December 5th 2008
Watcher’s Winners – Mumbai Week
T
here are some powerful punches and head-clearing uppercuts among this week’s champion sluggers of the blogosphere, as presented by the Don King of Blogs, The Watcher of Weasels.
In the Watcher’s Council corner, newcomer Right Truth scored a TKO with P.C./D.C., a rather long-ish but spot on piece on the difficulties we find ourselves in because we fight under PC rules, while our opponents from Islam don’t. (See how the boxing images all tie together?). Here’s the ring girl, strutting a particularly good paragraph from the piece:
Now, here’s where political correctness comes into play. We cannot fight the war on terrorism by singling out Arabs or other Muslims. We must consciously give “equal consideration” to that old lady in the wheelchair during airport screenings. We must conclude that openly hostile and questionably patriotic Dearborn, Michigan does not engage in terrorist recruitment or support. We must always address the “Palestinian Question” whenever we seek reasons why some people are quite prepared to blow themselves up in order to kill us. And, the grand finale, we cannot undertake diplomacy without somehow laying the blame for world destruction squarely upon the Israelis. Do you detect a trend here?
Runner-up Joshua Pundit also wrote on our war against the jihadists in Defeating the Death Cult, which got the most points on my score card for its analysis of how existing laws could be used to suppress eager jihadists at home:
As for legislating dangerous ideologies, our courts have been down this road before when faced with the communist conspiracy here in America in the 1940′s and 1950′s. Those laws exist and are quite plain and provide a firm and above all constitutional foundation when it comes dealing with most to the problems we have in the US with some practitioners of Islam and the people overseas who export jihad into America. And a few perfectly constitutional tweaks would cover the rest.
He cites, for example, how US code of justice, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2385, § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government is applicable and could be used to make the imams of the Saudi-funded Wahhabist mosques shut up.
My piece, Jihad’s Phony Hostages, on the Jew massacre in Mumbai the MSM continually called a hostage-taking, came in fourth.
And in the non-Council corner, we have a somewhat clear winner, and first on my non-Council score card, Elder of Ziyon’s Islamist strategy vs. Western tactics, an essay on a familiar theme that needs repeating:
The West is attuned to short-term thinking. Perhaps this is because of the need to elect new leaders every few years, but it sacrifices long-term strategy for vaporous short-term gains. It would be laughable to even consider that the West has a plan to defeat the Islamist world that spans more than a decade.
The Arab and Muslim psyche, on the other hand, is very much attuned to long-term trends. A hundred years is but a blip in Islamic history and, from their perspective, Israel has not yet lasted as long as the Crusades. The battle takes decades and centuries; it is not something that has to be mopped up by the next election cycle.
As a result, every Western concession to the Islamic world is tactical from the Western perspective and strategic from the Islamic perspective. Tactics without strategy is a loser’s game.
Note that I said a “somewhat clear winner.” I didn’t vote for my own entry, Stratfor’s Strategic Motivations for the Mumbai Attack, because my free subscription had apparently timed out and I got a different page from the link. Assuming all Council members got this page, I voted first place to the Elder; had I realized others were seeing the Stratfor page, I would have voted it into first, giving it 2/3 more points and the Elder 1/3 less, and we would have had a different winner. The piece states early on:
More important than the question of the exact group that carried out the attack, however, is the attackers’ strategic end. There is a tendency to regard terror attacks as ends in themselves, carried out simply for the sake of spreading terror. In the highly politicized atmosphere of Pakistan’s radical Islamist factions, however, terror frequently has a more sophisticated and strategic purpose. Whoever invested the time and took the risk in organizing this attack had a reason to do so. Let’s work backward to that reason by examining the logical outcomes following this attack.
Then it looks at four different strategic/geo-political ramifications of the attack and leaves you pretty much gasping for breath by the time it’s all wrapped up.
Also in second place was American Thinker’s The Legacy of Jihad in India, a rather dry but very important historic analysis of Islam’s ongoing attacks on Hindus, stretching back nearly 1500 years.
The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in 636—637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under Qutub—ud—din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu resisters on the Western coast of India from 636—713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during 636—870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870 C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni (from 1000— 1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri’s conquest of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E.
I hate the PC C.E. designation, BTW. Give me AD any day, and praise the Lord. But that (and the dryness of the piece) aside, you need to know the awful barbarism Islam has thrust on India for no reason other than India is peopled with Hindus. Only then can you really understand the Mumbai attack.
See all the winners at Watcher of Weasels. And Watcher, you need a bit more pomade.
Writing in American Thinker, Paul Kengor details 
. Although my memories are a bit hazy about the details of the book, I seem to recall reading him bemoaning the fact that part of the Black community’s self-sabotage was the refusal to engage in the “white” work ethic of being reliable.
