into the political process in Egypt and Yemen leaving little chance that the resulting governments, even if nominally democracies, will be focused on supporting and defending “universal aspirations for dignity” or creating “political systems that listen to, respond to and respect the will of the people.” Perhaps Brooks hasn’t noticed that the “moderate” protesters and rebels in both Libya and Egypt expressed their hatred for Gaddafi and Mubarak, respectively, by portraying them with a Star of David on their foreheads. This is hardly evidence that Huntington was wrong.
Islam is incompatible with each “universal aspiration” Brooks predicts triumphant. Most citizens of the nations in question support Islam more than they care about democracy or freedom. In short, as long as they’re not being made poor while their leaders are being made rich, they’ll more than happily go along with Sharia or at least Sharia-lite, more than happily continue to hate Israel, and more than happily suck up to the U.S. in English-language media in order to keep receiving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in “aid” while savaging us in Arabic (with their true beliefs) for their own domestic consumption.
As Samuel Huntington warned nearly two decades ago, “Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. To date, only Japan has fully succeeded in this quest. Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, machines and weapons (including nuclear weapons) that are part of being modern.” Huntington’s prescription, which unlike Brooks’ view stands the tests of history and common sense, is that “this will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations.”
David Brooks’ misty-eyed view of the import of Arab turmoil is an intellectual cornerstone of President Obama’s persistent weakening of those very economic and military powers, whether through his spending the country into bankruptcy or his making U.S. policy decisions subservient to the wishes of the leftists and tyrants who effectively control the United Nations. It is a cornerstone made of weak and fragile rock upon which Brooks and Obama nevertheless propose to support the future success — indeed the very existence — of Western civilization.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/14/clash-warfare
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
- Gerry Ford at 100
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.14.11 @ 6:22AM
There is no such thing as moderate Islam.
The Koran states clearly that non-believers must be:
1. Converted.
2. Enslaved.
3. Destroyed.
There is no fourth option, therefore the Muslim religion is like a disease swallowing all those who oppose it. And without mercy.
Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
Jacobite| 3.17.11 @ 5:12PM
What about the Western countries that are attempting to remain modern while becoming non-Western?
Deborah D | 3.14.11 @ 7:01AM
David Brooks is consistently wrong about a great many things, one big one is that he's a "conservative columnist for the New York Times." I do wonder at times where some columnists get their "facts" in order to inform their opinions. History and just a casual observation of today's Middle East would show Brooks the truth of which you write, Mr. Kaminsky. When you observe the world with blinders on from a perch in liberal New York, perhaps that becomes tunnel vision.
Those same blinders keep Brooks from seeing what you describe, "President Obama's persistent weakening of those very economic and military powers, whether through his spending the country into bankruptcy..." Sam Blumenthal says in a similar vein, "Stanley Kurtz, in Radical-in-Chief, credits (Obama advisor Peter) Dreier with formulating the stealth plan to destroy capitalism. His plan is to gradually expand government spending until the country nears fiscal collapse. At that point, a public accustomed to entitlements will presumably turn on its capitalist masters when they propose cutbacks to restore fiscal balance." http://thenewamerican.com/inde.....rack-obama
When will the so-called guardians of our country, the mainstream media finally start removing their blinders? Or will they finally awaken as the combination of the financial and radical Islamic tsunamis drown Americans and leave what's left of the country adrift in the rushing seas.
Jacobite| 3.17.11 @ 5:07PM
I'd say that anyone who still lives in the real world would be hard put to find any universal longing for freedom and democracy even in the behvior of today's Americans -- forget Mohammedans. No one since FDR can not know that Democrats are the party of bureaucratic control and redistribution of wealth. Yet, they win elections. Nobody jealous of his liberty or property could ever vote for any Democrat.
davelnaf| 3.14.11 @ 7:58AM
If there is a “surrendering the West” issue it involves Muslim immigration to Western countries—something that is already seen as a mistake. These people have little real capability of undermining Western societies except from within Western societies, which is why they are so keen to get here. Having gained a foothold in PC addled Europe, Islamists will, at some point, try their best to help that continent descend into a new Dark Age. But one suspects that the Euros will get sick and tired of them before that happens. The average American voter will also be alert to measures introduced by our vote hungry politicians to curry favor with Islamist sympathizers. Politicians, like Obama, that smile benignly such policies will, in due course, become a very scarce commodity on the American political landscape.
Habu| 3.14.11 @ 9:20AM
Albert Einstein is attributed with saying that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” So it is with Mr. Brooks reading of Islam which I have been pointing out for the last eight to 10 years is immiscible with the rest of the entire world.
Islam would be best dealt with at this point in history with a few strategic nuclear strikes on specific targets of value as a warning that we will not continue to be assaulted and dealt death by a thousand cuts. Tehran, the tribal regions of Afghanistan, and perhaps a few other Islamic whadis’ would underscore our position that we are the superpower and will no longer play by their rules but rather immediately totally reverse the situation. For insanity is also believing that Islam will not use nuclear weapons on the USA once they acquire the means of delivery but rather we should preempt them and subdue their ardor for a new worldwide ruling Caliphate. Without this action then going forward we can only expect the same Islamic terror they have practice since the institution of their ideology. Delenda est Islam.
Occam's Tool| 3.14.11 @ 12:53PM
Habu. Wow, oh wow. Beautiful. Sharia Delenda Est. The only way to smash off a shark is to hit it on the nose. Isolationism will not deter sharks.
Bob K.| 3.15.11 @ 6:53PM
Does it concern you that Habu's solution would result in Nuclear Retaliation against Israel?
ENOUGH ROPE| 3.14.11 @ 2:18PM
Habu:
When your time comes to face Christ and his judgment about your support for killing millions of people by nuclear attacks, what will you say to HIM? Do you expect punishment? Christ has infinite mercy and infinite justice; none of us can know his decision in your case or in each of ours. Please reconsider your recommendation.
Your recommendation does not comply with the criteria for a just war.
Occam's Tool| 3.14.11 @ 2:51PM
No, any more than Harry S Truman faced divine justice for saving a million Japanese lives.
We need to convince them that assaulting the US and Western Europe is a bad idea; that we will defend ourselves. Somehow this needs to be done, because if we are attacked with a nuke on American soil, then we will see red and hit back severely asymmetrically (for a terrifying discussionof this, see the great Tom Kratman's masterpiece, Caliphate.).
Just War...hmmmm. 9/11, attack on our ships and embassies, the kidnapping of US citizens in 1979 by the Iranians, the constant funding of Terrorism against Americans by the Saudis and the Iranians---all this despite our military intervention to stop anti-Islamic genocidal acts by the Serbs and our arming of the Afghans against the Russians....I'm not so sure it doesn't meet the criteria for just war. We firebombed Japan end to end before the Nukes in exchange for Pearl Harbor and their treatment of our POWs----I'm talking about BEFORE the nukes. If that was just (and it was), Habu's solution would fall within, particularly if warning of exact consequences was given before the attack.
Habu| 3.14.11 @ 5:59PM
ENOUGH ROPE,
What would I say to Christ...I'd say "Hey dude pretty cool how we saved Christianity ,don't you think?"
But I'm a theist dieist anyway.
Habu| 3.14.11 @ 6:26PM
ENOUGH ROPE
The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors. The Bible is a compilation of 66 separate books, divided into two primary divisions: the Old Testament (containing 39 books) and the New Testament (containing 27 books).
The first five books of the Old Testament (known as the Pentateuch or Torah) was written by Moses during the forty years that the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness (1450 - 1410 B.C.). The twelve historical books of the Old Testament continue to record the history of the people of Israel under the leadership of Joshua, through the period of the Judges and the reign of the kings of Israel. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther record the history of Israel following its period of captivity under Babylonian rule. The historical books span the history of Israel from 1050 - 465 B.C.
The books of Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are considered the poetical books of the Old Testament. Scholars have been unable to determine with any specificity when Job was written. Based upon the manners and customs recorded in the text, many believe that the book was written during the time of the Patriarchs of the faith. The individual Psalms, comprising the entire collection, were written from the days of Israel's Exodus to its restoration after the Babylonian captivity. Many of the Psalms were written by King David during his reign over Israel. The entire book was compiled between 1000 - 300 B.C.
King David's son, Solomon is credited with writing Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon, during his reign (971 - 931 B.C.). The seventeen Prophetical books of the major and minor prophets span Israel's history from 700 - 450 B.C. For 400 years after the writing of the Book of Malachi, the Lord was silent and the Old Testament was closed.
It is generally agreed that the Book of Mark was the first Gospel written and that it was written between A.D. 50 and 75. Of the four Gospel's, John's is considered to have been the last one written, around A.D. 85. The Book of Acts, a historical account of the establishment of the early Christian church, is believed to have been written by one of the Apostle Paul's associates, around A.D. 62 (near the end of Paul's imprisonment in Rome).
The Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the book is commonly thought to have been written around A.D. 70. The epistles of the other Apostles were written between A.D. 48 - 90.
So Enough Rope I believe that one of the chapters, the one on Nuclear Deterrence, was simple left behind at one of the camps along the long history of the Bibles creation....but I'm sure it was written, simply lost over time and there's no better time to rediscover it than now ...after all who says we can't add a few chapters...I mean it took 1400-1800 years to write it, some things must ahve been left out or forgotten.
Nuke thy enemy ..Book of Nuk'em, chapter 1, verse 1.
ENOUGH ROPE| 3.14.11 @ 8:38PM
Peace within Islamic nations, among Islamic nations, and peace between Islamic nations and non-Islamic nations will be difficult or impossible to achieve because of the founding document of Islam and its edict for the extreme treatment of infidels who refuse to convert to Islam. If the West, really the U.S., enters combat in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, then we should choose to win with conventional means as we did the first time in Afghanistan. Either choose to win quickly with overwhelming conventional force, or do not enter into combat. We cannot do this now because the Marxist Democrats have weakened our nation. Before we were bankrupted, we should have expanded the armed forces to enable deployments once every four years, to have a 600 ship navy, and a superior air and space force to discourage any aggressor from messing with us.
Islamic tribal culture in the Middle East and Islam's harsh constraints on individual freedom preclude any reasonable probability of the formation and growth of habits and institutions necessary to foster the DESIRE in Muslims to establish democratic republics that exist by the consent of the governed and the rule of law that protects all persons equally--certainly not Sharia law. For these reasons we should abandon nation building. For example, Afghans want to execute an Afghan who converted to Christianity.
Given the above realities, we must seek peace through strength combined with goodwill and no appeasement and no stupidity. IN ADDITION, we must pray to God for peace within each of us and for peace in the world. Divine grace combined with firm actions by men of goodwill ended the Soviet Union without a shot being fired. That is evidence of God's power--despite what the Left claims.
I pray that God's graces will enable Muslims and Islamic nations to reflect on what they believe and to discover that their beliefs are the root cause of the harm that they do to themselves and to others. I hope that Muslims as individuals and as a society convert to Judeo-Christian values and religions VOLUNTARILY.
I approved of the use of nuclear weapons in WWII, because it saved the lives of millions of Japanese and Americans including my two Marine brothers, one of whom was wounded twice on Iwo Jima. If we were attacked by a terrorist nuclear weapon or other WMD, then I approve of nuclear retaliation against the responsible group or groups wherever they may be located in the Middle East. BUT, our leaders at the time must choose prudent and commensurate use of force. We don't want to nuke our true friends.
May peace be with all of us.
Habu| 3.14.11 @ 9:20PM
ENOUGH ROPE,
So for some reason you are willing to sacrifice our military men and women in a conventional manner but you would not accord them the same break your brothers got in WWII by the US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, an enemy that also initiated the attack on the US? How does that work?
I believe you have some serious issues to work through. In war there is no substitute for victory, at the least cost of human life for YOUR side ...to hell with our enemies kill them until they are no more.
I believe you need to examine the number of people who have died in the name of religion over the history of mankind. It's a moral duty to reduce your loses by inflicting unimaginable pain on your foe...no quarter......if it helps you on the attack carrying a cross, go for it, but get it done. Islam isn't going to quit.
ENOUGH ROPE| 3.14.11 @ 10:13PM
Habu,
I try to limit my replies to a discussion of ideas and facts without aspersions and with only a few pongs to another's pings.
In my previous reply I sequenced deployment of conventional forces prior to our being attacked by WMDs. I would nuke in response to a nuke.
I too want victory. As I wrote previously, "Either choose to win quickly with overwhelming conventional force, or do not enter into combat."
I abstain from ponging your comment that, "I believe you have some serious issues to work through."
Those for or against religion accuse each other of having killed the most people. I do not know of a source that would satisfy both sides as being true. The Twentieth Century was the most evil and lethal in history. May we all learn as individuals and as nations to convert to peace .
I will not comment again about this article.
High Point | 3.14.11 @ 12:45PM
How concerned should we be about "surrendering the West?" I realize that we need to be vigilant, but those who are successful in our society are those who emulate us and try to fit in. Islamists don't fit that pattern.
Occam's Tool| 3.14.11 @ 12:54PM
Quite concerned. Track birthrates in soon to be occupied Europe.
Habu| 3.14.11 @ 1:41PM
Occam's Tool'
You are exactly right in pointing to the demographics. All of the "Old European " countries have fallen below the necessary 2.1 births per couple just to maintain a society. No country has ever recovered from falling below 1.9 births and ALL of old Europe is already under that figure. Spain at 1.2 and all others similar.
Islam is popping babies at 3-4x the 2.1 figure and their populastions are already 30 years younger than North America or Europe.
Therein lies the reason for my preemptive proposals. If we do not deter them, kick them out of the USA then they will eventually simply out produce us and take over, sharia and all.
We can pull a" head up our arse" or we can be nuke proactive. It doesn't mean the biggest bombs we have but a low megaton artillary shell or bomb will send the message....and the message needs to be sent and reinforce.
obama will never do it but perhaps the new president in 2012 will.....if not our allies are finished and we will be next.
Occam's Tool| 3.14.11 @ 2:51PM
Habu---argument makes sense and is simplest analysis.
Brian Mc| 3.14.11 @ 3:08PM
We have the greatest deterrent in the history of the world and don't utilize it.
Why not lock every mosque into a satellite-generated software program. Mosques that have been evidenced as being highly militaristic are at the top of the list. I'm certain this list would number in the thousands. Sort of a lazer-guided lottery.
Every time the muslim radicals step up and do the dirty work for the rest, i.e. suicide bombing, stabbing innocents to death, etc. we answer by wiping a mosque from the face of the earth.
Talk about surgical trikes. And the death toll would be limited to muslim men to a huge extent. There would be no need for "boots on the ground" with this approach to the problem. "Can't we all just get along's", would finally have teeth. To truly work it would need to be cold, calculated and draconian in its implementation...sort of an "Oops, sorry; well then, stop blowing up buses full of children".
Habu| 3.14.11 @ 5:52PM
I wouldn't start by nuking a populated area. The tribal areas in Afghanistan are home to very few except the Taliban, so they would be a great first target.
Then choose a spot in the desert, a low population whaddhi, where we will drop leaflets first.
The walk it up the field to a city in Iran ..... same procedure...leaflets, earnings and then poof away Qum.
For those needing moral justification, well we've been under Islamic attack for almost 300 years. They bombed our largest city and took American soil in Tehran. They have bombed our NATO allies ...I don't know how high the moral bar need be set before we show off a a few nukes .....as mentioned it will cool their ardor to continue and it it doesn't then the price they pay goes way,way up.
To everything there is a season ......it's nuclear season, no limit if we don't get the proper response. Yeah ,yeah I know all about the women and children...they would be the ones who are called infrastucture and anyway the Islams already use kids as suiicide bombers...so where's the beef?
Believe me if they get the ICBM with a nuclear tip it's coming our way.
George True| 3.14.11 @ 9:02PM
I read a great book some years back entitled "The Knights of the Order". It was an extraordinarily well researched historical account of the Knights of the Order of St John, which was a small but highly influential force in the Mediterranean from roughly 1200 to 1700 AD. Never numbering more than about 500, with perhaps another 1000 auxiliary personnel, the Knights were almost single handedly responsible for keeping Islam at bay in the Med during the Middle Ages. Each Knight pledged his life and fortune to Christ, and to beating back Islam at every possible opportunity. Besides being great warriors, they were also expert sailors, and they had a significant part to play in the great rout and destruction of the Persian fleet at Lepanto.
They were eventually driven from their island home of Rhodes by the moslem emperor Suileman, but only after inflicting staggering casualties on the Islamists. After establisning a new home on the island of Malta, they continued apace with raiding, sinking, and capturing moslem shipping all over the Med. Suileman decided that he was going to put an end to these "sons of Satan" once and for all. He sent an invasion force of 60,000 and laid siege to the fortress of the Knights on Malta.
Here is where it gets interesting. In order to demoralize the Knights, the moslems would behead those who they captured (sound familiar?) and then shoot the heads out of cannons and over the walls into the Knights' fortress. Were they demoralized, or paralyzed with fear? Not a chance. They would respond, each and every time, by taking their moslem prisoners, and hanging them from a yardarm on the highest parapet of their fortress, in full view of the enemy. After many of the Knights had been killed, and most of the rest were wounded, Suileman's commander demanded that the Knights surrender and turn over their fort if they wanted to be allowed to leave alive. Their reply was as follows: "You may have the strip of land from the base of our wall to the edge of the water, provided that you fill it continuously with the bodies of your Jannissaries (shock troops)."
Now THAT is courage. THAT is resolve. It kept Islam at bay for hundreds of years in times past. It would keep Islam at bay now if only we had the courage to stand up to them. Now I do not advocate the summary execution of prisoners of war, but I use that as an example of a tiny force who did whatever they had to do in order to show the Islamists that they refused to be intimidated.
There was a final battle at Malta. On that fateful day, there were a number of occasions where all seemed lost. But every time there was a breach in the wall, a few wounded Knights stepped into the breach. At the end of the day, the forces of Suileman were driven off with heavy casualties. A few days later, after a siege lasting six months, the moslems withdrew and returned to Istanbul, having lost two thirds of their invasion force.
This is the kind of resolve that is totally lacking today on the part of the West. Until and unless we summon it, the darkness of Islam will continue to spread, even within our own borders. But if we will just stand up to them and their predations, and resolve to ourselves and to them that we will no longer be intimidated, that is the day that Islam will begin to retreat.
Let each of us individually pledge that we will speak out, we will denounce the Satanic doctrine that is Islam, and we will not concede one inch or one argument any more. Let each of us who know what is as stake resolve to be the new Knights of the Order.
Mimi| 3.15.11 @ 10:47AM
WOW..! GREAT PIECE ... Every-one should take notice... a many century's problem.!!!
Rich Rostrom| 3.15.11 @ 1:46AM
George True: You need to go back and read that book again. It would have been really interesting for a PERSIAN fleet to appear at Lepanto, in the Mediterranean Sea, since Persia was hundreds of miles from the Mediterranean. It was a Turkish fleet.
Incidentally, you also might want to read "The Great Siege", by Ernle Bradford, the most authoritative account of the 1566 siege. He doesn't mention anything about Turks firing severed heads out of cannons.
George True| 3.15.11 @ 4:48AM
Well, excuuuse me for using the ancient name for what later became the Ottoman Turk empire. You might also want to look at a map, as Turkey is right on the Mediterranean Sea (also the Aegean Sea, and the Black Sea).
Also, the siege of Malta was in 1565, not 1566. But you are correct about who did or did not fire heads out of cannons. The Turks, after taking Fort St Elmo and slaughtering its last remaining defenders, beheaded them and tied their headless bodies to wooden crosses which they set adrift across the harbor to the main fort of St Angelo. The Knights responded by beheading some Turk captives and shooting their heads out of their most powerful cannon into the main Turkish lines directly across the harbor. This is according to another authoritative book about the siege entitled "Blood Rock" written by James Jackson.
So, I am sorry that I "misremembered" that particular detail. You got a few details wrong, too. But so what? And why are you nitpicking the details, anyway? It has nothing to do with my main point that the resolve that defeated Islam then will also defeat it now, if we only have the will to summon such resolve.
Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 12:35AM
is good