Wired interviews author of Patriot Act

[Patrick Degan]

That won't stop the al-Muwahhidun from going after us. Only the mass conversion of the west to Islam will do that. Stopping funding to Israel is just stopping funding to the fortress in their path. The Israelis may be engaged in morally questionable acts, but at the moment supporting them is no different than supporting the USSR during WWII--an entirely necessary act brought on by the circumstances.

They hate us for letting women wear short skirts and halter-tops and for loaning money at interest and for practicing democracy and religious toleration and for letting men shave their beards. Israel is a side issue that regularly gets lumped together with the reconquista, which ended in 1492. And now banning the Islamic headdress in France will bring the same hatred against the French, who decidedly do not support Israel like America does.

And that hatred is being fueled and spread by large amounts of money from the Gulf Oil Sheikhs, who deal with their own consciences and with their angry people by those massive payoffs. That's the real threat and that's what needs to be dealt with, and until those sources of funding--spreading schools around the world that teach mindless rote recitation of the Koran and that the Jews drink blood; and that the "Crusader-Zionist" entity of Western Culture is totally subverting Islam--are eliminated, we will see no improvement. Even the Mosques and Islamic schools of America are 80% controlled by the Saudis and teaching that garbage and that's where the real threat is coming from.

Tripe.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Do you have any basis for that claim other than their traditionally florid rhetoric? China isn't converting to Islam either, and I don't see Al-Quaeda going berserk trying to attack them. Not to mention the fact that I don't see how Israel is acting as a "fortress" against Islamic expansion. Islam is expanding quite effectively in France and America with no resistance from Israel. Or is the IDF planning airstrikes on mosques in Paris and New Jersey now?

Actually there are Islamic groups operating in China against the Chinese government, which the Chinese got the USA to declare as terrorist groups after 9/11.

It's a fortress in the sense that it's an interest-soak. I don't want all the ghazis in the Bekka Valley going after the USA.

Their rhetoric is, of course, backed up with actual funding initiatives to radicalize Islam in western countries.

Tacit alliance between Wahhabi clergy and Al-Qaeda
"We will replace the Bible with the Koran in Britain"

Spreading Saudi Fundamentalism in U.S.
Wahhabism and Islam in the U.S.

Is Saudi Arabia a friend or foe of America?
Testimony of Senator Charles E. Schumer on the growing influence of Wahhabism

The Tenets of Terror

PBS - Frontline: Saudi time bomb?

Jihad

Muslim websites, Christian websites, PBS, the Guardian, a U.S. Senator, research institutes, etc. The information is out there, and that's just a bloody skimming of it.

Wow, that was cool ...

Perle has disavowed support of the stated initiatives.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If you'd be so kind as to fix that linking mistake, someone, I would appreciate it.

[Vympel]

Perle has disavowed support of the stated initiatives.

????

I take it you have yet to hear of that alarmist piece of shit he just recently wrote with David Frum (Canadian turned uber-Republican hack) called "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

????

I take it you have yet to hear of that alarmist piece of shit he just recently wrote with David Frum (Canadian turned uber-Republican hack) called "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror".

I have not read it, so I cannot say anything on it. But I was referring to the time when, still in a semi-governmental capacity, he denied endorsing the plan for the occupation of the KSA submitted by one of his subordinates who was afterwards dismissed from his post.

[Darth Wong]

Actually there are Islamic groups operating in China against the Chinese government, which the Chinese got the USA to declare as terrorist groups after 9/11.

And interestingly enough, they have accomplished jack shit, so there obviously isn't a lot of effort put forth. What major terror attacks have they conducted?

It's a fortress in the sense that it's an interest-soak. I don't want all the ghazis in the Bekka Valley going after the USA.

You are still assuming, with no evidence other than their rhetoric, that violent action against the USA would inevitably ensue if Israel is out of the picture. Why?

Their rhetoric is, of course, backed up with actual funding initiatives to radicalize Islam in western countries.

So they're funding Islamic conversion groups in the US. Knock me down with a feather, I'm shocked! How does this prove that they are a serious threat? Are you suggesting that Islamic proselytizers are a threat to national security now?

Muslim websites, Christian websites, PBS, the Guardian, a U.S. Senator, research institutes, etc. The information is out there, and that's just a bloody skimming of it.

Too bad it has nothing to do with the point, unless you're trying to argue that even talking about Islam in America is an assault upon your liberties, national securities, yadda yadda yadda. Unless you can show that actual terror attacks on American soil are being averted by Israel somehow, I don't see what you are hoping to accomplish with this.

Wow, that was cool ...

Perle has disavowed support of the stated initiatives.

Yeah, sure.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So they're funding Islamic conversion groups in the US. Knock me down with a feather, I'm shocked! How does this prove that they are a serious threat? Are you suggesting that Islamic proselytizers are a threat to national security now?

I said to radicalize Islam in western countries; not to create Muslims. They're trying to make preexisting Muslims in western countries radicals, in addition to gaining converts. Not all Muslims are willing to strap bomb-belts to themselves: it takes a specific mindset, the mindset spread by Wahhabism. Opposing that mindset is the truly critical factor in fighting terrorism; and that mindset is being funded in its creation through a religious preaching and educational system directed from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Too bad it has nothing to do with the point, unless you're trying to argue that even talking about Islam in America is an assault upon your liberties, national securities, yadda yadda yadda. Unless you can show that actual terror attacks on American soil are being averted by Israel somehow, I don't see what you are hoping to accomplish with this.

What I am trying to accomplish by it is show that Islam is becoming more radicalized and violent by the propagation of this ideology. Conservative fundamentalist Islam opposes the values in which we believe and desires to spread by force; and conservative Muslims are willing to die for their cause. These Mosques and schools funded by the KSA are creating potential suicide bombers where previously they would not exist.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And interestingly enough, they have accomplished jack shit, so there obviously isn't a lot of effort put forth. What major terror attacks have they conducted?

The Chinese government isn't very forthcoming on their activities.

You are still assuming, with no evidence other than their rhetoric, that violent action against the USA would inevitably ensue if Israel is out of the picture. Why?

Why don't you take them at their word? They are just following their religion. That's what makes them so dangerous. You seem to take Christian fundamentalists at their word; must there be some deeper meaning behind Islamic intentions? Their faith is one of the most literal in history; holding up for more than a millennia nearly unchanged because of that unwavering belief without deviation.

They have committed violent actions and they have been committing violent actions against the United States for decades; they, at least, view no distinctions between Beirut and 9/11, for example; and see the conflict as a simple effort between "Belief" and "Unbelief"--Islam and everyone else. Israel is a convenient target because it's close and it's dirty. But the real reason they're fighting the Israelis is because the Israelis have violated the tenets of their religion. They rule Muslims instead of are ruled by them, and they refuse to pay the faith tax.

Their prior actions are against us; their rhetoric is against us; and their money is against us. They are actively trying to turn our own Muslim citizenry against us, and in some cases they succeed. I think their intentions are very clear. The philosophy of the Unitarians is a clear and harsh and simple one and it is directly opposed to us.

[Darth Wong]

I said to radicalize Islam in western countries; not to create Muslims. They're trying to make preexisting Muslims in western countries radicals, in addition to gaining converts.

In other words, they're saying things which you consider dangerous. What would we call such dangerous activity? "Subversive thought crimes", perhaps?

What I am trying to accomplish by it is show that Islam is becoming more radicalized and violent by the propagation of this ideology.

Ah yes, we must stop the "propagation of this ideology". Welcome back, Joe McCarthy.

Conservative fundamentalist Islam opposes the values in which we believe and desires to spread by force

The same is true of conservative fundamentalist Christianity, and they have far more lobbying money in this country than the Muslims do.

and conservative Muslims are willing to die for their cause. These Mosques and schools funded by the KSA are creating potential suicide bombers where previously they would not exist.

So your charges amount to "radicalizing" Muslims with fiery rhetoric, "propagation of this ideology", and "potential" criminals. Get back to me when you have actual crimes and concrete threats to report.

In the meantime, please explain how America's support of Israel is retarding this in any way, or why you assume it would be so much worse without Israel around.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here's an article on Muslim seperatist terrorist activities in Xinjiang province.

[Darth Wong]

Here's an article on Muslim seperatist terrorist activities in Xinjiang province.

So will this be reduced if China starts massively supporting Israel? By your logic, it should.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In other words, they're saying things which you consider dangerous. What would we call such dangerous activity? "Subversive thought crimes", perhaps?

Certain verbal statements are crimes, you know.

Ah yes, we must stop the "propagation of this ideology". Welcome back, Joe McCarthy.

Joe McCarthy accused people who were not guilty. There was, however, a genuine communist subversive threat to America at that time and the reaction to the McCarthyist excesses resulted in serious intelligence mishaps due to it.

The same is true of conservative fundamentalist Christianity, and they have far more lobbying money in this country than the Muslims do.

But which of them are out there flying airplanes into buildings, Mike, in the here and now?

The guts got pulled from Christian fundamentalism in the Enlightenment. All they can do is get worked up and march in picket lines (there are ludicrously rare exceptions to this). Muslim jihadis, on the other hand, still regularly kill people by the hundreds and often are rather proud of it. They may have less funding but their medievalist outlook towards religious violence makes them more dangerous.

So your charges amount to "radicalizing" Muslims with fiery rhetoric, "propagation of this ideology", and "potential" criminals. Get back to me when you have actual crimes and concrete threats to report.

"conspiring to wage war against the State" isn't good enough for you?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So will this be reduced if China starts massively supporting Israel? By your logic, it should.

The Israeli conflict can only be resolved by the destruction of Israel or by the reformation of the surrounding Arab states so that they are democratic and capable of sincere negotiation. Should the conflict be resolved in the first method it will result in the freeing up of terrorist resources against the West, and a major propaganda victory, since the "Zionist-Crusader Entity" is seen as a singular anti-Islamic beast.

Support should be provided to Israel only insomuch as Israel requires it to continue fighting, and never any more than that. Should the Arab countries around Israel become liberal and democratic that support should be halted. I am not certain of Israel's ability to maintain conflict without American support at this time and if evidence were provided that American support is immaterial to Israeli defensive efforts I would prefer it going to the American military.

China would certainly have similiar interests, I would submit. India definitely does, as evidenced by the recent talks between India and Israel.

[Patrick Degan]

In other words, they're saying things which you consider dangerous. What would we call such dangerous activity? "Subversive thought crimes", perhaps?

Certain verbal statements are crimes, you know.

Yes, they're what are defined as "libel". Political and religious statements are not criminal, however. Little thing called the First Amendment, you know.

Ah yes, we must stop the "propagation of this ideology". Welcome back, Joe McCarthy.

Joe McCarthy accused people who were not guilty. There was, however, a genuine communist subversive threat to America at that time and the reaction to the McCarthyist excesses resulted in serious intelligence mishaps due to it.

The "genuine communist subversive threat to America" represented the same level of danger as the Martian threat to America. That was a case of gross overreaction to paranoia as well.

The same is true of conservative fundamentalist Christianity, and they have far more lobbying money in this country than the Muslims do.

But which of them are out there flying airplanes into buildings, Mike, in the here and now?

At the moment, even the Islamic terrorists haven't the capacity to fly any more planes into any more buildings. And I'm constrained to point out that a non-Muslim terrorist managed to blow up a certain building in OK with a fertiliser bomb in a Ryder truck. Should we then commence mass arrests of all estranged white men spouting antigovernment rhetoric and become paranoid about the Skinhead Threat to America?

The guts got pulled from Christian fundamentalism in the Enlightenment. All they can do is get worked up and march in picket lines (there are ludicrously rare exceptions to this). Muslim jihadis, on the other hand, still regularly kill people by the hundreds and often are rather proud of it. They may have less funding but their medievalist outlook towards religious violence makes them more dangerous.

Whereas non-Muslim terrorists can't whip up the same level of professional pride in their work...?

So your charges amount to "radicalizing" Muslims with fiery rhetoric, "propagation of this ideology", and "potential" criminals. Get back to me when you have actual crimes and concrete threats to report.

"conspiring to wage war against the State" isn't good enough for you?

In and of itself, no. Lots of people can conspire to do lots of things, but without any real capacity to carry out an action, conspiracy is nothing more than a pipe-dream.

It seems that some perspective needs to be drawn on this and from an unlikely source:

But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?

[A] radical strain within Islam,” says Perle, “ ... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws.

Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to “overthrow our civilization” and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?

In his own review of An End to Evil, Joshua Micah Marshall picks up this same scent of near-hysteria over the Islamic threat:

The book conveys a general sense that America is at war with Islam itself anywhere and everywhere: the contemporary Muslim world .... is depicted as one great cauldron of hate, murder, obscurantism, and deceit. If our Muslim adversaries are not to destroy Western civilization, we must gird for more battles.

To suggest Frum and Perle are over the top is not to imply we not take seriously the threat of terror attacks on airliners, in malls, from dirty bombs, or, God forbid, a crude atomic device smuggled in by Ryder truck or container ship. Yet even this will never “overthrow our civilization.”

In the worst of terror attacks, we lost 3,000 people. Horrific. But at Antietam Creek, we lost 7,000 in a day’s battle in a nation that was one-ninth as populous. Three thousand men and boys perished every week for 200 weeks of that Civil War. We Americans did not curl up and die. We did not come all this way because we are made of sugar candy.

Germany and Japan suffered 3,000 dead every day in the last two years of World War II, with every city flattened and two blackened by atom bombs. Both came back in a decade. Is al-Qaeda capable of this sort of devastation when they are recruiting such scrub stock as Jose Padilla and the shoe bomber?

In the war we are in, our enemies are weak. That is why they resort to the weapon of the weak—terror. And, as in the Cold War, time is on America’s side. Perseverance and patience are called for, not this panic.

In 25 years, militant Islam has seized three countries: Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan. We toppled the Taliban almost without losing a man. Sudan is a failed state. In Iran, a generation has grown up that knows nothing of Savak or the Great Satan but enough about the mullahs to have rejected them in back-to-back landslides. The Iranian Revolution has reached Thermidor. Wherever Islamism takes power, it fails. Like Marxism, it does not work.

[Oddysseus]

...The Israeli conflict can only be resolved by the destruction of Israel or by the reformation of the surrounding Arab states so that they are democratic and capable of sincere negotiation. Should the conflict be resolved in the first method it will result in the freeing up of terrorist resources against the West, and a major propaganda victory, since the "Zionist-Crusader Entity" is seen as a singular anti-Islamic beast...

Changing the Arab nations and leaving Israel prestine doens't solve the Palestinian issues. Where do they go? Israel and the Arab all have issues that they either ignore or approach wrong.

Your valid point is that social and political change is needed. These different people need to coexist. And accept each others existance.

But in doing this we can't ignore or let one group slide as they are long time allies.

The struggle we are in is a social conflict. It isn't an army or leader we ned to beat, despite the fact that Bush sometimes act like it, then goes the other way to justify himself. Too many peope are getting into this beacause they are getting lost in the cracks. THey can't find a job or help their families and they turn to Islamic radicals that give them purpose and hope. Some, and we have to remember it is not ALL by a long shot) religious leaders are backing conflict. We need to be helping out and giving a voice to those religious men who feel differently, like helping them open madrasas (to bolster the number of nonradical ones).

[Durandal]

The terrorist funding states must be overthrown and occupied to end the conflict. It's quite obvious where the road has led for some time now. The problem is that very few people have the courage to say it.

Of course, America could simply stop tying its own fate to that of Israel, but that would take even more courage to say in Washington DC, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, after September 11th, that's not an option, even if everyone in Washington wanted to do it. The public would view it as a concession to the terrorists.

[Cornelius]

If Israel is the problem, and you cannot actually get around ignoring Israel's need for aid, there are several alternatives.

1. Keep supplying them and supporting them. (continue problems).
2. Supply them in secret while saying the opposite and trying to distance the nation from Israel in public.
3. Eliminate all the radical nations (impractical and extreme)
4. Force Israel to give back land it acquired from Palestinians. If that doesn't work, I don't know.

[Darth Wong]

If Israel is the problem, and you cannot actually get around ignoring Israel's need for aid, there are several alternatives.

1. Keep supplying them and supporting them. (continue problems).
2. Supply them in secret while saying the opposite and trying to distance the nation from Israel in public.
3. Eliminate all the radical nations (impractical and extreme)
4. Force Israel to give back land it acquired from Palestinians. If that doesn't work, I don't know.

5. Demand that Israel adopt "one man one vote" democracy across its entire territory, including the so-called "Occupited Territories". It already governs all of what goes on in those territories anyway; the notion that they are distinct and independent territories from Israel is perhaps the most laughable Big Lie in all of international politics.

"Oh no, but then the Arabs would have political power!" the pro-Israelites would shriek! How awful, for democracy to spread in Israel ...

[Oddysseus]

If Israel is the problem, and you cannot actually get around ignoring Israel's need for aid, there are several alternatives.

1. Keep supplying them and supporting them. (continue problems).
2. Supply them in secret while saying the opposite and trying to distance the nation from Israel in public.
3. Eliminate all the radical nations (impractical and extreme)
4. Force Israel to give back land it acquired from Palestinians. If that doesn't work, I don't know.

5. Demand that Israel adopt "one man one vote" democracy across its entire territory, including the so-called "Occupited Territories". It already governs all of what goes on in those territories anyway; the notion that they are distinct and independent territories from Israel is perhaps the most laughable Big Lie in all of international politics.

"Oh no, but then the Arabs would have political power!" the pro-Israelites would shriek! How awful, for democracy to spread in Israel ...

Have to agree. At this point splinting the land, and Jerusalem (a must on all sides), is seemingly impossible. The only successful answer is to just make it all one nations, and give the Palestinians a vote and a right to representation. Trouble is neither side wants to be with other (to some extent), like a club with the sign "no girls allowed". Each side has to get over itself and embrace the fact they should be one family, a solid group of custodians to these Holy Lands. Maybe some day they'll get their collective heads out of their asses and realize this.

[Darth Wong]

The funny thing is that the Palestinians would virtually disembowel the American neoconservative argument in favour of Israel if they switched tactics and started demanding "one man, one vote in all of Israel's territories", "no taxation without representation", etc., instead of demanding an independent state.

Politically speaking, it's much harder to argue against democracy than to simply paint the other side as "islamofascists" and try to partition disputed lands equitably while simultaneously making sure that any Palestinian nation is essentially neutered. And their well-worn "Israel is the sole democracy in the region" argument would look really weak in the face of such a modified campaign.

Too bad the Palestinians apparently aren't clever enough to realize this. But then again, religious separatism is unfortunately the name of the Islamic game, so they would no doubt find this solution to be just as unacceptable as the Israelis do.

[Joe]

The funny thing is that the Palestinians would virtually disembowel the American neoconservative argument in favour of Israel if they switched tactics and started demanding "one man, one vote in all of Israel's territories", "no taxation without representation", etc., instead of demanding an independent state.

Better yet, they could stop blowing up Israelis.

[Darth Wong]

The funny thing is that the Palestinians would virtually disembowel the American neoconservative argument in favour of Israel if they switched tactics and started demanding "one man, one vote in all of Israel's territories", "no taxation without representation", etc., instead of demanding an independent state.

Better yet, they could stop blowing up Israelis.

I don't believe there is any historical precedent to show that the rate of Israeli settlement expansion, house demolitions, and other assorted thug behaviour slows down when the rate of Palestinian terrorist actions slows down. Do you have any evidence of such correlation?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The funny thing is that the Palestinians would virtually disembowel the American neoconservative argument in favour of Israel if they switched tactics and started demanding "one man, one vote in all of Israel's territories", "no taxation without representation", etc., instead of demanding an independent state.

Politically speaking, it's much harder to argue against democracy than to simply paint the other side as "islamofascists" and try to partition disputed lands equitably while simultaneously making sure that any Palestinian nation is essentially neutered. And their well-worn "Israel is the sole democracy in the region" argument would look really weak in the face of such a modified campaign.

Too bad the Palestinians apparently aren't clever enough to realize this. But then again, religious separatism is unfortunately the name of the Islamic game, so they would no doubt find this solution to be just as unacceptable as the Israelis do.

If the Palestinians started doing that, then the war would be won and Israel's behaviour would indeed be something they would be inadvised to continue.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Changing the Arab nations and leaving Israel prestine doens't solve the Palestinian issues. Where do they go? Israel and the Arab all have issues that they either ignore or approach wrong.

Yes it does. Once the Arab world consists of democracies, Israel is now the social outcast and change can be forced. Before then, Israel is a democracy with numerous human rights abuses and the other states are dictatorships with lists of dead in the tens of thousands.

The Middle East is indeed Not Safe for democracy right now. That's why Israel behaves the way it does; it's a democratic state adapted to conditions antiethical to the functioning of democracy. Only region-wide change is going to see a change in the behaviour of Israel.

But in doing this we can't ignore or let one group slide as they are long time allies.

The Israelis already have a democratic state and the current power of the right-conservatives there is based entirely on the fear created by the security situation. There are parties in Israel who promote secularization, and they have been gaining strength. I am quite certain that if you were to remove the principle threats to Israel to the Israeli democratic processes would naturally bring about the change you desire. Acting on the other parts of the mid-east is in fact acting on Israel, because the whole region is interrelated.

The struggle we are in is a social conflict. It isn't an army or leader we ned to beat, despite the fact that Bush sometimes act like it, then goes the other way to justify himself. Too many peope are getting into this beacause they are getting lost in the cracks. THey can't find a job or help their families and they turn to Islamic radicals that give them purpose and hope. Some, and we have to remember it is not ALL by a long shot) religious leaders are backing conflict. We need to be helping out and giving a voice to those religious men who feel differently, like helping them open madrasas (to bolster the number of nonradical ones).

It's not a social conflict. It's a cultural-religious conflict. Islamists are threatened by western democracy and they are threatened by the erosion of their religious values; they feel threatened by western consumer culture and its penetration of the mid-east. This is why they are fighting us, not because of "economic hardship"; if it was economic hardship why the hell aren't there pan-African terrorist groups? The situation there is far worse than in the Mid-East.

Quite simply, the conservatives in Islamic society don't want democracy or western consumerism, and they are prepared to fight to the death and kill anyone to prevent it from rising in their countries. The only way to end the war is to make it rise in their countries as quickly as possible, unless you seriously believe that we can totally isolate the mid-east from the rest of the world.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, they're what are defined as "libel". Political and religious statements are not criminal, however. Little thing called the First Amendment, you know.

Conspiracy, Patrick. It seems to me that many Islamist leaders have been soliciting for followers specifically to carry out felonies against individuals in the USA (enmasse), which is a defined criminal offense.

The "genuine communist subversive threat to America" represented the same level of danger as the Martian threat to America. That was a case of gross overreaction to paranoia as well.

There was a genuine communist subversive threat to America; it primarily focused around intelligence gathering. Due to the McCarthy overreaction, certain individuals were able to operate freely and gather intelligence for the USSR for long periods of time without being caught. That killed Americans and harmed American efforts in other areas in a considerable fashion, and was a definite result of our no longer taking communist subversion seriously.

At the moment, even the Islamic terrorists haven't the capacity to fly any more planes into any more buildings. And I'm constrained to point out that a non-Muslim terrorist managed to blow up a certain building in OK with a fertiliser bomb in a Ryder truck. Should we then commence mass arrests of all estranged white men spouting antigovernment rhetoric and become paranoid about the Skinhead Threat to America?

We don't know what their capacity is. It's an unknown quantity. We do know that they have considerable numbers of sympathizers and are capable of major regional attacks; which at least seriously harm the interests of an economic power now basically dependent on trade for survival. It is likely that their ability to strike the American mainland again would only be apparent during such a strike.

Whereas non-Muslim terrorists can't whip up the same level of professional pride in their work...?

Muslim jihadis definitely constitute a supermajority of suicide terrorist attackers, and in fact invented the tactic.

In and of itself, no. Lots of people can conspire to do lots of things, but without any real capacity to carry out an action, conspiracy is nothing more than a pipe-dream.

Numerous federal conspiracy statutes have certainly been violated by Islamic groups, however, even if attacks have not been perpetrated.

In 25 years, militant Islam has seized three countries: Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan. We toppled the Taliban almost without losing a man. Sudan is a failed state. In Iran, a generation has grown up that knows nothing of Savak or the Great Satan but enough about the mullahs to have rejected them in back-to-back landslides. The Iranian Revolution has reached Thermidor. Wherever Islamism takes power, it fails. Like Marxism, it does not work.

The Iranian revolution was Shi'ite, and as we saw today, the modern Islamic fundamentalism has little to do with the Shia. There remains considerable danger in its fury, and the reality that even when it passes the mid-east shall be in a precarious place; and while it lasts, the interests of a nation increasingly entirely dependent on commerce are severely at stake. We cannot afford to sit idly by, but instead must make an effort to create in this countries the seeds of a prosperous and peaceful future.