Advice from an expert — and thoughts on Saudi Arabia

Sometimes, you stumble across an expert who has such manifest expertise, it might be a grave mistake to ignore him. And sometimes, if you’re not the stumbling kind, you’re lucky enough to have someone tell you how to find information from that expert. Thanks to Kevin, I can tell you what a reformed terrorist has to say about Israel’s current actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. He says, “You go, guys.”

“An international peacekeeping force in Lebanon will change nothing, and we will have chosen shame.

“We [not only Israel but the threatened West] need to choose war once and for all to eradicate that system,” a former terrorist told NewsMax in an exclusive interview about the current Middle East crisis.

His name is Walid Shoebat and he is a man with a tough message.

He is also a former fundamentalist Islamic terrorist who, incredibly, reformed. He is now an author, lecturer, and unabashed friend of Israel.

He travels the United States repeating, in a modern context, Winston Churchill’s warning to those who would appease Hitler’s evil: “We have a choice between shame and war!”

Shoebat was born in Bethlehem. As a young man, he entered the belly of the beast and became a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, participating in acts of terror and violence against Israel.

***

But then in a life-changing event, his wife challenged him to study Israeli history and leave behind the Jew-hating indoctrination of his youth. He did and emerged from the “detoxification” experience with the fresh orientation that Israel is not a demon but simply perennially on the defensive against extremists.

The Arabic speaker, who now makes a study of the fanaticism that once enveloped his life, told NewsMax that the West had better abandon its political correctness and worries about world opinion and get down-and-dirty in the war on terrorism. And the West should start with taming the roots of that terrorism, the “mosque clergy” that preaches the hate.

“We have to treat the problem by going to the source of the problem, and that is what we are not doing,” Shoebat said. “We are trying to destroy terrorist infrastructure – after it has been established. We have to look at the root causes of terrorism and the root causes spring from the mosque clergy.” Shoebat explained that in his opinion there are thousands of hate-dispensing Islamic clergy, including hundreds in the United States:

“We can’t touch it because we don’t want to invade another religion,” he lamented. “We have to treat this dogma – not as a religion – but as a political dogma.”

All over the world, Shoebat wants laws enacted that just say – no more hate-mongering from so-called religious leaders: “Once a religion goes beyond its borders, it has to be treated differently. It has to be shut down. You have to arrest these clergy. You’ve got to throw them in jail.”

***

He derided the European Union’s notion that if you can’t beat them, then include them, and maybe they will learn from us – from our way of life – to change their ways.

“This is a stupid thing,” he unabashedly concluded.

One of the things I really like about Shoebat’s advice is that, aside from stating the obvious, he attacks multiculturalism. I haven’t blogged about multiculturalism in a while, but those who have been following my blog know that it’s one of my pet peeves. I’m perfectly willing to respect cultures that are deserving of respect by any civilized norms, but I have no patience for pandering to cultures that have abandoned civilized norms.

By the way, this Shoebat story, to my mind, also goes some way towards answering Dagon’s question about Saudi Arabia. (I’m going to digress a bit here, but then I’ll wrap back around to Shoebat’s point.) In a comment, Dagon pointed out, rightly, that Saudi Arabia, along with sending out oil to the world, is also one of the primary exporters of some of the world’s most virulent Islamist thinking, and he wondered what I thought America could do to deal with that situation. The problem, of course, is that we’re dependent on the black gold flowing out of Saudi sand. To reduce the problem to a simple adage, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, we can’t cut off our nose to spite our face. While we know what the Saudis are doing, we can’t charge in to stop it without killing ourselves.

Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything. George Friedman, of Stratfor, believes that part of why Bush invaded Iraq was because it places America in a position where it’s breathing down Saudi Arabia’s neck. Certainly, Saudi Arabia has been more vigilant in going after Al Qaeda within its own borders. This may of course be because Al Qaeda is turning with increasing viciousness on S.A. After all the Saudi potentates never bought into the fundamentalist stuff themselves. It was their own deal with the devil, akin to the Lebanese deal with Hezbollah: we’ll fund you and let you do what you want, as long as you promise (a) to let the petrodollars flow and (b) to turn a blind eye to the fact that the parasitical Saudi royalty live lifes that have very little to do with Islamic dictates (aside from the plethora of wives).

Increased Saudi policing against Al Qaeda, however, may also be because the U.S. presence really is putting pressure on the Saudis. In addition, the US, by stirring up the slightly dormant Iranian hornets nest — that is, Iran got activated when it saw an opportunity in Iran — also put pressure on Saudi Arabia. The fact is, Iran is as dangerous to Saudi Arabia as it is to anything else in the region. That’s why we get interesting things like Saudi spokesmen denouncing Hezbollah. They do it, not for love of Israel, but for fear of Iran.

Another thing we can do is precisely what Shoebat suggests — shut down the hate speech. (See, I promised I’d get back to the Shoebat story.) I’m a true believer in the First Amendment, but I’m also a believer in Justice Holmes’ warning that the First Amendment does not stretch to falsely shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater. That is, freedom of speech does not extend to speech that is intended to destroy public safety. I think, therefore, that we need to — and have the Constitutional right to — police much more aggressively direct incitements to violence. Right now, as Shoebat states, we’re afraid to go anywhere near speech wrapped in a religious mantle. We have to overcome that fear and actually pay attention to what they’re saying — and when it’s actionable, we need to act.

Lastly, I would love to see us less dependent on foreign oil, which would free us from both Saudi and Venezuelan chains. Notwithstanding either Al Gore or the “No War For Oil” mantra, Americans don’t seem to have much desire to give up their oil loving habits. Clearly, we need a viable alternative fuel that will allow us our oil profligate ways, while shutting down the flow of petrodollars to people who really don’t like us. That would also serve as a solution for the burgeoning, polluting economies in India and China, both of which are singularly unimpressed by Al Gore’s message.

Talking to Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Lulu says

    This is a guy I’d love to see interviewed on CNN or NPR or in the NY Times, but will it ever happen? Dream on. If even Aayan Hirsi Ali’s amazing story barely got coverage, then this brave soul’s message is too threatening to the reality as they, the msm, wish to see it.

    BTW, have you noticed that in all the articles regarding this conflict that all pics either are of mourning Lebanese or Palestinians, injured Lebanese, and bombed Lebanon, and no equivalent to mourning Israelis, injured Israelis, or bombed Israeli areas? In my personal limited survey that’s all I’ve seen. This apparently also doesn’t fit in with the world as msm sees it either.

  2. says

    Oil isn’t a reason for me to hold back the sword of damocles over the foreign enemies of the United States. One reason being, American can seize Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure, a sort of re-nationalization, and then run it using a joint military-private venture that would be free of corruption simply because it combines trust worthy Marines with American (not french) entrepreneurs.

    The solutions are there, though Bush is not the kind of person who would approve of such solutions. The problem is one of scale and logistics. If you take Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves, to uncheckmate their oil advantage, the problem then becomes in maintaining it from terroist attacks from Iran and Syria. You would need to mobilize the US Navy to run escorts on oil tankers as well. It’s a huge operation. Which is not made easier by Iranian sabotage, which you can assure yourself, they will conduct along with Iraqi subversion activities. So the counter-strategy would be to seize Iranian and Saudi Arabian oil fields at once, so that there is nobody holding you back from pumping out as much output as possible. Technically, you could do this by dropping the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions onto oil sites and seize/build the pipelines, that transfer oil to the container ships. Then Navy escorts the ships to world wide ports. Big operation. Without an Imperial infrastructure, it would be touch and go.

    The problem was always, there are too many enemies for America to take on at once. Assuming you don’t want to annihilate the civilians that is. AMerican can glass over the Mid East and still have the oil, but it would mean using MIRVs which have the power to destroy entire continents. There is no defense against nuclear submarine launched MIRVs. You don’t even know where the submarines are at, let alone be able to stop one of the missiles from separating. So, because there are so many enemies, you have to start somewhere if you don’t want things escalated. Iraq being the weakest in the chain, and somehow conveniently located between SA, Syria, and Iran, got the privilege of being first.

    The above is one way you can deal (decisely) with the problem of your enemies using oil as a weapon against you. Pre-empt their attack, and their attack fizzles. But it is still a giant undertaking.

    Once you get the oil out of the way, you have to deal with the clerics and the madrasses. The problem then becomes, how do you capture or kill these clerics and schools, without tiping them off causing them to scatter and go into hiding?

    If you rely on local SA forces, they will screw up. The age old Arab corruption will see to it one way or another. If you use United States forces, how are you going to handle it? If you move forces into Saudi Arabia to take the oil, they(clerics) would be tipped off. Even if the clerics aren’t tipped off and they are just sitting ducks in the madrasses, how are you going to organize snatch operations without any local intelligence networks? How are you going to know who is who and where is what? SA is a bit territory, simultaneous offensive snatch operations on how many madrasses?

    I favor lightning raids, because they are the most decisive in terms of ending resistance. If America had captured 99% of the Baathists and terroists in Iraq in 2003, the insurgency would have been weaker starting out. But it wasn’t possible to do a lightning raid, because the very act of crossing their border alerted them. Sure, they need planning time, but the UN gave them that.

    So the question becomes, after you capture the oil fields, and get the clerics, then what do you do? You have just declared war on SA and Iran, and maybe even Syria. It’s going to be all out. Everybody is going to attack everybody. There’s too many ifs. If you get the oil fields, if you can get them running, if you can capture most of the clerics.

    I prefer to wait, because if we can use Iraqi shock troops to invade Iran and Iraq, the chances for getting the operation concluded successfully, increases by a few orders of magnitude.

    You can destroy the schools, but this means the terroists are all going to attack, because they’ve already graduated. therefore, when you move against the schools, you must also be prepared to crush the entire terror network in Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, and Iran.

    I do not believe the current logistical situation favors the US. I also believe that a diplomatic solution has zero chance of having any affect on the madrasses.

    When you move against Saudi Arabia, one of the centers of Sunni Jihad, you must be prepared for Total War, armed with intelligence and experienced combat troops. Saudi Arabia is part of the end game in chess. It is where you have to checkmate them, because to do anything else would be to lose the game. I favor decimating Syria and Iran first, simply because it is a good divide and conquer strategy.

  3. says

    Or we could open up US oil drilling in ANWAR, and offshore oil fields.

    Lock up long-term contracts and majority positions in Canadian companies exploring/developing the vast Alberta oil fields.

    Start up a Manhattan project to achieve a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

  4. Danny Lemieux says

    During the 1970s, OPEC’s hold on oil prices was shaken when (believe it or not) the Carter administration made a feint toward developing U.S. oil shale resources. Today, North America is believed to hold more-than five-times the oil reserves of the Middle East in the form of oil shale, tar sands and undeveloped oil fields. What would happen to the world-wide price of oil if the U.S. was to announce a massive program to develop these resources?

  5. says

    “This is a guy I’d love to see interviewed on CNN or NPR or in the NY Times” Lulu

    No they won’t do it but what about Hugh hewitt, Dennis Prager, etc.?
    It’s a start.

  6. zhombre says

    I think a serious strategy to wean North America off imported oil would entail several simultaneous strategies: drilling for more oil in ANWR and offshore; utilizing oil shale and tar sands; building more refineries and nuclear plants; conservation certainly; and developing alternative energy sources. Strategies that work best go forward over time, the others are abandoned. Having the will to act is paramount and frankly I don’t see the will. Congress a few years ago had the option of approving drilling in ANWR, or requiring greater fuel efficiency in motor vehicles; it could have approved either measure, or both, but approved neither. “Manhattan project” aren’t magic words; nothing happens when you say it. The remedies are there; the will isn’t.

  7. Safadila says

    This Shoebat guy, does he represent a movement? Does he have a grassroots following? Because if he doesn’t, then he only represents himself, and deserves as much air-time as his popularity among Arab points of view.

Leave a Reply