Monday, February 22, 2010

Islam is the Enemy

I read an interesting Spiked column on the current "offensive" in Afghanistan. The author makes several valid points. He all but says that if the war is fought, not to achieve victory, but to attain some altruistic "hearts and minds" goal, then it is pointless to even wage the war.

As the NATO forces prepared to launch their latest doomed offensive to defeat an invisible enemy while winning over hostile hearts and minds, a British lieutenant colonel was quoted as saying, somewhat tactlessly, ‘We are going into the heart of darkness’.


Tactlessly? “The heart of darkness” (a reference to Joseph Conrad’s novel, Heart of Darkness) is ultimately not what Mick Hume alludes to, “an occupation without purpose, a dangerous military offensive without goals, a war without causes but plenty of casualties.” Rather, it is to the enveloping, logical darkness of acting from selfless, altruistic motives. In war, as well as in peace, as a nation’s policy or as a personal one, the object of selflessness and altruism is to sacrifice a value for a non-value, to elevate mediocrity as a means of razing shrines. (See Ellsworth Toohey’s speech on the means and ends of altruism wedded to collectivism in Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, for clarification on that issue.)* It is to seek no gain, not even a national security one. In this instance, it is to elevate ourselves in the eyes of semi-literate brutes and world opinion.

If waging the war is a legitimate action (as defeating Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan was), why is a "Just War" (one that conforms to the “Just War” theory) centrally linked with befriending an enemy population not deemed to be legitimate, unless it's waged from altruistic motives? How can one win the "hearts and minds" of a population that is still morally, culturally, and epistemologically in the Dark Ages? And even if the population is somehow "befriended," what is the likely longevity of such an accomplishment? What is to stop it from reverting to type, that is, from regressing to its pre-befriended, culturally stagnant state?

One of the major flaws of especially American strategy in Afghanistan is evading the fact that it is not so much the Taliban our military is fighting, but Islam itself. Even if we managed to wipe out the Taliban and al-Quaeda, Islam would remain in the culture. Islam is at its core anti-Western, anti-reason, anti-all pro-life values. For example, what guarantee did we ever have that Iraq would not revert back to some form of Islamic law or a corrupt regime? Well, look at the government there. We expended lives and treasure there -- thousands of lives and billions of dollars -- for what? So that charlatans, non-entities, and mediocrities can vie for power?

Yes -- and democratically, too. We believe in “democracy” -- not individual rights -- and if the Iraqis vote themselves a mongrel, semi-secular, semi-religious government, who are we to judge? After all, it was the “will of the people.”

Would the same thing happen in Afghanistan? Of course. The only alternative, according to “Just War” strategists, is permanent occupation to ensure “stability.” Favorably explicating General Stanley McChrystal’s current military policy and comparing it with the British experience, Max Boot, of the Council on Foreign Relations, concludes:

What Gen. McChrystal realizes, in effect, is that we need to create our own Robert Warburtons. If his experiment succeeds, future commanders can build on the precedent to provide the kind of cultural and linguistic skills that we will need to win the long war against Islamic extremists.


What are McChrystal’s objectives? His Harvard thinking shows through here:

“The biggest thing is in convincing the Afghan people,” General McChrystal said in Istanbul, where he joined Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to brief NATO allies just before the offensive began.

“This is all a war of perceptions,” General McChrystal said. “This is not a physical war in terms of how many people you kill or how much ground you capture, how many bridges you blow up. This is all in the minds of the participants.”


In short, our forces in Afghanistan are commanded by a degree-carrying Kantian. It’s all in your head, you know, what you think “victory” is. War, according to this policy, should be nothing more than armed social work to convert the Patagonians, or the Iraqis, or Afghanis to bring them “stability” and to ourselves self-sacrificing brownie points.

However, what is in the minds of the Taliban? The kind of victory erased from the mind of General Stanley McChrystal.

Can we blame President Barack Obama for his lukewarm "war strategy," if it can be called a strategy at all? Yes. Although he is more focused on waging war against American liberties, not against any foreign threat, his Afghanistan policy, in fact, is simply an application and extension of his assault on American liberties, which he does not value and has demonstrated he is willing to sacrifice. Pundits have come close to the truth when they refer to Obama’s Mideast and Afghanistan policies as “Bush II.” I would call it a policy “aggressive appeasement,” one which now straddles two administrations.

Former president George W. Bush, the hand-holder of Saudi kings and host to regular Ramadan dinners at the White House, set the moral tone of this ten-year war of attrition after 9/11. Islam, he insisted, is a "religion of peace." Obama is of the same mind. Read his Cairo speech. Obama is faced with a threat that did not exist in Bush's time, or at least it is a threat that has grown since then, which is Iran's nuclear-weapons program, which Obama refuses to act on or to permit Israel to eliminate. Obama, like George Bush and his father, former president George H. W. Bush, believes in sacrifice to attain sacrificial ends. Sacrifice of values is the touchstone of moral purity and worth.

I raise this issue because our current Afghanistan strategy is bound to fail, regardless of whatever military gains we might make. To ensure that the Taliban and al-Quaeda don't resurge and become another force that could threaten the West, the U.S. would need to apply a "cleansing" policy to the country, similar to the de-Nazification program in Germany and General MacArthur's de-militarism policy in Japan (to eradicate all sources of Nihon gunkoku shugi), so forcefully described by John Lewis in his lectures and book, Nothing Less Than Victory. Essentially, the country would need to be "de-Islamicized."

Can we credibly expect that to happen, even if our policymakers acknowledged the inherent bellicosity of the Islamic creed? No. More progress would be made if we attempted to eradicate Voodooism from Haiti. We "respect" Islam. We go out of our way to not offend Islamic sensibilities -- not only in the field, but right here at home.

Instead, our policy advocates “containment” of a nuclear-armed Iran and the pacification of hostile populations with candy and American-built dams and hospitals. Of a war-fighting policy of avoiding civilian casualties at the expense of the lives of American troops.

Would we have won WWII if we had treated Nazi ideology and doctrine, and Japanese militarism, as just examples of "diversity in political and cultural thought,” immune from moral judgment? No. The West, and especially the U.S., has got to stop looking at Islam as simply a religion to "respect," and treat it as the political-theocratic menace it is. Islam, by its doctrinaire nature, is implacable. It cannot be “peaceful” and bellicose at the same time. It must be so thoroughly discredited it would never show its head again. If that leaves Muslims the world-over disillusioned or angry, so be it. Why should we care what they think or even think of us?

Our military forces should be allowed to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan regardless of their location, proximity to civilians, or any other “extenuating” circumstance. Our forces should be regularly reminded that Islamic “extremists” do not reciprocate such “gentlemanly” rules of war. They should be reminded of 9/11, when nearly 3,000 American and other civilians perished on our own soil, with more to come, if we do not destroy states that sponsor terrorism.

Short of that, the U.S. should just abandon Afghanistan and Pakistan and leave them to their tribal feuds and internal squabbles, but act militarily, if we are threatened, with overwhelming force. Winning the “hearts and minds” of those two countries is a lose-lose proposition, which it is intended to be. That cannot be over-emphasized. That is altruism in war, regardless of Colin Powell’s, General McChrystal’s, or Obama’s assurances. The “shrine” of America can be razed by bleeding it to death in a “war of appeasement” -- for the appeasement of zeroes.

Unless that is grasped and acknowledged, in the long run, no amount of victory in Afghanistan is going to matter.

*The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand. 1943. New York: Plume-Penguin Centennial Edition, 2005, pp. 663-670. The speech can be found in Chapter XI, Part XIV, Howard Roark.

24 comments:

madmax said...

Ed,

Another excellent essay. Many Objectivists are hesitant to say that Islam is the enemy. They say that the enemy is "Islamic Totalitarianism" or some such. I have always disagreed with this. The enemy is Islam period. I think that fact has consequences for the way Islam is treated in this country - from immigration to the scrutiny placed on Muslims. Dr. Peikoff in one of his last few podcasts said that Muslims should be profiled. If things get bad enough, it may even be necessary to ban Islamic immigration and deport all 5th column Muslims. Although that will be no easy task.

Anonymous said...

Madmax: It's a point I've been trying to drive home for as long as I've written on the subject: Islam = Islamic Totalitarianism. Gut the creed of its jihadist imperatives, sever the political and theocratic connections, and all that would be left are poorly dressed slobs bowing to a rock with no compunction to "slay Jews, infidels, unbeliever," or anyone else. They'd be as docile as the Amish.

Bosch Fawstin said...

"Islam is the Enemy." Indeed it is, Mr. Cline, and I don't think anyone's written it as succinctly as you did, thank you for that. I recently wrote a piece, "Calling Islam "Islam" , about the dangerous name game we're playing regarding Islam. Here's a short passage from it:

"Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as "Radical Nazism", "Extremist Shinto" and "Militant Communism". Those who use terms other than "Islam" create the impression that it's some variant of Islam that's behind the enemy that we're facing. A term such as "Militant Islam" is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion."


Thanks again, and to echo Howard Roark, It has to be said, again and again and again.....

Mo said...

"Short of that, the U.S. should just abandon Afghanistan and Pakistan and leave them to their tribal feuds and internal squabbles, but act militarily, if we are threatened, with overwhelming force. Winning the “hearts and minds” of those two countries is a lose-lose proposition, which it is intended to be."

this is very true

"For example, what guarantee did we ever have that Iraq would not revert back to some form of Islamic law or a corrupt regime? Well, look at the government there. We expended lives and treasure there -- thousands of lives and billions of dollars -- for what? So that charlatans, non-entities, and mediocrities can vie for power?"

It was the wrong war from the start. And even when they did launch it, it was not done properly. Iran was and still is the main threat. That and US support for dictatorships in the Arab World.

Melinda said...

Using "Islamic Totalitarianism" to refer to the enemy adds Islam's essential attribute to the name. It helps our side keep in focus the precise nature of our foe and eliminates the need to get down into the weeds in never-ending discussions of the religion of peace and moderate Muslims.

Totalitarianism is the enemy. Islam is the current variant.

Slade Calhoun said...

We should have seized the arab oil fields right after 9.11 and cut off their cash flow, using any means. We had a pretext, if we needed one, that even our gutless "leaders" could have exploited at the time. Without cash, Islam could then crawl back into the ideological museum it escaped from, thanks to western money.

Anonymous said...

Melinda: You're essentially right about using "Islamic Totalitarianism," in order to focus on its core character, but its core character is totalitarian in nature. For those who think in essentials, and know the nature of Islam, "Islam" is enough. I've noted before on this site that if Islam were gutted of its bellicose injunctions (the holy words of Mohammad), what would be left of Islam but a mishmash of pious injunctions as innocuous as that of the Amish. Even "moderate" Muslims wouldn't accept that surgery. There wouldn't be anything left in the creed to distinguish it from the Amish or any other species of Christianity, and the smarter, more doctrinaire Muslims know this.

Slade: Good idea, but Bush missed his chance. We could have made the whole Arabian Peninsula the 51st state, with Iran as a U.S. territory.

Melinda said...

Dear Mr. Cline,

I appreciate the response. At the risk of kicking a dead camel, it's because people don't hold Islam's essential attribute in their mind that it helps to add "Totalitarianism". It doesn't decrease the scope of the evil, it identifies the whole of the evil.

The arguments posted here against the usage compare it to the oft-repeated "Radical Islam", "Extremist Islam" and "Militant Islam" which attempt to tease out a mythical good Islam from the non-mythical evil Islam. I argue that it has the opposite effect. It identifies the fact that Islam is Totalitarianism and rebuts the idea that there are any redeeming qualities or members in it.

Anonymous said...

Melinda remarked: "The arguments posted here against the usage compare it to the oft-repeated "Radical Islam", "Extremist Islam" and "Militant Islam" which attempt to tease out a mythical good Islam from the non-mythical evil Islam."

I like your notion of apologists attempting to "tease out a mythical good" Islam as opposed to what Bush et al. have claimed was a "hijacked" Islam. One could compare that line of thinking with, say, claiming that Christians who murder doctors who perform abortions are just "radical Christians" who have hijacked a "peaceful religion" -- when in fact some of the most devastating wars in Christendom have been between Christians of different persuasions (e.g., The Thirty Years’ War), and when the Catholic Church sanctioned and encouraged the torture and execution of heretics (Torquemada, et al.). And this is without examining the nature of the morality of Christianity, which, essentially, if one obeyed its laws, would lead to one’s self-extinction.

“Teasing” out the “good” Islam from the “bad” Islam is an instance of evasion and context-dropping, and there are two parties adept at it: most of our politicians, including Bush and Obama; and official Islamic spokesmen, such as CAIR and the ISNA, which are the “friendly,” non-bellicose faces of Islam. Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Robert Spencer have extensively catalogued the statements and public posturing of these and similar organizations as episodes of taqiya, or the Islamic/religious dissimulation for the benefit of non-Muslims, approved by the Koran.

Interestingly, Obama and his cohorts in Congress practice a form of taqiya, of lying to the public about the necessity and benefits of health care, cap-and-trade, and other “social” legislation, when they know damned well that they’re out to take over the economy and transform it to a socialist command economy. But if you could ask Obama or Emanuel or Gibbs what they thought of “taqiya,” they’d likely think you were referring to a board game played with dice and phony money.

Ed

Ed said...

Ed,

One minor quibble. You (and many others) repeat the idea that Israel has the capacity to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. It does not. The Iranian nuclear facilities are deeply embedded and protected by a large-scale ainti-aircraft defense network. To successfully attack the facilities in a substantive fashion would require hundreds of sorties, perhaps thousands, over a week or more. It would not be like Osirak where 16 planes attacked a single target. First the air defense facilities would have to be neutralized, then the above-groud facilities leveled, then the underground facilities attacked with bunker-busters possibly multiple times. The Israelis do not have the attack aircraft capacity to do this job. They also do not have the aerial refueling capability to get their attack aircraft deep into Iran and have them return to Israel safely. Finally, they do not control the airspace between Israel and Iran. The Turks and NATO control the northern route. The US Air Force controls the rest of the route. Going around the Arabian peninsula is not possible without aerial refueling capability. Thus, without the active cooperation of the US, Israel cannot strike. And even if they had the cooperation (and our tankers), they would have to run a multi-week operation with every aircraft they have. And still they might only partially damage the underground facilities. The only force capable of destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities is the US Air Force, and with the current administration, it will not be able to act.

Ed said...

Ed remarked: "You (and many others) repeat the idea that Israel has the capacity to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. It does not."

Unless you're a member of Israeli intelligence or in its military, you can't say that for certain. I certainly don't make the claim. You're right that Israel would need the U.S.'s cooperation to attempt to at least damage Iran's underground facilities. Given the ambivalent if not hostile "stance" Obama (and, let us not forget Bush) has demonstrated towards Israel, that's not likely. But, I'm not willing to at the moment write off Israel. I'm hoping it has something up its sleeve. They've surprised us before.

Ed

Anonymous said...

I heard a recent CAIR add on the radio. They branded themselves as a woman's organization, soliciting donations on behalf of women in other countries. Not once did they spell out the acronym or identify themselves as a Muslim organization. I wonder if Pipes and the rest are aware of this attempt at re-branding, and I wonder how sincere CAIR really is in regard to the suffering of women in the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: Doubtless Pipes, Spencer, and Emerson are aware of the ad. CAIR is no more concerned about the persecution of women in the Mideast than they are about the "honor" killings of women and girls there and in this country. The few Muslim women who hold top, publicly visible positions in organizations such as the ISNA are just window dressing. In the ideal world of Islam, Muslim women would be relegated to a status lower than the dhimmi. They'd exist to just fix meals for their men and breed like rabbits and keep house. And always walk behind their men. CAIR's chief function in this country is purely PR and nothing else. They pass judgment only when a court ruling is against them, or if someone speaks up about the indoctrination of school children in "Muslim" culture -- which is an oxymoron.

Ed

M.D. Labeit said...

I think the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is developing the ability to effectively eliminate the threat posed by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, if they do not possess that ability already.

I see no problem with employing the term "Islamic Totalitarianism." Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein explain themselves in "Just War." Islam is a philosophy, with its own ontological, epistemic, and moral claims. Worldviews cannot be attacked, nor can they attack themselves. However, an Islamic political system or movement can be attacked (an can attack as well) because it consists of human beings and institutions. When Islam is politicized, the result is totalitarianism, albeit "Islamic totalitarianism" (to differentiate from Christian totalitarianism or socialist totalitarianism.)

It certainly cannot hurt to identify the different strains of totalitarianism, the different specific differentia.

Michael Labeit said...

Madmax,

Relax with the immigration prohibitions. One of the best things foreign Muslims can do is flee repressive theocracies and come to the West, particularly the U.S. where they can engage in commerce with the rest of us. Western culture has successfully tempered Christian fundamentalism and it has done the same for the most part with regard to Islam in the U.S. Communists, racists, and Muslims have their rights as well.

It all depends upon what you mean by "Islamic immigration." If you mean anyone who labels him or herself as a "Muslim" then banning all of them is more than merely a bad idea. However, if they designate themselves as Muslims and take Koranic and Hadithic prescriptions truly seriously, especially the ones regarding killing pagans and nonbelievers, then there are grounds for prohibitive actions.

But how far are you willing to go? If all Christians, Muslims, and Jews acted in perfect accordance with their respective faiths, then they would be committed to performing moral and legal atrocities. Most religionists claim to be genuinely religious. So what do you do? Thankfully, most people's subconscious rationality enables them to avoid the obvious insanity of particular Scriptural commands and simultaneously allows them to exist under the impression that they're living sincerely religious lives. But how are you going to assess each religious person's consistency? Now add all the Marxists, communists, socialists, etc.

Anonymous said...

M. Labeit: Everything you say makes sense, except that Muslims haven't really accepted the notion of "getting along with other religions or faiths." Their Koran forbids it. Their spokesmen boast that the Constitution will ultimately be replaced with Sharia, but first having Sharia recognized as coequal with the Constitution (otherwise, we could be accused of "cultural imperialism" and not really being "serious" about multiculturalism). In Britain and in many places in Europe, not only do local police dare not go into Muslim "forbidden zones" in answer to real crime, but neither will the law or the courts.

One of the tenets of cultural -- as opposed to violent -- jihad, and expressed by Pax-Islamic strategists and planners (e.g. The Muslim Brotherhood), is to encourage Muslims to settle in "infidel" nations and take over through reproduction, and in no instance temper or modify Islam to conform to Western norms.

But, worse than the Muslim influence here, is the rise of Christian fundamentalism, whose proponents insist that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, and not a secular one -- in wholesale disregard of the evidence that it wasn't. There is no more chance of having a rational discussion of that issue with them as there is discussing the absurdity of the Koran with a rank-and-file Muslim -- who, if pressed, would never repudiate or question the Koran, as no God-fearing Christian would repudiate the Bible.

Frankly, I regard rank-and-file Muslims and Christians as epistemological troglodytes, regardless of their professions or how competent they are in them. The ones to oppose are their "intellectuals," the mullahs, imams, sheiks, bishops, cardinals, and the like. They're the ones waging a philosophical war against the West, not the trogs.

Turning on a Sunday TV evangelical show, and looking at the audience, I see lots of normal-looking people who unfortunately are also boobs, because they hang on every word of the charlatan on the stage as he (and often she) declaims his emotionalist, non-sequiturish BS. Watching Muslims bow en masse to a rock is also indicative of how many people are voluntary trogs. When it comes to religion, regardless of the creed, reason is an welcome intruder.

Leonard Peikoff advocated refusing any further admittance of Muslims into this country, because basically, we are at war with Islam, Muslims, thinking or not, constitute a fifth columns, and Islam means to conquer us by increasing their numbers and electoral influence. This is aside from the issue that Obama is waging his own Marxist jihad. against American liberties.

Muslims don't have to act on the murderous imperatives of the Koran and Hadith to pose a peril. They just have to believe in their rightness to be of value to their commanders, such as CAIR, MPAC, and the ISNA.

Muslims and (serious, fundamentalist) Christians certainly compartmentalize their day-to-day, rational living habits and the principles of their creeds. In short, they're not wholly rational. Parts of them belong to God or Allah. This is an instance of what Peikoff wrote that we live in an age of pre-reason, even taking into account what philosophers such as Aristotle, Locke, and the Founders bequeathed us. Today, we are reaping the poisonous harvest of the anti-reason dogmas and political and moral systems of the past, which were never fully repudiated -- and that harvest includes "all the Marxists, communists, socialists, etc." The only philosophy that offers a complete, across-the-board antidote to the cult of the anti-rational is Objectivism.

Ed

M.D. Labeit said...

"Everything you say makes sense, except that Muslims haven't really accepted the notion of 'getting along with other religions or faiths.' Their Koran forbids it. Their spokesmen boast that the Constitution will ultimately be replaced with Sharia, but first having Sharia recognized as coequal with the Constitution (otherwise, we could be accused of "cultural imperialism" and not really being "serious" about multiculturalism)."

Muslims in the U.S. have generally integrated themselves well. Most, as I argued earlier, wish to produce and consume within an environment of politico-economic freedom. The evidence to support this claim is the fact that most Muslims in the U.S. continue to trade and associate with Muslims and non-Muslims alike without incident or violence.

Belligerence from Muslims is more problematic within Europe, for a few reasons. Ambitious Islamists take advantage of the broad acquiescence to Islamic customs and beliefs encouraged by European cultural and legal authorities. Much of Europe has succumbed to the idea of cultural relativism, that is the claim that one culture cannot be considered morally superior to another; all cultures, all sets of values and virtues held by a particular people, are morally equivalent. Thus, its no surprise Europe has become a breeding ground for Islamists, i.e., Muslims who would like the enforcement of laws influenced by Islam.

However, if prohibiting Muslims immigration is to be contemplated, strigent conditions have to be met first. How do we determine whether a Muslim immigrant is a threat or not? Say Ali is emigrating from an anonymous Islamic country and reaches a U.S. customs agent. Ali identifies himself as a Muslim but when asked if he believes that Islamic law should be enforced in the U.S. he says "no." Similarly when asked if Muslims should commit acts of aggression against Americans, he responds with "no." I imagine that the bulk of Muslim emigrants would respond in kind. Do we prohibit him from entering or don't we? He's a "Muslim" but nevertheless repudiates everything we wish to hedge against.

Most Muslim immigrants to the U.S. *are* "rank-and-file" types. But assume a number of them are not or arguments sake. An affinity for Sharia law isn't a sufficient condition for prohibitive action. If such beliefs warrant a coercive response from the government, then all those who believe that the American politico-economic system should be modified in a rights-violating way would have to be supervised as well, at the very least

A *detailed* procedure for how to identify a threat has to be established first before we go about banning Muslims immigrants (let alone deporting any). "What constitutes a threat?" has to be answered exhaustively. Specific membership with a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda or the Basque ETA fulfills the conditions for coercive police/military apprehension very easily. But membership to a faith, especially when we know that few people are adherents to literal interpretation of holy texts? Profiling, especially immigration profiling, seems justified given that the coercion involved is minimal and it allows us to investigate potential violations of rights.

I haven't heard to Dr. Peikoff's last podcast so I don't know if he's endorsing profiling or prohibition.

Slade Calhoun said...

Ban and deport 'em all. Let Allah sort 'em out. I'm getting really tired of U.S. hand-wringing.

M.D. Labeit said...

Slade,

I think your proposal deserves a bit more than the brevity of a blog post comment.

M.D. Labeit said...

Here's Peikoff podcast #95: http://arc-tv.com/leonard-peikoff-podcast-95/

Its very good.

Anonymous said...

I’ve finished footnoting my post here. I can’t go round and round trying to account for every countable bean and every sifted grain of sand some readers throw my way. I’ve discussed this in universals, in as broad a fresco as I can, but it still doesn’t satisfy. So, I’m out of here.

Ed

pomponazzi said...

Ed, I live in a muslim country and my ID card and my passport show that I am a muslim. I am not a muslim; I am an atheist (Objectivist, to be precise). If I try to say that I am not a muslim, I would be summarily executed as per the law of my country. I have been trying to leave this pesthole for America since 1998 but to no avail. What should I do?

Anonymous said...

Pompanazzi: That's a cruel situation you're in. I don't know what else to recommend except to apply at the U.S. embassy or consulate for a visa to come here, or at least collect literature at one of those places to see what the new rules are for visas and/or immigration. You might even try, although it's not your first choice, to go to the Australian or New Zealand embassy or consulate for the same reasons. If Muslims (real or bogus or arbitrarily branded as such, as you are) can migrate by the thousands to Western countries, you might find a loophole that would be your passage out of your pesthole. Let me know what you do. Ed

Ed said...

Pompanazzi: That's a cruel situation you're in. I don't know what else to recommend except to apply at the U.S. embassy or consulate for a visa to come here, or at least collect literature at one of those places to see what the new rules are for visas and/or immigration. You might even try, although it's not your first choice, to go to the Australian or New Zealand embassy or consulate for the same reasons. If Muslims (real or bogus or arbitrarily branded as such, as you are) can migrate by the thousands to Western countries, you might find a loophole that would be your passage out of your pesthole. Let me know what you do. Ed