That's like saying Winston Churchill recruited Nazis by telling the truth about Hitler

A commenter posted:

It is far more certain that China and Russia will act towards their self preservation against radical threats than the certainty of your thinking. What evidence suggests they will not act and have not acted already?

What is "my thinking" exactly?

Judging from your careful attention to detail and command of basic facts, I doubt you're able to articulate it.

I was agreeing that China and Russia have their own jihads about which to worry. My "short-sighted" comment was pointing out that in Russia's case, even though they've got Chechnyan Muslims slaughtering and raping their schoolchildren, they still see fit to aid Iran.

China has one advantage as a totalitarian Communist regime: It can do what is necessary to stop its butchers without worrying about world opinion.

And now you are more of an expert than Jamal? Gee, can I attend your lectures probably filled with your reciting the Koran. What does the death of Hindus at the hands of the Taliban prove in denying his claim? In fact, he says they were created for this purpose, yes?

The Taliban have been around since the 1990's. I was referring to Islam's jihad invasions of India over the last 1400 years. You know all about them, obviously.

In 638, the jihad invasions of Hindu India began. What was Kashmir then? India.

So were Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

In that case, the "Kashmir problem" is that India didn't give it up yet.

In effect, you're blaming India for defending itself against jihad.

If all you can imagine that will defuse the Kasmir conflict is death or conversion of Muslims

Where did I write that? You are not honest.

no wonder your talking points are so repetitive and lack resonation in the Free world.
That is probably your final solution? Ah, now I see the connection to the neo-Nazis.

Keep it up. You do understand you are one of the best recruitment tools the jihadists have.

How deceitful -- how shameless and disgusting -- to appropriate the language used against the victims of the Holocaust in order to benefit those who'd like to carry out another one.

As if Muslims will listen to and obey a "ludicrous infidel."

That's like saying Winston Churchill recruited Nazis by telling the truth about Hitler.

Who represents more accurately the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad, the jihadist or the truly moderate?

Maxtrue added:

Your thinking and declarations are counterproductive as you move from reasonable threat assessment of the spread of radicalism into extremism that denies the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no Jihad, no death to infidels. Perhaps you should get out more and see the world.

If it wasn't bad enough that Maxtrue falsely accuses me of "denying the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no jihad, no death to infidels" (from where does he get "hundreds of millions"? Has Michael interviewed that many "real people on the street"? If so, were they honest?), he misses the simple fact that I've not been talking about "all Muslims."

How is that both he and Michael Totten both wrongly conflate "sacred" texts with individual believers?

An individual Muslim necessarily represents Islam the way Muhammad and his allah intended no more than a "Christian" necessarily represents Christ accurately.

So, who represents Islam more faithfully, the Muslim who seeks to establish shari'a over all the earth using any means necessary, including violence, or the Muslim who truly rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world and actually believes in equal rights for all people regardless of religion or gender?

Who represents more closely the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad, the jihadist or the "moderate"?

This leads to the question, who has the right to define "Islam"?

Just as Christ and His Apostles are the final word on what Christianity is and should be, so too Allah and its apostle define Islam.

Since Muhammad commanded and practiced offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world, the answer is clear.

"Radicals" aren't "exploiting" Qur'an, they're just reading it

Maxtrue, in his impassioned defense of Islam, doesn't quite live up to his name.

Perhaps "MaxPropaganda" or "MaxGullible" or "MaxUsefulIdiotDhimmi" or "MaxPoliticalCorrectness" or "MaxLogicalFallacies" -- though not as eloquent -- would be more accurate (and less tragically-ironic).

He observes:

your analogy is ludicrous. Hitler wasn't governed by a religious doctrine but by HIS false interpretation of reality and history. He exploited national greivences following the defeat in WW1 and directed them towards Jews and his neighbors who he claimed either took German land or imposed unfair terms of surrender.

Muhammad was governed -- or rather, governed others -- by "HIS false interpretation of reality and history." He exploited Man's vilest impulses and directed them at Jews, Christians, the rest of the non-Muslim world, apostates, women, and little girls.

What do you know about the "religious" doctrines of Islam?

Are you going to plead, "But I have a Muslim dentist, and he's a real nice guy"? Or, as Hugh Hewitt told Brad Thor recently, "I did a special on so-and-so and interviewed typically-good-natured-erudite-and-charming-moderate-Muslim-what's-his-name? and he asked, 'When are you going to give us our due?'" implying that you can define Islam by its apostates.

By what was Hitler governed? What did he seek to accomplish? Who were his allies in that effort?

Hitler sought total domination, the eradication of the Jews, and it was Hitler's mufti, not Hitlers' Pope.

Here's your buddy Muhammad's desire for total domination:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

Here's his desire to eradicate the Jews:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

Maxtrue continues:

There is not one dictator directing more than a billion Muslims, nor do Islamic despots even have clear control of their populations as Hitler did. We see tonight not "death to Israel" but "death to Russia" and "death to China" on the streets of Tehran. Neda who many Muslims have made the poster girl of resistance was wearing a cross when she died.

Muhammad and his allah "direct [potentially] more than a billion Muslims."

What do they command? Nothing less than slavery and death for those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . 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 . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

And those people protesting in Iran do so with various goals in mind. Many of them protest against the Islamic rule that you (apparently unknowingly) defend here.

With regard to Neda Soltani, were you aware that media had removed the cross from photos of her?

Why is that, I wonder?

Max adds:

What Muslim nation poses such enormous risk to the Western world as Hitler did?

9/11.

7/7.

3/11.

Mumbai, repeatedly.

Constantinople, 1453.

Gates of Vienna, 1683.

The Battle of Tours, 732.

Iran with a nuke.

Jihadists gain control of Pakistan's nukes.

Threat? What threat?

Who's killed more American civilians, Hitler or Muhammad?

Muslims obeying Allah's commands and his prophet's example to wage war against "those who disbelieve" took more American civilian lives in one morning than Hitler could in four years.

And that Tuesday was only one morning's work.

Devout Muslims emulating Muhammad's example have carried out nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone.

Do you honestly think that the US, Russia and China are no match for Iran, HIzb'Allah or Hamas? Your comparisons while couched in selective history completely ignore the historical differences between Germany and a Greater Islam. Certainly Jews would prefer the Muslim Spain they experiance to the Catholic one they were thrown out of.

Such a conclusion shows your ignorance of dhimma and what Jews endured under your "Islamic Golden Age."

You've been propagandized, Max, and you don't even know it.

Here's what one of those lucky Jews had to say about legendary (literally) Islamic tolerance in glorious Al-Andalus:

“Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they….”

-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain

Here begins the flood of Max's logical fallacies:

Are you trying to tell us that more than 1 million Muslim Israelis embrace your literal interpretation of the Koran?

And what about the Old Testament? Are you suggesting that Jews around the world accept a literal interpretation of the Old Testament? Are jews of a singular mind? Ultra Orthodox Jews are against Israel whereas some Jews are for a greater Israel.

A straw man and red herring: I've never mentioned what "1 million Muslim Israelis embrace" nor what "Jews around the world accept."

Argumentum ad hominem: It's not "my literal interpretation" of Islam's "sacred" texts that matter. It's how Muslims have interpreted them traditionally, which is, literally, the way Muhammad intended.

Where have I claimed that anyone is of a "singular mind"?

I focus on the Source and Sustenance of nearly one and one-half millennia of global jihad, which is the word of Allah and the example of Muhammad. When I mention individual Muslims from history or current events it is to illustrate Muslim obedience to those dictates and emulation of that example.

And you can't analyze Islam as you would analyze Judaism, for they are directed by diametrically-opposed moral standards.

Max continues with a stunningly ignorant -- and false -- moral equivalence:

Do you accept the literal interpretation of the New Testament? And if you do, why are you not as equal a threat to Jews as you say Muslims are?

Perhaps because Jesus commanded, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (every person is my "neighbor"), "Treat others the way you want to be treated," and, "Love your enemies."

On the other hand, Allah says:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

So, it's not me saying "Muslims are a threat to Jews" . . . it's Muhammad.

Here comes utter cluelessness, bad logic, and an outright lie:

How many Muslim nations help us in our struggle with radical Islam? How many Muslims serve in our military forces and don’t you insult them by characterizing them falsely?

Where have I "characterized falsely" Muslims in our military?

Paper is not people. Texts are not human beings.

You're lying. Retract it.

Which Muslim nations actually "help" us? Saudi Arabia, whose royals fund "radical" Islam here and abroad and supported the 9/11 attack? Pakistan, which takes our money gleefully while falling to shari'a? Iraq, whose prime minister celebrated our departure as a "victory"?

Some friends you've got there, Max.

Here's a false tu quoque:

And what slaughter was carried out in the name of Jesus or by communist regimes? Did they not kill, rape and murder far more human beings than all killed by Muslims?

Speaking of "peddling nonsense under the pretense of a lecturing historian"!

No Christian ever murdered, raped, or enslaved in obedience to Christ's commands, only in violation of them, proving themselves criminals.

Communism has slaughtered scores of millions, but only in the last century.

On the other hand, in obedience to Allah's command and in emulation of Muhammad's example, Islam has been enslaving, raping, and butchering non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls for nearly one and one-half millennia.

Here's another false moral equivalence from Max:

Again, shall I quote for you from the Bible?

Please do.

I guarantee you'll find no command from Christ (or Moses) to enslave, rape, or slaughter those who refuse the "invitation" to Christianity (or Judaism).

It is one thing to say that the literal interpretation of the Koran is used by radicals to promote jihadist thinking, but quite another in extending such thought to all of Islam thus proving to the critical "moderates" that Westerners are just as crazed as Islamic radicals.

Where have I tried to "extend such thought to all of Islam"? The texts say what they say. Muhammad did what he did. His followers conquered, enslaved, raped, brutalized, and butchered whomever they could. Do you know nothing of the spread of Islam?

Talk to the more than ninety-percent of official Islam which upholds offensive jihad against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

More historical illiteracy from Max:

You prove to them an equivalency of ideology when the way we will eventual triumph against radicalism is not by killing a billion Muslims, but through reformation.

How are you going to "reform a billion Muslims"?

What are you waiting for? You'd better get started!

Quoting their own texts does not "prove an equivalency of ideology."

Neither did I say, "kill a billion Muslims." Do you lie habitually?

If you're referring to the European "Reformation," that was a return to obedience (more or less, depending on the confession) to the Biblical texts.

You are seeing a comparable Islamic "reformation" in those Muslims who seek to obey Allah's commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or slaughter the non-Muslim world.

And what do you do with the fact that in the Islam Mr. Obama demands we respect, no major school of Sunni jurisprudence (nor Shi'ite) rejects offensive warfare against the non-Muslim world?

Another ad hominem, this time in the form of guilt-by-association:

And your remarks on Hitler are astounding given the apparent alliance between many on your flank with neo-Nazis.

You have no apparent moral reservations about committing libel.

At least you imply (accidentally!) that I despise Hitler.

You're lying again. Retract it, if you have any integrity.

My comments about Hitler are "astounding" only to the ignorant and the malicious, for I hate tyranny from wherever it comes, whether from a twentieth-century psychotic anti-Semite, or a seventh-century one.

A silly non sequitur from Max:

Do you believe all who do not accept Jesus Christ are going to Hell? Do you believe that woman was created from the rib of Adam? Do you believe Homosexuals sin? Do you believe Jews killed Christ? Why cannot Muslims ask this of Christians? Why cannot Muslims ask if YOU see them as heathens regardless of Jihad?

I am happy to address everyone's theological questions, since I desire all people to trust in Christ for their salvation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am concerned less about what Muslims wonder is going on in my head than what they believe their god and prophet require them to do with my head.

You do realize Muhammad commanded beheading non-Muslims for as little as "mischief," right?

And this is the worst part. Your mindset so angers centrist Westerners like myself, you divide the consensus needed to address the real threat which is the ability of radicals to exploit the Koran in an effort to extend THEIR hegemony. In this struggle we unquestionably need the many moderate Muslims on our side.

Yes, fairy tales are much more effective in winning wars.

Which "mindset," telling the truth? If that's so, then you've got bigger problems than the ramblings of a "lecturing nonsense peddler."

Your ignorance of Islamic doctrine and historical practice retards our efforts at self-defense, for you accept unquestioningly the existence of "many moderate Muslims on our side."

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that your numbers are correct ("many") and that they truly are "on our side." How do those "many" moderates convince their coreligionists-in-doubt that theirs is the "true" Islam when the "radicals" can point to what Muhammad actually said and did?

If the texts say, "demand the jizya . . . subdue . . . kill . . . until all religion is for Allah," then how are the radicals "exploiting" Qur'an? Aren't they just reading it?

Your thinking and declarations are counterproductive as you move from reasonable threat assessment of the spread of radicalism into extremism that denies the reality of hundreds of millions of Muslims seeking no Jihad, no death to infidels.

They're not my declarations, they're Allah and Muhammad's.

You are confusing what Muhammad said and did for what Muslims say and do.

Are you unable to make that simple distinction?

How does confusing the underlying ideology of jihad for those who do not adhere to it help us?

Here comes another tired ad hominem. It seems as though Max is reading from Islamic Apologetics for Dhimmis:

Perhaps you should get out more and see the world. Instead you point to unquestionable Islamic militancy and then spin it to impose your simplistic dialectic on history rather than see history for what it is. How do you explain that the world has more liberty today than it did a thousand years ago? Are you really claiming that human nature does not conspire to be free?

Anyone who can read will see that I've not "pointed to unquestionable Islamic militancy," but the words and works of Muhammad and his allah.

You're not calling Muhammad an "unquestionable Islamic militant," are you?

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

Or perhaps you're just unable to admit what your lyin' eyes are telling you when you read those texts.

As for human liberty? It is true that people want freedom for themselves.

Their neighbors? Not so much.

More often than not, they desire power over their fellows. Even in Ancient Greece, only some men were free.

The Liberty that the world enjoys today is the direct result of the teachings of Christ as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and of the courage and self-sacrifice of the American soldier, Marine, sailor, and airman.

Our Founding Fathers were nearly all orthodox Christians; even Thomas Jefferson -- often brought up as a contrary example -- confessed that he preferred Christ's teachings to all others.

He stated:

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

-Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801

Our learned analysts need to recognize Islam's fundamental semantic flaw: "Peace"

It does not mean what we think it means.

In response to my comment here:

What you are doing is the equivalent of interviewing Germans "on the street" during World War II and drawing conclusions about what should be done to win the war from only those interactions, while ignoring the ideology motivating and sustaining the greater Nazi effort.

Michael Totten replied:

That may well have been the case a few years ago. Apparently you missed it when every insurgent militia and terrorist group in the country got its ass kicked not only by Americans but by Iraqis. Iraqis "vomited out" Al Qaeda, as Charles Krauthammer accurately put it.

Here's my follow-up:

That's quite a non sequitur.

I was talking about your attacks on individuals for their pointing out that you are apparently unfamiliar with Islam's authoritative texts and history, and in "refutation" of that you offer . . . Muslims fighting other Muslims?

Each Iraqi who's fought with our military against foreign terrorists has done so for their own reason(s). I don't doubt some of those motives were good.

None of them, however, involve Muhammad's legendary religious tolerance.

So, are the terrorists in Iraq now, in only the last "few years," no longer Muslim?

In that case, who's doing the bombing today, Mennonites? Are the Iraqis returning to their own vomit?

Will there be more or less vomit once America is out?

Sunni and Shi'ite have been slaughtering each other -- when not enslaving and butchering non-Muslims -- since Muhammad died.

You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the U.S. has and has had terrific relations with Iraq's Kurds even while the rest of Iraq was on fire. And the Kurds are just as Islamic as the Arabs, though they are less strident and bigoted about their religion.

I don't recall mentioning the Kurds. Another non sequitur.

Is your point that not all Muslims are terrorists?

I've never said otherwise.

A variety of explanations exist for why Muslim nations refrain from attacking us directly.

One would be the large sums of taxpayer-funded jizya we send to several of those countries. Another is the fact that we are still -- despite "President" Obama's best efforts -- the only superpower in the world. To openly attack us would be suicide for that government.

(Perhaps you've noticed terrorism being carried out by small groups of "misunderstanderers of Islam" so that Muslim governments -- the Saudis, anyone? -- can maintain plausible deniability. Of course, with Obama apologizing to, dialoguing with, and releasing terrorists, no one will fear our strength for long.)

With regard to the Kurds specifically, they are by definition not as "Islamic" as "the Arabs," since they're -- in your own words -- "less strident and bigoted about their religion."

After all, Muhammad mandated, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57). You can't get more "bigoted" than that.

The Kurds' relatively greater emphasis on their ethnic identity rather than their religion is paralleled in other lands conquered by Islam, even among some Iranians (but I bet if you cite Muhammad's words or actions disapprovingly to a devout Kurd, that facade of Muslim civility will vaporize instantaneously!). Add to that their desire for a greater Kurdistan and having to contend with both Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs and "Persians," and you've gone a long way toward explaining relatively "good" relations with America.

There may even be some decent people there but again, that is in spite of Islam as defined by Muhammad, not because of it.

Iraq does not need to convert to Christianity or atheism (or whatever it is you're implying here) for it to be at peace with itself and the West. We have peaceful and normal relations with most Muslim countries. Even Israel has peaceful and normal relations with some Muslim countries. We weren't at war with Tunisia or Oman or Mali or Kuwait (etc) last time I checked. (I trust I don't need to give you the whole list.)

A few points:

1) I guess I'm not writing clearly enough. I wasn't aware I was "implying" anything.

I was stating that you are either unaware of or denying the fundamental role Muhammad's words and example play in modern Islamic terrorism, which is just one expression of the jihad commanded by Allah and carried out in fits and starts over the last 1400 years, beginning with Muhammad and continuing to this very day (nearly fourteen thousand Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 alone).

Any analysis that fails to account for this is flawed and will only hamper our efforts at self-defense. Spencer and Bostom understand Islam's history and ideology.

It would be wise for you to do so also.

2) Iraq could possibly be truly at peace with the West, but that will be in spite of Islam, not because of it. How can anyone who obeys Allah's commands to wage war against all who refuse both the "invitation" to Islam and subjugation as slaves (dhimmis) be[,] by definition[,] "at peace"?

That is logically and linguistically impossible.

What do you know about Turkey? It was a model moderate Muslim state, but that was because Ataturk crushed public expression of political Islam. Now that Erdogan is in charge, in which way is the country moving? Toward shari'a.

Are you aware that just a few years ago (I haven't checked lately), Mein Kampf was a best-seller there?

Why is that, do you think?

Could it have anything to do with:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)"?

3) If you knew of Muhammad's practice -- which is exemplary for Muslims because Allah called him a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him -- you would know that when the Camp of Islam is weak, it seeks time to build or regain its strength (you see this in the truces for which Hamas calls whenever Israel finally gets serious about defending itself).

When strong enough, Muhammad violated his treaties and attacked his enemies ("enemies" because they would not submit to his "religion").

Iraq's problems have been catastrophic, and religious zealotry has been only one of its problems. If Iraq is doomed solely because it is Muslim, then every Muslim country should look like Iraq. Yet that's not the case

This is simplistic and inaccurate.

Iraq may be doomed for a variety of reasons; the main one is that once under the rule of Allah, always under the rule of Allah. Secular rule must be abolished.

You have two main threats to Iraq's viability. One is that those forces seeking to subjugate the country to full-blown shari'a (you are aware that shari'a is part of the Iraqi constitution, right?) will use any means necessary -- including terrorist bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations -- to accomplish this goal.

The second major threat is the conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite. Ahmadinejad's been courting Maliki. Considering Iraq's Shi'ite majority and Iran's nearing completion on its own nukes, it can't be long before the majority Sunni nations (or their agents) enter into more overt efforts against their historic rivals. Perhaps you've heard recently of Saudi Arabia's tacit consent for Israel's use of its airspace to take out the Iranian program.

What's happened to Iraq's Jews and Christians? Have you interviewed any of those people "on the street"? Probably not, since Iraq's ancient Jewish population has been largely driven out of the country and its Christians are routinely threatened, intimidated, and murdered. Their numbers are dwindling rapidly.

Why is that, do you think?

I hope that Iraq can become a nation truly free from Islam. You see in Iran among those protesting for an Islamic tyrant of their own choosing -- whatever the outcome was in that election, the theocrats were going to stay in power -- people protesting for real Liberty.

I'd like that for all Muslim lands and all Muslims. Whether it's a conversion to Christianity (the best outcome), Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, the cult of Artemis, I don't care -- as long as anyone believes their god commands them to "fight . . . until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8), there can be no peace.

The only lasting "peace" Islam recognizes is that which arises when the competition is in either hijab, chains, or the grave.

And you're still conflating Allah's commands and Muhammad's example with individual Muslims.

Doctrine is not necessarily practice. Texts are not human beings. Paper is not people.

The command of Allah and the words and deeds of Muhammad are not individual Muslims.

How mendacious Muslim malevolence and intransigent Infidel ignorance combine to prove Sun Tzu not only a brilliant military strategist, but a prophet

Each of these statements applies to our current Overseas Contingency Operation/War on a Tactic.

Sun Tzu on what should be our War of Self-Defense Against Islam:

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

Totten, Hewitt, Bush, Obama . . . no one tells the truth about Islam.

And now the OIC, in conjunction with the UN, the United States' Congress, and the "president," will limit and then outlaw not criticism, but exposure, of Allah's command and Muhammad's example.

"It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, engage them; if equal, be able to divide them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them."

Or take their planes, use them as bombs, cry "Islamophobia!" when someone points out why you did it, and then exploit their ignorance and good will to the tune of thousands more American lives and billions upon billions of our dollars.

And they'll celebrate your holidays. Maybe even hire one of your own to command their military.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

Something like the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within,” perhaps?

Islam's success in America has been delayed by 9/11. If not for that, no one would have noticed until it was too late, just like a lobster in a pot of boiling water.

And don't forget the MB's buddies here in the United States: CAIR and ISNA (both unindicted co-conspirators in a federal terrorism trial), MPAC, Obama, his appointees, the American Library Association . . . .

"What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations."

1400 years of jihad, you say?

How long does it take to win hearts and minds, again?

What about dialogue? "Mutual" respect?

Just long enough for them to get a nuke and bleed us dry?

Sun Tzu continues:

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate"

and

"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."

Or get yourself elected as the Great Satan's Commander-in-Chief and take up positions in its government, military, security, academic, and media apparatus.

Muslims would never deceive anyone on religious grounds, right? Right?

Muhammad said, "War is deceit."

Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.''

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah" (Qur'an 3:28).

The great military strategist continues:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

They also go to war without their political, media, and academic "elites" having a clue as to what motivates the enemy.

"Religion of Peace! Religion of Peace!"

"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."

"Terror" is only a tactic; Islam is the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad.

"Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley."

Or you can elect a radical, America-hating, former Muslim who kowtows to Islamic tyrants and sends your best and bravest into a war they cannot win without obliterating mountain ranges.

"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them."

Da'wa.

Or jihad.

Or bankrupting and disarming the nation. Regardless:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

The Art of Fighting Blind: Perhaps Michael J. Totten should stick to interviewing "real people on the street," since he confuses friend and enemy

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

"You might try to win their hearts and minds.

When that doesn't work, try dialogue and "mutual" respect!

-Presidents Bush and Obama

And then attack anyone who points out your missing the forest for the trees, your confusing friends for enemies and enemies for friends.

Michael J. Totten and commenters at his site have attacked the integrity, motives, and work of Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom* over Spencer's pointing out -- and Bostom's defense of that criticism -- that since Iraq's Maliki called American withdrawal a "great victory" and Iraqis are chanting, "America has left! Baghdad is victorious," Totten's appraisal of things in Iraq is unrealistic.

Contrary to Michael's claim that Robert thinks we've already lost the war, Spencer observed:

"any "victory" the Americans won in Iraq was sure to be undone as soon as the troops were gone, and we are already seeing that. Sunni will go after Shi'ite and vice versa, the Iranians will press forward to create a Shi'ite client state, the non-Muslims will be victimized more than ever . . . ."

(You can't have a victory "undone" without having a victory in the first place. And anyone familiar with Islam's "theology" and history would see the reasonableness of his assessment.)

In reply, Totten sneered that Spencer, "has a bit of trouble telling the difference between friend and foe in Iraq."

How ironic, coming from someone not only blind to the fact that "It's the jihad, stupid!" but gullible enough to believe that Maliki actually wants to be America's friend.

In the hope Maliki meant something he didn't, Totten quotes him in an update:

The message will be to ensure the basis of our relations and our friendship, which is a long-term strategic relationship. There are many parts to that, like trade and investment. I will convey the wish of Iraq for friendship with the U.S.

So, is "Um Hussan" a clueless blowhard too? According to the Times:

“When the Americans get out of city centers, a big war will start,” a woman who identified herself as Um Hussan said amid the wreckage of a bombing on Monday outside her house in the Ur neighborhood of Baghdad. It has been months, she added, since she last saw American forces there.

The author of that article seems pretty sure Maliki's reference to "victory" was one of success against America, not with it against jihadists:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has taken to calling the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq’s cities by next Tuesday a “great victory,” a repulsion of foreign occupiers he compares to the rebellion against British troops in 1920.

[. . .]

In his discussions with the Americans, officials said, Mr. Maliki has shown far more pragmatism than his public remarks about repulsing foreign occupiers might suggest, requesting, for example, that American explosive removal teams keep sweeping Baghdad’s streets.

"So, we'll take your money, and you take our bombs, okay, America!"

There's Maliki's "trade and investment."

Here is the Independent's version:

Mr Maliki, who was put into power by the US in 2006, spoke of the departure of the troops as if he had been leading an insurgency against them. "Foreign forces have to withdraw from the cities totally," he said in the course of an hour-long speech in which he mentioned America only once. "This is a victory that should be celebrated in feasts and festivals."

Totten deserves praise for his work; however, he does himself, his readers, and his countrymen a great disservice by both failing to recognize that the source and sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad are the commands of Allah and the example of Muhammad and by defaming those who do.

Following are my comments posted (if approved by Totten) here:

"Roseate" fits because you are apparently unaware of nearly one and one-half millennia of Islamic jihad against the non-Muslim world.

Because you are ignorant of (or unwilling to admit) this history -- and as importantly, its theological foundation in the word of Allah and the example of Muhammad as recorded in the texts of Qur'an, ahadith, and sira, Islam's "sacred" texts -- your analysis will always be limited, always unable to put interviews with "real people on the street" into their fuller historical, religious, political, and cultural contexts, always blind to "The Big Picture."

Every analogy breaks down eventually, but here's one:

It's World War II, and you're interviewing Germans "on the street." What would you find?

Some would be rabid Nazis who believe fervently that their duty is to make Europe Germany. Others would have joined the Nazis only out of fear, coercion, or convenience. Still others would be actually decent, moral human beings who oppose Hitler as a matter of conscience. A few would be risking their lives to save Jews and/or defeat Hitler.

From these hypothetical interviews, you might conclude that the majority of Germans were not devout supporters of Nazism.

Even if that were true, how would such a conclusion help in stopping Hitler? In saving Jews (and others) from Dachau and the other death camps? In informing Allied planning?

(Can you imagine FDR spending American blood and treasure trying to "win Nazi hearts and minds"? Can you conceive of him "apologizing and dialoguing in mutual respect" with Hitler?)

What you are doing is the equivalent of interviewing Germans "on the street" during World War II and drawing conclusions about what should be done to win the war from only those interactions, while ignoring the ideology motivating and sustaining the greater Nazi effort.

How can one defeat an enemy without naming it? Without knowing its history and beliefs? By denying 1400 years of clear, published statements of its motivations, tactics and goals?

The ideology of Islam as defined by Muhammad is the elephant in the room, the clothes the emperor left behind, the actual "inconvenient truth" that threatens humanity.

Islam is not a race.

Doctrines are not human beings.

Paper is not people.

However, the doctrines of Islam do motivate the global jihad, and this is why:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . 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 . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

And that's just a sampling.

Spencer is fair. Charles Johnson is not. Bostom is brilliant because he's thorough and accurate. Pamela Geller tells the truth. Yes, she can be forceful, and that can be shocking to someone who doesn't see what she sees; her fervor comes from an acute understanding of the threat to the world posed by traditional, historical, Islam-the-way-Muhammad-preached-and-practiced-it Islam.

How can someone not be outraged at slavery, brutality, rape, and slaughter carried out at Allah's command and in accord with Muhammad's example for the last 1400 years and currently?

By the way, Michael, Maliki just wants our "trade and investment" and someone to sweep for mines: "You give us your money, and we give you our bombs. You have to find them first, infidels."

*A note: Someone at Totten's 'blog cited Charles Johnson in support of their misplaced derision, which was one of the concerns regarding LGF's mendacity: Apologists for jihad and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis would use Johnson's libelous statements against those struggling in defense of Western Civilization.