Jack Wheeler publisher of To The Point and “the originator of the Reagan Doctrine” argues that we should fight Islamofascism as we fought Communism and I fully agree.
THE CREATION OF AN ANTI-ISLAMOFASCISM MOVEMENT
Written by Jack Wheeler & Steve Baldwin, 24 November 2006
Anti-Communism: The Original Conservative Movement
One cannot write the history of the Cold War without acknowledging the key role played by the American Anti-Communist Movement. It was a broad movement involving many different organizations that, for four decades, kept its focus on the defeat of the Soviet Empire. And it succeeded.
Indeed, Anti-Communism was the defining issue that brought hundreds of thousands of people into the conservative movement from the 1950s through to the 1980s. There was a sense that this movement had to be successful if not only America but Western Civilization itself were to survive.
What did this Movement Accomplish?
The Anti-Communist Movement was formed after World War II when it was revealed that Soviet spies were operating throughout our government. This movement became one of the most successful political movements in our history.
It started out slowly due to liberal propaganda during WWII which convinced many Americans that Russia was our friend since they were aligned with us during the war. By the 1950’s, the Anti-Communist Movement had created a massive infrastructure which became a major educational and political force within America. This movement:
-
* Exposed pro-communist groups operating within our borders. The movement lobbied Congress to have hearings and even to create standing committees to carry out investigations (such as the House Un-American Activities Committee). This greatly limited the effectiveness of these pro-communist groups and educated an entire generation of Americans about the domestic subversive threat.
* Lobbied for bigger defense budgets, a bigger Navy, more nuclear missiles, SDI, and a more aggressive foreign policy to oppose the Soviet Empire.
* Generated a slew of newsletters, magazines, speaker bureaus, radio shows, etc. that educated generations of Americans as to what Communism stood for and how it endangered our freedom.
* Created a political force that affected the election of hundreds of Anti-Communist politicians and influenced how people voted for at least 2-3 generations. This movement eventually led to the election of Ronald Reagan, the person most responsible for our victory over the Soviet Empire.
The Infrastructure of Anti-Communism
This American Anti-Communist Movement also created an infrastructure by establishing smaller specialty groups that focused on individual issues. For example, the movement created groups that:
* Supported Anti-Soviet Freedom Fighter movements challenging communist regimes in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola and other Soviet colonies. Some of these groups raised funds for these resistance movements and even delivered supplies.
* Developed and promoted the concept of missile defense as a viable strategic tactic.
* Worked on intelligence issues such as making sure our intelligence agencies had the resources to counter the Soviet threat.
* Worked on geo-strategic issues such as energy and how they affected the Soviet Empire.
* Encouraged and funded East Bloc dissidents and helped dissidents escape from Iron Curtain countries. Such groups would send these dissidents on speaking tours creating a flurry of articles about the horrors of the Gulag and the inhumanity of the Soviet system.
* Smuggled in Anti-Communist literature behind the Iron Curtain; Christian mission groups would smuggle in Bibles knowing that religious belief would help undermine the Soviet Communist system.
* Lobbied corporations and government entities to disinvest funds from the East Block or to cease trade.
* Lobbied to increase funding for the Defense budget and to educate Americans about massive Soviet military spending.
* Formed Anti-Communist youth groups domestically (Young Americans for Freedom) and worldwide (World Anti-Communist League) whose main goal was to educate youth about communism.
* Formed groups that pushed for alliances with other countries who were similarly threatened, such as NATO.
Forming a Similar Infrastructure to Combat Radical Islam
CONTINUE
I guess I will have to get a copy of the Korans it, sounds spicier than most of the cheap porn being thrown at us here daily/
ISLAMO – FASCISM IS ISLAM
By
Larry Houle
http://www.godofreason.com
intermedusa@yahoo.com
The term -Islamo Fascism week gives tremendous creditability to Islam. It perpetuates the myth that Islam is a wonderful religion of peace and love that has been hi – jacked by a few bad apples of evil Islamo – Facsists.Islamic militants, jihadists, Wahhabism, radical Islam, Islamists. There has been no hijacking. These demented souls are following exactly the teachings of the Koran and in the footsteps of the Prophet – Muhammad.
The reality is that Osama bin Laden is a true Muslim – a holy man of the book who is following exactly the teachings of Islam as recorded in the Koran.
By not exposing the true nature of Islam, the speakers elevated Islam to an equal footing with Christianity and other world religions.
There was no discussion of :
The criminality of Muhammad that included everything from molesting a six year old girl to beheading captives, massacres, terror, owning slaves and raping them, looting and pillaging etc.
Slavery and raping slaves as Laws of God for all eternity
Looting as a Law of God and sharing 1/5 of the proceeds from looting and selling slaves with Allah and his Messenger.
Murdering Infidels as an Eternal Law of God.
The oppression and subrogation of women as Eternal Laws of God
An evil Paradise of big breasted, big eyed Hurs to be sexually molested for all eternity as a reward for those who slay and are slain in the service of God.
Does anyone truly believe that God would have as His Prophet for His one and only true religion a criminal – Muhammad and teachings of slavery, rape, murder etc. Is this a rational, reasonable human thought that God would be a criminal involved in these evil criminal acts.
Is it a rational, reasonable human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to enslave the unbelievers, breed and sell them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His male followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to rape unbelievers and gang rape them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to marry up to 4 women and His
Prophet to marry as many women as he desired and own and rape his slaves. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion were women are evil, vile creatures – ½ human beings. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to share the booty gained from the looted property of the unbelievers and from the sale of slaves with God Himself. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to murder unbelievers after giving them a warning to convert or pay a submission tax. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
We could go on and on.
The answer is absolutely not. It is not rational. It is not reasonable. There is no such criminal God.
Islam was the invention and creation of Muhammad. There was no Allah. The Koran is the teachings of Muhammad and not any God. By not exposing this truth of Islam, these speakers did us all a grave disservice. By perpetrating the myth of a hijacking, they granted Islam – legitimacy.
South, I understand the fact that some of the best countries make mistakes and other countries ARE mistakes. However, the history of US war strategy since WWII has not been a pretty sight. The US tends to get into protracted conflicts with no end; they have murky and confusing objectives and politicians who tie the hands of its military to the point where casualties are compounded. War is as confusing as politics in a free society which is one of the downsides to living in some of the best democratic states in the world.
What I object to is this arming of both sides of conflicts when there is clearly one side that ought to be armed and another that ought to be disarmed. For instance, Israel should be armed but the US (and Israel by the way) should not be arming any Palestinian factions. In Iraq, all sides should be disarmed; instead, all sides are being armed to the teeth for a present and future conflagration.
There are so many examples of this strategy of playing both sides against the middle that one must suspect that the military complex is just trying to sell arms, keep conflicts simmering but not to win conflicts. The Iraq war was won after the first few weeks of military action but then it was lost as soon as US troops were sent into Baghdad. It is not the mistakes that disturb me; it is the repeated use of the same failed strategies and failed politics that bothers me and the unnecessary loss of life. Conflicts must be short and powerful, not long and painful.
Shalom Gary,
My above note to Laura governs my views.
The US cannot OPENLY declare sides because of domestic US political considerations.
There will always be errors.
There will always be irrational plans.
This is the human condition.
“During the winter of 1863-64, General Henry Heth, who was on friendly terms with his chief, Confederate General of the Army, Robert E. Lee, mentioned to Lee some mistakes in the Pennsylvania campaign.
Lee had a pointed response:
‘After it is all over’, he told Heth, as stupid a fellow as I am can see the mistakes that were made. I notice, however, that my mistakes are never told me until it is too late…. You and all my officer know I am always ready to and anxious to have their suggestions’ “.
Kol tuv,
Shalom Laura,
I understand your point but the plans such as the Afghan plan, were not based on 100% success because of the dynamics.
This can be seen in FDR’s “Destroyers for Bases” 2 Sep 40 and Lend-Lease to the USSR, 11 Mar 41. The clearest example is Lend-Lease used against US forces in Korea and Vietnam …..it was a trade off, for the immediate, better good. FDR had little choice.
Afghanistan was parallel.
The writers understood the situation.
Kol tuv,
Communism was a pure ideology whereas Islam or Islamofascism is a relgion and you can’t attack a religion the same way as an ideology, although one may be as bad as the other and communism and Islamofascism seem to have the same universal goals and ultimately similar negative results for our civilization. They would both give us world “peace” within an impoverished fascist society. It is also difficult to distinquish between an Islamist and an orthodox Muslim or one who wishes to destoy the West by violence and the other by the establishment of an Islamic society. Ultimately the difference is one wants our short-term destruction and the other wants our long term destruction so they are both our enemy. At the same time of course, modern (not moderate) Muslims make very good citizens. It is therefore a more complex fight than that against communism.
Laura, what you say is very true: I am sick of the US and others carrying out foreign policy without a stitch of pragmatism. Anyone who supports and arms one type of crazy (such as the Mujahadeem) against another type of crazy (the commies) for purely ideological reasons and politics is not doing anyone any good.
The US must decide whose side they are on and then openly declare who their allies are, how they will back them and who will be on the receiving end of their military strength unless they do x, y and z. The global game of power politics is a joy to the academics that have never spent much time on the battle field but a nightmare to those who don’t want to spend eternity fighting ideological wars against both friends and foes.
The whole war against terrorism is littered with unclear and murky sidebars that make no sense. The whole relationship with the Saudis is a case in point. There is no room for uncertainty, no room for irrational plans and no room for errors in this war we are in. It is very clear and in black and white. Those who live in the grey areas and take comfort in honoring and placating the enemies are prolonging the war and entertaining the possibility that it cannot be won.
In aiding these Afghan “freedom fighters” that the writers take such pride in their movement for backing, we helped to bring about the islamofascist war being waged against us today. The irony of this is obviously completely lost on the writers.