Why I don't give a Shiite* about "The Great Islamic Threat" debate
by Dennis Lee Wilson
DennisLeeWilson@Hush.ai

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

*Being an afficionado of puns, I would like to publicly thank Ben Irvin, monitor of the Yahoo group "freewyomingproject" for the idea of replacing the word "sh*t" (asterisk included) that appeared in my original title, with the much better, much more punny "Shiite".

Curiously, Ben made that substitution during his response to selected sections of my posting, AFTER HE REMOVED my original post from that Yahoo discussion group and AFTER he blocked further posts from me. I suppose responding to selected sections made it easier for him to conveniently ignore things to which he could not respond (i.e. create a straw man), and blocking further posts from me prevented any embarrassing questions from me about what he did it.

I can only conclude that something in my message was seriously incompatible with his glorious admonition "Let the debate continue; but, on topic: Islam".

Unfortunately, bashing Islam and bashing dissenters seems to be a popular theme in today's U.S. culture. Because of that, I decided to present to a wider audience, my views on why I think the entire public debate on "The Great Islamic Threat" is a Red Herring that diverts our attention from a closer, more real and immediate threat.

First, let me make it clear that what Ben did was NOT censorship. Censorship is a term that is reserved exclusively for government action that is backed by armed force—such as Lincoln used against Northern newspapers that disagreed with his policies. That discussion board is Ben Irvin's property and removing posts that offend him is his prerogative. What IS improper and offensive to me is his decision to ANSWER an altered version of the removed post, knowing full well that I could not reply without first seeking his approval. Fortunately, in what remains of a free market, there are other alternatives available for my views. The Libertarian Enterprise is one of the best.

What follows is my original, unaltered posting, (except for a couple of typographic fixes) which starts with quotes from Ben Irvin's posting that effectively hijacked his own stated purpose for which his discussion group was created.

Why I don't give a sh*t about "The Great Islamic Threat" debate. [A Yahoo Groups Members-only discussion list—Editor]

—In [email protected], "birvin" wrote:
>
> Now that at least some on this list have transcendented, ever
> so slightly, rationalizations about Islam, perhaps it is time to
> debate the ideology of Islam, and try to understand it better.
> Remember, when debating Islam's philosophy, that drawing
> pseudo parallels with Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism,
> Buddhism, atheism, etc., is beside the point and is an evasion
> of the issue: Islam. Try to refrain from this illogical nonsense.
>
> A good first start in understanding the world's fastest growing
> ideology is a current article from the Middle East Quarterly
> entitled, "Why Do Muslims Execute Innocent People?" Let
> the debate continue; but, on topic: Islam.
>
> ~ Ben

Why I don't give a sh*t about "The Great Islamic Threat" debate.

Description of freewyomingproject:
This group is for everyone interested in peaceably maximizing freedom while minimizing government in the great state of Wyoming. Everyone means everyone, without regard to race, creed, national origin, religion or lack thereof, gender, sexual orientation or disorientation, rich, poor, young, old or any other irrelevant trait, even sweet transvestites from transsexual Transylvania are welcome and encouraged to join.

As long as this site is already hijacked from its original purpose, I'll put in my penny's worth of bilge.

Here it comes again, the latest "warning" of The Great Islamic Threat! Of course, "they" have been trying—unsuccessfully—to conquer "us" for approximately 1200 years, but that need not deter the issuing of yet another "warning". After all, how could the government in DC justify its existence if there were no threats from which to "protect" us while taxing and enslaving us? Gee, I miss the cold war with Russia. Say, weren't those Islamic types around during that time? How come they only became a threat when the Russian threat collapsed?

In reality—where I live, the multiple Tyrannies in DC and my state, county and city are much closer to me and have more direct control over my actions, my property and my life, than any real or imagined Islamic threat. I'm sure that our masters in DC, et al, would like to have us think that "only they can protect us", (like the NORAD stand down on 911?!) if we only give up our freedoms and pay our taxes.

Unfortunately for them, I have already seen that DC operates by ignoring its Constitution, murdering its own citizens (Ruby Ridge, Waco and probably even OK, NYC and the Pentagon), illegally disarming citizens in DC itself and allowing it to happen in New Orleans, and "creates liberty" in Iraq by sending troops (training them?) to kick down doors and kill civilians while bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan.

I would never "convert" to Islam nor live under it,—and the same goes for ANY of the religions. But, as Scott pointed out, we are surrounded by religions that have more immediate power to harm us than does Islam. I think Islam is a much lesser threat to me and to what I hold dear. Of course, your mileage may vary. Perhaps you live closer to the Middle East Islamic countries, rather than in North America where I live.

So, pardon me while I ignore this latest RED HERRING, this cry of "wolf at the door". Last month the threat de jour was the unarmed, poverty stricken Mexicans who walk across the border thru deserts, to work at jobs that no one in the US wants to do. This month it is the Islamics who can't even get here without flying on western produced and operated airplanes, riding on western produced and operated ships—or swimming.

What will it be next month, the Indians (in India) or the Chinese, the Canadians (especially those radical French-Quebec secessionist!), those descendents of unruly, religious and militant Irish, Scottish or English immigrants—or maybe even the Russians, Germans, Italians or Japanese again?

And what about the threat of all those people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves or those conquered North American Natives who worship various pagan gods, who won't stay on their assigned reservations, but instead infiltrate our society, buying food, clothes and trucks—perhaps even guns (horrors! what do they intend?!), attending schools, using hospitals, taking jobs, etc, etc?

(See how easy it is to dream up threats once Libertarian principles, especially the open border principle, are abandoned? I'm sure I left out some group as a possible threat? Eventually one of the imagined threats will get around to including you!)

Consider what would really happen if we simply withdrew from the Middle East and decided to BUY their oil instead of steal it (what a novel, capitalistic idea!!). We would spend money and get useful oil, instead of spending money for military occupation, which destroys very expensive equipment and buildings and wastes the lives of Americans who should be living them in America instead of losing them in some sh*t hole in the Middle East.

The Islamic militants would CONTINUE fighting amongst themselves just like they have done for decades. Remember the Iraq-Iran war? The Iraq-Kuwait war? The Syrian-Palestinian-Lebanese wars? If you have been paying attention, you know that in Iraq itself the most violence today is between the Sunni and Shiite factions—even with easy U.S. Christian targets readily available.

And here is another consideration: any military Islamic invasion (if it ever happens, after they finish killing each other) will face the same problem that the Japanese identified and feared: an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass. (And that is the same problem that the US military is facing—and losing—while trying to "occupy" Iraq, where there is more sand than grass).

Now for my final point: Even IF there was a Great Islamic Threat (which I clearly do not believe), there is absolutely nothing I could do about it, except perhaps bend down and kiss the bloody boots of my masters in DC who (falsely) claim they can protect me from such imagined threats. However, I CAN do something about the city, county, state and even the federal tyrannies that attempt to control my life, which is precisely why I am involved with Free State efforts.

I came to this discussion group to learn more about how to free myself by moving to Wyoming. Bowing down to DC and hiding under the bed from imaginary threats is not what I expected to find. Can we get beyond this and actually embrace the original purpose of this group?

Dennis Wilson
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Amazon.com

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!