Pajamas Media

58 Comments

1. epb:

Hear, see and speak no evil — er, in other words, willfully ignore the vomit spewed daily. Political Correctness has render the West deaf, blind and mute.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:36 am 2. Ken Besig:

I think you will soon be hearing the words Islamic terrorist or Moslem terrorism with lethal fervor and frequency on TV screens, radio stations, and printed without letup in all American newspapers. I would suggest that just a few weeks after Barack Obama’s choice for CIA Chief Leon Panetta is sworn into office and dismantles the only serious defence America has had against these murderous terrorists, the Moslem terrorists will strike and strike hard, and not just against American citizens in the US, they will hit Jews and Americans throughout the world. And all the Americans will be able to say is that they voted Obama into office knowing exactly what he would do to make America and Americans entirely defenceless in the face of the barbarism of Islamic terror.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:48 am 3. Don:

Since day one this has been an ideological war (without that comprehension on our side). The lunatic Jihadis know it is, all they have is an ideology that defines their lives as meaning/valueless unless spent in the extermination of their opponents (all religions, all cultures alien to Islamic ones, and most of, all war against the Jew). We should have been attacking the ideology from day one, instead? We call it a religion “Of Peace” (which for most adherents it is) we take steps to avoid offending Islamic beliefs/sensibilities while at the same time we attack and denigrate faith in general (”Winterval”?).

It is an ideological war and we need to prosecute it that way

Jan 9, 2009 - 4:25 am 4. John Galt:

This whole problem goes back to Christianity.

It is impossible for Christians and Jews who have become assimilated (Christianized) to understand the Muslim mind.

They cannot concieve how evil Islam is period.

Muhammed was a terrorist who slaughtered thousands of innocent people. 95% of the Muslims in the world are ignorant or illiterate like Muhammed was.

Most Christians look at the Judeo/Christian Bible and see a story book that for the most part has no meaning in today’s world.

Those Christians and assimilated Jews look at the Koran in the same way as an old book irrelevant to today’s world.

The problem is is that the Koran is not irrelevant to today’s world. Over 1.5 billion people believe in it and what is written in there. They believe it literally and not just figuratively.

Muslim thinking and behavior is so antithesis to Christian thinking that Christians and assimilated Jews just can not comphrehend on all Muslims have the potential to be terrorists and take your life just like the Koran tells them to.

Jan 9, 2009 - 4:42 am 5. Peter the Sub Guy:

Let’s call a spade a spade. A terrorist is a terrorist. An Islamic terrorist is an Islamic terrorist. I don’t recall Catholic terrorists lodging complaints when the IRA was in full swing in Northern Ireland and they were called Catholic terrorists. And when a terrorist shouts that what he is doing is a jihad in the name of Allah, how can you argue that it isn’t just so it won’t upset others of the same religion?

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:09 am 6. Cybergeezer:

Any one who wants to see Islam as it really is, can find out with just a few clicks. If you are one that does not want to make the effort to investigate what Islam truly is and blindly believe it’s tenets, you are indeed, in trouble.
1. Is there anywhere in the world where Islam is living peacefully?
2. Is there anywhere Islam is making any attempt to assimilate?
3. Is there anywhere where Islam is welcoming anyone into a civilized dialogue?
4. Is there anywhere Mohammedans are taking overt action against any violent factions?
5. Is there anywhere you can illustrate that Islam is trying to converge with “modern civilization and societies”?
6. Are there any Mohammedan factions that do not try to brainwash, indoctrinate, and victimize their faithful, sons and daughters?
I view Islam like a weed; Ancient and unalterable. It even puts out a flower to make itself look attractive, but this flower is only for the purpose of propagation. Like all weeds, it has to be controlled and sometimes eradicated. Even when you think it has been eradicated, it finds it’s way back.
Authors Bernard W. Lewis and Robert Spencer have done extensive research and writings on Islam and it’s teachings, and are two of the best sources available.
Karl Marx called “religion” the “Opiate of the masses”. No one can deny that Islam is trying to live and die to prove this.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:16 am 7. Valerie:

I’m having trouble posting. This is long, and it has links. Apologies if something comes up double.

I hope that the Obama administration succeeds in opening the debate. George Bush got it exactly right, but I did not know it at the time.

After 9/11, George Bush criss-crossed this country calming it down, talking about those who were trying to “hijack one of the world’s great religions.” That allegation, “hijack one of the world’s great religions,” should have been the subject of a huge public discussion, because upon it turns our best strategy for dealing with the terrorists.

Over time I learned that he was talking about the Muslim Brotherhood and other hazy networks of radicals, and their advertising campaign to convince Muslims that they have a religious duty to kill people in the name of Allah. This intent is clearly stated, for example, in the Hamas Covenant http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP109206

I view the portion of the agreement to engage in an advertising campaign as an admission that their position is unIslamic. My view has been supported by an array of significant Muslim scholars, as shown most prominently by their answer to the Pope’s speech at the University of Regensberg: http://www.islamicamagazine.com/online-analysis/open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi.html

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:25 am 8. Valerie:

These scholarly Muslims embraced their Abrahamic roots, including specifically the two places in the Gospel where Jesus Christ cites the “written” injunction to “Love thy neighbor” — a philosophy adopted pragmatically and wholeheartedly by our own nation. http://www.forward.com/articles/14250/ Where is it “written?” In the Talmund. In this citation, these prominent Muslim scholars embraced the core principle of Judaism.

We should not depend on Muslim scholars to carry much of the burden of changing the situation among our peoples. The members of Hamas are the philosophical offspring of Joseph Stalin, who famously asked “And how many divisions does the Pope have?” We can, however, use the scholars’ guidance.

I think we now have enough information to identify the players, and the means to distinguish the groups. They are intermingled physically, but both have been publishing in English and in Arabic, so we can begin to trace their identities and connections, as well as the sometimes fascinating contrasts between the “translations” from one language to the other, depending on the intended audience.

One tool we have is the Hamas Covenant. It was adopted in 1988, and so we have accumulated years of recorded evidence of the way it has been implemented and what its members say about their intent.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:26 am 9. Valerie:

The word for what Hamas has agreed to do is Hirabah, or “UNholy war” and the Arab word for terrorism is “irhab,” sometimes also rendered “hirab.” http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/03/words-have-meaning/

A very simple test for terrorist and terrorist support is to ask a person 1) whether they have read the Hamas Covenant, and 2) whether they repudiate it.

You have to ask whether the person has read the document. General support for people who one believes have been victims is not the same as support for the stated goals of Hamas. People don’t like to read formal documents, and I doubt most Muslims have bothered with it. I believe that many nominal Hamas supporters would be aghast at the content of that document. Perhaps that is why Hamas supporters have begun to deny that the document means what it says.

That Hamas covenant really is that clear. The members of Hamas say so, when they think they are talking among themselves.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/195781.php

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:26 am 10. Ann:

VERY basic reading I recommend re Islam’s roots, history and purposes:

Judgment Day, Dave Hunt
Epicenter, Joel Rosenburg
Author Walid Shoebat, also anything by Majahid El Masih

Web sites: Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch, Shoebat

The two books mentioned above are written by Christian men, but they are not written “at you” (in case you resent feeling that you are being pursued by every living, breathing Christian!)…they report historical contexts/events and put current events in larger context historically. Most importantly, they document that “everything you’ve suspected about Islam and wanted to ask about….is true”….and worse.

It is what it is, and at this point (since we haven’t done it before with any sense of purpose) we had better start informing ourselves so that we can avoid wasting time by being deceived or having to waste time defending ourselves against accusations that WE are being deceptive (because we make factual errors in what we say).

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:31 am 11. andycanuck:

Using the word “thug” is anti-Kali and anti-Hindu. Can I launch a human rights complaint against the Foreign Office?

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:45 am 12. Saltherring:

What motivates Islamic radicals? HATE…of anyone who rejects assimilation into their Satanic cult.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:26 am 13. Archimedes2:

Excellent summary piece, David. You’ve put the problem in a nutshell very well.

I have some misgivings about the “USCC Red Team” document you cite. I am less optimistic about its meaning than you appear to be. I raised the following questions when the document first appeared and, so far, have had no answers to quell my doubts:

“Red Team”, in military jargon, has only one universal meaning: It is a designation for a group whose task is to behave like the antagonist, try to knock holes in one’s defenses and provide a “live” enemy for engagement in battlefield exercises. To “Red Team” an opponent is to have someone mimic them for the purpose of improving one’s tactics for dealing with them. Anything produced by a “Red Team”, then, should reflect what one believes is the position of one’s enemies. Nobody understands this better than USCC.

I infer that USCC, or whatever organization convened the “Red Team”, regards the content of that document to be a summary of the arguments of an opponent — the document’s purpose is for target practice: Those who will have to engage with opponents promoting the views found in the document use it to test their arguments. In this case the battlefield is ideological and the battle is one of public relations — precisely the one with which your article is concerned.

The document is a somewhat accurate, but stiff and lifeless (and poorly written and weakly documented), version of the arguments put forward by Coughlin, Emerson, Bostom etc. It is exactly as one would expect a piece put together merely for “target practice” to look.

There is plenty of evidence that suggests a large and central contingent in the government is committed to engaging and minimizing the “jihad alarmist” faction, and who regard this as an ideological battle to be won. What evidence can be adduced to show that Coughlin et al haven’t been “Red Teamed” by them and that this document is not an artifact of that action?

I believe my suspicions are supported by other elements of prima facie evidence: First, there is no evidence that this “Red Team” actually exists. Notwithstanding that the document begins with an invitation to call a certain phone number or look up a certain (nonexistent) web site to access “other Red Team products”, I don’t believe the group exists. If they did it would be an easy thing to demonstrate, simply by identifying one of its members by name (it supposedly comprises both civilian and military personnel), or pointing to one other action or “product” that has come from it. One could surely find them (by way of some reference at a military blog, etc.) on the web. Google gives a number of hits to the term “USCC Red Team” and the natural variants on this term — but they all point to the same source: the Washington Times article you cite and this one archived document. After all this time, does it not seem odd to have a “Red Team” talking about its “products”, supposedly releasing an “unclassified” document, and inviting all and sundry to come and ask them about their work — yet no evidence that they exist can be produced aside from this one artifact?

If this piece was “released”, as the “unclassified” designation stamped on every page appears to suggest, why was it picked up only by one journalist in one journal a thousand miles from where the document purports to originate, and every single public citation of it can be traced back to that one source?

My working theory is that the piece was produced in-house in Washington (not Florida), possibly by the state department, in anticipation of a similar sort of thing coming from someone in military command — maybe Coughlin or a group sympathetic to him. Its purpose was as I suggest above: Red teaming — to practice deconstructing the argument it contains, prior to actual engagement. But somehow it slipped into the public domain, possibly by someone who misunderstood its nature, and was broken by the Washington Times writer, who was thrilled to think that there was some right thinking in USCC and so didn’t think critically about the piece, the obvious meaning of the name “Red Team”, or try to independently confirm its validity. It has spread around the antijihad community without further scrutiny. The office that produced the document is mum about it because it is an embarrassment to them. Since there is no actual Red Team beyond a couple of librarians who cobbled the document together in the first place (and who are unlikely to speak up), there will be no independent correlation of it.

My hypothesis is easily falsifiable. Call the number at USCC and ask to speak to someone from the Red Team. Or someone with security clearance go online to the secure web site they list and produce another unclassified document that independently verifies the existence of the Red Team and the nature of its mission.

I’ve been waiting a few months for this. I’m waiting still.

If I’m right, then this perhaps suggests some important courses of action the antijihad community. But the first order of business is to establish the real nature of the Red Team and this document.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:36 am 14. Rob:

We must eliminate the language of soft words and political correctness that would weaken our ability to fight Islamic terrorists and extremists who wish to impose a global caliphate upon the world through intimidation, violence, and warfare, and crush our cherished liberties that we take for granted, as it is in our natural birthrights.

The idea that “extremists” hijacked Islam to advance certain goals is patently absurd. In fact, the Koran encouraged and inspired Muslims to advance Islam in all places by any way and mean, thus emboldening the most passionate Muslims to take it to the extreme and expect the least passionate Muslims to support them without question. You can see plenty of perfect examples in the Hamas, the Hezbollah, the Taliban and so forth. That is why moderate and secular Muslims are in a very tiny majority, too afraid to speak out and too unwilling to acknowledge that Islam is a religion born and bred of violence and any “peaceful” approach is meant to fool the fools and the gullible (and, if it succeeds, to convert or behead them).

*sigh* When these people who wrote that asinine policies are going to wake up and face the facts they are doing much more harm than good to protect the American people and the country? Looking the other way and pretending while fighting against dedicated Islamic extremists and their least passionate supporters is a guaranteed loser in the struggle of civilizations. Do these people really wanted to be slaves to an unseen, moon god from Mecca?

Get real.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:39 am 15. Terry Gain:

A perpetual assignment for politically correct liberal weenies: Christ and Muhammed – Compare and contrast.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:40 am 16. Rob:

A slight correction:
That is why moderate and secular Muslims are in a very tiny MINORITY… (not majority). Sorry.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:42 am 17. Ms. Attitude:

13. Archimedes2: “Or someone with security clearance go online to the secure web site they list and produce another unclassified document that independently verifies the existence of the Red Team and the nature of its mission.”

I have a security clearance and if I were to go onto the SIPERNET and release any information that is on it, I would be unemployed.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:44 am 18. tino:

Islam is the petri dish of islamist terrorist. Without islam, there would not exist an islamist jihadist. We are at war with islam, but lets call it War on Terror not to hurt anybody’s feelings.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:06 am 19. Trainwreck:

We are doomed. While our feckless political leaders and our useless security apparatchniks are falling over themselves to come up with ever more politically correct euphemisms to obfuscate our goal and make sure we never know our enemy, our enemies are preparing ever more diabolic ways to attack us. It is better that 1 million Americans die than 1 Muslim be offended by the truth. I thought 9/11 would shut up the PC thought police, but instead it has given them more power and control over our government. A Muslim extremist has become more of a victim than an office worker on the 101st floor of Tower 1 on 9/11. This article has clearly shown that from the beginning, Bush would only fight a half-a$$ed PC war against terrorists, which allowed Osama to escape and turned Iraq into a quagmire.

Let’s continue fighting this war against “that which must not be named” We will never win it, because we refuse to name or understand the enemy. Then when a few mushroom clouds go off in our cities, I bet we will self-impose Shariah law so as not to offend Muslims with our outrage.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:14 am 20. J. PINKERTON SNOOPINGTON:

EPH:
And stupid as well….

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:09 am 21. Archimedes2:

17. Ms. Attitude: “Archimedes2: I have a security clearance and if I were to go onto the SIPERNET and release any information that is on it, I would be unemployed.”

Yes, M.A., I understand this. But you could go on and say ” I’ve verified that this group exists, and that it produced this document, and that the document is exactly what it signifies.” Surely that would not “release” any information that is not already available and (assuming you deal honestly) settle the question. If my thesis is correct, however, then of course you could not say so, as this would be releasing heretofore unknown information. A catch-22.

I am not even an American citizen and certainly don’t have any kind of security clearance in the U.S. (I’m a friendly alien), so you would be right not to speak too freely with me.

From my google experiments it seems if Red Team exists, then it is clamped down tight: not even the hobbyists who like to break news about “insider” developments in military and intelligence on their blogs have any information about the group outside this one artifact. Does that not seem strange? One has to ask why the tight security, in light of the following:

a) Every page of this document is stamped “Unclassified”. If this is an operating group releasing unclassified documents, where are all their other “products”?
b) Why clamp so tightly on a group that makes unclassified documents? Is it likely that a group that does ONLY high security work would suddenly produce one and only one document that is completely insecure?
c) Some of the original commentary on “Red Team” says it is an advisory group comprised of both civilian and military personnel. If so then it surely is not highly classified — there’s some highschool teacher or dentist out there who helped write this document, and who’s on a first-name basis with the rest of “Red Team”. These are not deep-cover agents, and the work of such a group is unlikely to be kept under wraps.
d) Not only is the document “unclassified” and apparently deliberately in the public domain, it is emblazened with a “Red Team” letterhead with the following invitation:

“Please direct questions or comments to the United States Central Command Red Team at (813)-827-15438 or DSN 531-1543. This and other Red Team Products can be found on the SIPRNET at http://intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/CENTCOM_Red_Team.”

Doesn’t sound like high security to me. More like an open invitation to chat them up. Perhaps you might say that the document was “unclassified” only at a level that should be accessible by those with a certain security clearance and that it was never meant to be released into the public domain. The externals would argue against this, but maybe I just misunderstand things. But we’re still left with…

e) The name! As one in military or intelligence, surely you understand my concerns about this group calling itself “Red Team”, M.A. I don’t think it would be compromise your clearance to spell out for us if there is some other possible interpretation for this name in a government, military or intelligence context. I’ve searched the entire internet looking for another possible significance to attach to it, and everything I’ve found only appears to reinforce my interpretation.

I may seem to be clinging rather stubbornly to my hypothesis here but I assure you, I would be thrilled to know I’m wrong. I would love for my hypothesis to be crushed; I have no stake in being “right” on this issue. I am concerned, however, about the danger of wearing blinders on an issue like this. If forces in Washington are tooling up for an all-out ideological battle against the Emersons, Coughlins, Spencers, Bostoms and Rusins of this world, and have gone as far as engaging in battlefield simulation, these guys would be well advised not to turn a blind eye. Some reciprocal red-teaming might even be advisable … anticipate the line of attack, what forum it will appear in, what organs of the state or media may be called to bear, where our weaknesses lie, and how to counter.

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:16 am 22. fred:

THE BOTTOM LINE: “Valerie” has never read the Qur’an or any of the ahadith. She’s never read scholarly biographies of the life and deeds of Muhammad. She has never read any scholarly works about the 1,400 years of jihad conquest, starting with the Prophet of Islam.

My best guess is that “Valerie” probably works for the State Department or the Defense Department, linked with people who are financially tied with the Saudis.

Anytime the topic of Islam shows up on conservative weblogs, she shows up with her usual repertoire of arguments that are easily taken apart by citations from the Qur’an or the most authoritative ahadith, which are called Bukhari and Muslim.

There is nothing in this world more shameful than a Westerner who is an apologist for Islam.

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:18 am 23. Cybergeezer:

So, if I can paraphrase what I’ve been reading here;
U.S. Policy toward terrorism=”We have a mortal enemy, but we can’t say who it is.”

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:57 am 24. Mike:

Why can’t we all just get along and live in peace?

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:28 pm 25. love america:

Cybergeezer, you can say that. As long as they know who the mortal enemy is and go after them, I’m fine with that. We the public have to keep getting out the word to the uninformed about the true religion of Islam and their fanatics. Also check out Michael J. Totten’s web-page and you will see a story about the Muslims living in I believe Kosovo. Very enlightening and positive.

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:43 pm 26. Kalen:

WHY USING RELIGIOUS DESIGNATIONS CAN CRIPPLE OUR WAR ON TERRORISM: A CONTRARIAN VIEWPOINT

I personally agree with Mr. Rusin and most of the readers’ comments. It goes against our grain not to call a spade a spade. But whether we are aware of it or not, doing so plays right into the hands of the terrorists and is one of their cleverest “winning of the hearts and minds” strategies.

Therefore, using religious designations must be avoided.

What most advocates of using religious designations forget is that we’re not dealing with comparable cultural norms here. Placing our enemies within similar cognitive categories as those inhabited by Westerners is a fundamental error. It assumes that the enemy thinks and feels in much the same way we do and generally views the world as we do. So all we have to do is be stronger and more clever than they are and we’ll win.

But the enemy doesn’t see the world as we do – at all. Not by a long shot.

Contemporary Islamic civilization (if that’s what you want to call it), is characterized by instability and disarray – a hodgepodge of mentally and emotionally disturbed entities living in a fantasy world. And it’s crumbling all around them.

It is this irrationality of the Moslem non-combatants *more than anything else* that gets in our way as we fight terrorism.

That is to say, it does no good to kill a few Al-Qaeda leaders here and there if at the same time we have to put up and deal with unruly mobs in Europe or elsewhere who are rioting because of some “insulting” pictures published in a paper or because of similarly perceived wrongs done to Islam by Westerners.

The only way to avoid this ludicrous over-reaction is to treat the Moslem hoi polloi as one would treat an unruly child. You placate him with a “nice” approach, by uuuuhing and aaaahing his “culture”, by having your Heads of State attend Ramadan breakfasts with the locals, by providing pre-prayer“ablution” facilities at your Western universities, and so on.

In other words, you have to sink to their level to get any results.

If avoiding using religious designations will greatly assist in keeping the barbarian crowds at bay – and it will – it’s a small price to pay for the larger battle we must fight.

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:47 pm 27. fred:

Cyvbergeezer,

In the Dark Age and Middle Ages, in Catholic Europe and the Orthodox Eastern Europe the jihad against Christendom was properly named. The followers of Muhammad and his cult called “Islam” said that Allah/Satan gave them leave to subdue and convert the kafir. The directives are right in the Qur’an.

Some day Robert Spencer’s work will get the credit he is due. The people who spread disinformation and misinformation about Islam will never be remembered for anything constructive. And either Islam will dominate or we will defeat it. There is not one word spoken or written by Islam’s Western apologists that will mitigate or abrogate the Word of Allah. Citizens like us will resist Islam, while the elites who want to appease will either have to suppress us or fade into obscurity.

The Clintons get a ton of money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. My best guess is that the Clinton people still in government are major players in enforcing this regime of obfuscation.

Jan 9, 2009 - 1:02 pm 28. Leatherneck:

What is wrong with all you nice people?

There is no such thing as an extremist Muslim. The so called extremists within Islam are following the true calling of Mohamed. The Muslims not following Mohamed are Apostate.

Now that you know, we can all go back to being compasionate, and understanding about the religion of peace.

ROPMA!

Jan 9, 2009 - 1:26 pm 29. Rob:

If there is a significant islamic terrorist attack on the US during Obama’s administration, it will be all but certain that Islamic fundamentalism will be addressed and targeted. It will be like 9/11 never happened. CAIR will be outlawed. We’ll probably see Muslim internment camps. After all, this will be an attack on the “kindler and gentler” USA, not those “cowboys” that had it coming….

Jan 9, 2009 - 1:45 pm 30. Peter the Sub Guy:

26. Kalen wrote:
The only way to avoid this ludicrous over-reaction is to treat the Moslem hoi polloi as one would treat an unruly child. You placate him with a “nice” approach, by uuuuhing and aaaahing his “culture”, by having your Heads of State attend Ramadan breakfasts with the locals, by providing pre-prayer“ablution” facilities at your Western universities, and so on.
In other words, you have to sink to their level to get any results.

Peter responds: The biggest problem with this approach is the old “Give ‘em an inch and they want a foot” cliche’. (The irony being these barbarians would literally take your foot.) If you start giving in to the demands of foot baths in public facilities without making similar accomodations for other religions, then the Muslims want to go even further. Women can’t be in the same room as men. Women must be covered when in a man’s presence, etc, so forth. Next thing you know, in your attempt to ‘appease’ so the ‘common muslim’ will have nothing to complain about, you (if you are female, I don’t know) won’t be able to go to the supermarket without a male member of your family to ‘escort’ you, and you certainly won’t be able to drive yourself there! All they do is take, take, take but not want to give back any concession in return, because that would be a sign of weakness.

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:08 pm 31. Angry White Dude:

Frankly, I know more about Islam than I ever wanted (or needed) to know. I am not impressed.

Angry White Dude

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:41 pm 32. Karen:

Why are we trying to impress, coddle, appease these Muslim people anyway? Why do we care? They kill our people and we want to make them happy? We don’t want to alienate them? Why? Who cares? I know I don’t.

We need to wake up. They are laughing and plotting in plain sight. They live among us and do not assimulate, they are here to dominate. Beware.

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:53 pm 33. Don Rhudy:

Anyone who expects Obama to do anything courageous and sensible is himself as foolish as the next socialist President of the United States, Obama. No need to explain why I use the word “next,” for the difference between a socialist and statist is thin.

Men of courage would declare political as well as occasional military war on Islam.

Tex, expatriated in the midwest to his sorrow.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:05 pm 34. Jeff Perren:

“Why can’t we all just get along and live in peace?”

Assuming you’re not kidding, the answer is:

Because, regrettably, there are still many, many people in the world that do not respect the rights of others to life, liberty, and property. The underlying reason is that such people are driven by their philosophy and in many cases that philosophy is explicitly opposed to those rights.

In the context of the current discussion, that goes manyfold for Islamists.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:13 pm 35. David J. Rusin:

Archimedes2:

I appreciate your detailed comments on the red team report. You raise some interesting questions about its provenance. I will ask around and see what some of the experts have to say.

Jan 9, 2009 - 4:22 pm 36. Grover:

The One True God of the Bible says: You shall have no other gods but Me. Allah is a pagan moon god, therefore he is Satan. The Bible is inspired by God Himself; but the Koran is the work of an illiterate madman, Muhammad. The first half of the Koran is for the most part benign and peaceful, but the second half is full of hate and murder. Need any more proof that the man was mad?

Jan 9, 2009 - 4:30 pm 37. Will:

Let’s all speak up. Are we a bunch of scared rabbits,or are we going to win this war with Islam? This country didn’t become the greatest in history by cowaring or running from the enemy.

Jan 9, 2009 - 4:54 pm 38. Judy, NYC:

Will: in answer to your question #36 – yes, we are a bunch of scared rabbits. also, stupid rabbits, too. we are an insult to our rabbity friends. they are scared of becoming coats and hats, what are we afraid of?

It seems to me that we fear the muslim psychos won’t like us. that the UN won’t like us. that the french won’t like us or the english and all the eurotrash that psycho monies can buy.

everyone who actually gives a crap if they like us please raise their hand.

okaaaayyyyyy. let’s have that show of hands.
please. there must be one who gives a crap, but I’ll need a name.
we hired a hall for this?

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:07 pm 39. nadadhimmi:

The Muslims know we as a culture are scarred to death of them. Our leaders tremble to even utter the word islam and are in awe of muslims. The leaders will lead us into death and subjugation and must be gotten rid of. Our leaders as a class are treasonous, cowardly dogs not fit to scrub sh*t off the floor of a public restroom. The American public wishes to obliterate islamic threats but polititians will not do it because they have taken bribes from oil sheiks to sell out their country and culture.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:40 pm 40. fred:

These are the only two things you need to do in order to not be snookered by Muslim taqiyya and Western apologists for Islam.

1. Buy an English translation of the Qur’an and read it. It will be a hard slog, as it took me a few years to get through it. It’s not easy reading, with the archaic language and phraseology and disorganized format. But if you can do most of it, you will be rewarded with a very clear view of why we should fear Islam and fight it.

2. Go on over to Robert Spencer’s site, JihadWatch.org. You WILL learn a lot there.

The greatest danger to the West is not primarily the Muslims: it’s the Western apologists, Marxist allies, and appeasing politicians and policy elites. Why? Because if we are armed with the truth Islam cannot defeat us.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:05 pm 41. Peter the Sub Guy:

What I believe is the perfect example of how advanced the civilized western world is compared to the primitive Muslim/Arab world. Here in the west we have this invention called a toilet, which is used to collect and dispose of human waste, and an equally handy invention called toilet paper.

In the Muslim/Arab countries I have visited, they have literally a hole in the floor and no toilet paper.

Case closed.

Jan 10, 2009 - 5:54 am 42. Cybergeezer:

40. fred;
“The greatest danger to the West is not primarily the Muslims: it’s the Western apologists, Marxist allies, and appeasing politicians and policy elites. Why? Because if we are armed with the truth Islam cannot defeat us.”
Good summation. More paraphrasing of what these comments and the article are attempting to accomplish.
Indeed; Dissemination of the truth is essential, and we are doing a great job here.

Jan 10, 2009 - 6:59 am 43. David H:

I don’t recall Catholic terrorists lodging complaints when the IRA was in full swing in Northern Ireland and they were called Catholic terrorists.

I do not have any recollection that they were called or accepted as Catholic Terrorists, they were the Irish Republican Army, in other words a group that wanted the British to withdraw from Ireland, they were Catholics in name only to define them as being different to those that wanted to stay in the UK, I certainly would not accept calling them Catholic terrorists, sorry.

Anyway onteh main topic, we must continue to get the message out to the people that the problem is Islam

Jan 10, 2009 - 2:27 pm 44. Valerie:

THE BOTTOM LINE: “Valerie” has never read the Qur’an or any of the ahadit

Like hell I haven’t. And I want to win this war sooner rather than later. To do that, we have to recognize and connect with potential allies, somewhat like we did in Iraq.

Jan 10, 2009 - 4:18 pm 45. DonJoe:

What is Islam, and what do Muslims believe?

As with all religions, Muslims believe they can find salvation through Islam. Islam was begun early in the 7th century by a man named Muhammad. He claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel. During these angelic visitations, which continued for about 23 years until Muhammad’s death, the angel purportedly revealed to Muhammad the words of God (called “Allah” in Arabic and by Muslims). These dictated revelations comprise the Qur’an, Islam’s holy book.

Muslims, the followers of Islam, believe the Qur’an, also called the Koran, to be the preexistent and perfect word of Allah. Further, many Muslims reject an English, or any other language, version of the Qur’an. These are translations of the meaning of the Qur’an, which only exists in Arabic. Although the Qur’an is the main holy book, the sunnah is considered the second source of religious instruction. The sunnah was written by Muhammad’s companions about what Muhammad said, did, or approved.

The key beliefs of Islam are that Allah is the only true God and that Muhammad was Allah’s prophet. By simply stating these beliefs, a person can convert to Islam. The word Muslim means “one who submits to Allah.” Islam purports to be the one true religion from which all other religions have derived themselves or are a mockery of (including Judaism and Christianity).

Muslims base their lives on the Five Pillars:
1. The testimony of faith: “There is no true god but God (Allah), and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.”
2. Prayer: five prayers must be performed every day.
3. Giving: one must give to the needy, as all comes from Allah.
4. Fasting: besides occasional fasting, all Muslims must fast during the celebration of Ramadan (the ninth month of the Islamic calendar).
5. Hajj: the pilgrimage to Mecca should be performed at least once (in the twelfth month of the Islamic calendar).

These five tenets, the framework of obedience for Muslims, are taken seriously and literally. A Muslim’s entrance into paradise hinges on obedience to these Five Pillars.

Compared to Christianity, Islam has several similarities but significant differences. Like Christianity, Islam is monotheistic (belief in one God), but it rejects the concept of the Trinity. Islam accepts certain portions of the Bible, such as parts of the Law and the Gospels, but rejects the majority of it as slanderous and uninspired.

Islam claims that Jesus was a mere prophet—not God’s Son (only Allah is God, Muslims believe, and how could He have a Son?). Rather, Islam asserts that Jesus, though born of a virgin, was created just as Adam—from the dust of the earth. Muslims believe Jesus did not die on the cross. Although denied by Islam, the Trinity and Christ’s redemption on the cross are central to Christianity.

Islam teaches that the Qur’an is the final authority and the last revelation of Allah. The Bible, however, was completed in the 1st century with the Book of Revelation. The Lord warned against anyone adding to His finished Word (Revelation 22:18). The Qur’an, as a claimed addition to God’s Word, directly disobeys God’s command.

Finally, Islam teaches that paradise is gained through good works and obedience to the Qur’an. The Bible, in contrast, reveals that man cannot measure up to the holy God. Only because of His mercy and love can sinners be saved through faith in Christ, who fulfilled the Law in the place of those who would believe in Him (Ephesians 2:8-9; Matthew 5:17). Therefore, Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. One is God’s Word and one is not. The truth has eternal consequences.

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world” (1 John 4:1-4).

Recommended Resource:
Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norm Geisler.

Jan 10, 2009 - 4:55 pm 46. DonJoe:

Since September 11, the world has entered the age of terror. The terrorists, while few, wage cruel atrocities in the name of religion. Christians wonder how to respond to the threat. To our reproach, some fearfully spurn all Muslims as terrorists. Others compromise truth to show acceptance. Both approaches dishonor God.

One thing is clear: we must understand the differences between our faiths before we can respond with Christ’s truth and love. While some misunderstandings can be cleared, the main offense is . . . Jesus Christ! (See 1 Peter 2:4-8.) The truth about our Lord and Savior must not be compromised. First, let’s prayerfully examine how to overcome some of the initial barriers between Muslims and Christians.

1. Muslims are offended by Western secularism.

Many Muslims sincerely seek holy lives. As global technology shrinks the world, our Muslim neighbors feel threatened by Western culture: immoral movies, pornography, vile music, alcohol, rebellious teens. Worse, they equate this Western culture with Christianity. “Our” Western culture threatens their faith, their worldview, their lifestyle.

2. Muslims are resentful of Western dominance

The West has a history of colonialism and interference which Muslims resent. While some approve of the war on terror, other Muslims bitterly object. Besides, they often feel betrayed by the West’s “favoritism” of Israel, which displaced thousands of Palestinians.

3. Militant Muslims act on war verses in the Qur’an
While many Muslims are peace-loving, others interpret the Qur’an to give them divine credence to convert or kill. At the beginning of Muhammad’s rise to power, he sought to gain Christian support of his new religion – even encouraging his followers to read the Bible (Surah 10:94).

However, Christians commit the unpardonable sin of “shirk”, equating Jesus with God. When the two faiths proved irreconcilable, he urged jihad on the infidels (Surah 4:47; 9:29). How did he motivate the holy war? He promised the surviving warriors would receive plunder from the slain (Surah 48:20-21). Those who died in holy battle would have assurance – assurance guaranteed to no other Muslim – of paradise filled with sensual pleasures (Hadith 1:505; 6:402).

Muslims reject God the Father who sent His Son to die for sinners. While Muslims honor Jesus as a noble prophet, they depend on Islamic works and faith – submission to one Allah, belief in Muhammad, and obedience to the Qur’an – for entrance to paradise. Many Muslims believe that Christians worship three gods, deify a man (Jesus), and tamper with the biblical text. Most of them deny both the necessity and historicity of Christ’s death.

Recommended Resource: Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norm Geisler.

Jan 10, 2009 - 5:10 pm 47. George:

Week ago I listened to some younger guys, guys in their fifties, commenting on the great changes they’ve witnessed in their short lifetime and complaining about the accelerating rate of change. Now, these were Americans, people who love change, people who constantly demand and expect everything to be better, bigger, faster and cheaper all the time.

I spent some time thinking how would I feel about all these rapid changes if I were a farm hand in Jordan, a Pakistani construction worker in Dubai or a merchant in Syria. Keep in mind I would be brought up in an Islamic society, brought up to submit to Allah’s will as represented by the existing authorities. In Islamic countries all life, even political life, is governed by religion and Islam demands submission. I would have been taught to submit to authority, to rigidly adhere to rules. In Islam no one is taught to expect or to welcome changes and certainly not to demand changes. My upbringing would make me intuitively aware of my position in society. I would instinctively know who is above me, which butt I have to kiss. I would instinctively know who is below me which butt I have to kick ever so often to show I am above. Flexibility, change, adaptation, innovation would not be in my character, not even in my dictionary. I would be taught that cleverness, ability to manipulate existing rules while appearing submissive and making sure no one above is angered, is the way to succeed. And, above all, I would be taught to always add “Inshallah” to have a way out, to make it clear it is Allah who is responsible for me not delivering what I promised.

And here come all these changes. And they all come from the West, from America. Equality, democracy, rights. Even for women! Who will I boss if I cannot boss my wife and kids? There is TV with pictures of rich lands and rich people leading an individualistic life. They seem stupid yet they are free. All the young ones have radios and play obnoxious and strange music without any respect for you and the old traditions. And there is this Internet allowing instant communication from everywhere to everywhere. Can’t keep anything secret anymore. Wife wants new cell phone to make gossip easier, daughter wants to go to school and the son wants a play station. And my new business partners don’t want to hear Inshallah anymore but expect me to deliver what I promised, precisely, exactly and on time. All of this is pushing me out of my comfort zone, demanding change in my thinking, my beliefs and my way of life. Everywhere I look I see new ideas, new products, new expectations. Life is changing faster and faster. Worst of all, no one seems to be able to do anything to stop it.

And I must admit these new ways can work in the deserts of Middle East. Just look at Israel. Rag tag band of sick and undernourished refugees from the cities of ruined Europe and look at what they did! They made the desert bloom, they made the sand to provide abundance for more people anyone could ever imagine. How could that be? After all they are not nice, submissive people, they are pushy and obnoxious individuals, not willing to submit to anyone. They argue incessantly and change everything. And, deep inside I must admit they live better than I do. Even the oppressed Palestinians inside of Israel seem to have fewer butts to kiss than I do.

Deep inside, I must admit, I envy them and my pride dictates that I must hate them and must do everything possible to stop them before they change my world beyond repair.

I have only two choices – change my thinking, my way of life or change the rest of the world. But I don’t want to change, change is too difficult, too painful. Resisting, to the last drop of blood of other people is much easier. Dying, as long as it is done by others, doesn’t hurt that much. When there is no one willing to die to protect me from all these changes, then I will see what can be negotiated.

Jan 10, 2009 - 6:41 pm 48. fred:

David H and Valerie,

What would you say if I could give you a compendium of surah and verse from the Qur’an, from the Medinan period of Muhammad’s career, where Allah calls for violence against the unbelievers and to wage jihad against them until all of the world is under Sharia Law? I say Medinan period, because the doctrine of abrogation says that the later revelations abrogate (cancel out) the earlier Meccan ones. Do you even know about the centrality and orthodoxy of the abrogation principle in the way the Islamic scriptures are used by Muslim scholars?

The jihadis correctly quote the Qur’an and ahadith. The wishful thinking on the part of the political and policy elites of the West (and I assume you are a policy person working somewhere in the government, because I have it on good information that the line you bring here on this topic is the one that is being actively promoted from those warrens)does not make these inconvenient truths go away. The violence is inspired by the actions of Muhammad and the words of his sock puppet deity.

Let me reiterate, you vehement denial notwithstanding, that you provide no evidence of having read the Islamic scriptures in their entirety and with great understanding. I am but a modest and humble citizen who has tried to understand these events across fourteen centuries. If you debated Robert Spencer, who is fluent in Arabic, and a colleague of his, Andrew Bostom, on these topics you would get your clock cleaned.

Regardless of whether or not the truth offends your erstwhile “allies” within the Muslim community, the fact is that the ones not on the side of the jihadis are not on correct Islamic grounds. The jihadis are the good Muslims faithful to their tradition and the example of the Prophet. Our friends are the apostate, bad Muslims. You can keep repeating the taqiyya you put here ad infinitum, but it does not make it right. The only thing that will really protect us in the long run is not the bad Muslims who are on our side, but our apprehension of the theological and historical truth about what Islam really is: our submission.

Look, if your version of things works for you, fine. Go with it. If your career depends on it, or at least even your pretending to believe it helps you to stay in good stead with your bosses, fine – go with it. But we who are not subject to the official policy of the elites are entitled to seek and find the truth as it is. We are tired of having government, media, and academia tell us how we should think. We think we have been deceived by you people and our enemies and we have a right to see the truth and live in its light.

Muhammad was the consummate terrorist. He wiped out the Jews of Qurayza by participating in the beheading of 900 Jewish males one by one in front of a trench they had to dig for their grave. This was hundreds of years before the Einsatzgruppen did this in Russia and Eastern Europe. He drove out and murdered the rest of the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) by the time he was done. He raided the caravans and murdered the men, selling the women and children into slavery and letting his men divide up the spoils. He told his followers to bring the sword to the four directions, as Allah said it was their calling to make all submit. And as traditional, orthodox Islam holds that Muhammad was The Perfect Man, he is to be imitated in all his deeds, words, and views. And if you deny that the Prophet should be regarded as The Perfect Man, see how many Muslims will PUBLICLY deny this.

Your rationalizations don’t work with me. And people like me. We have been liberated by the truth. We won’t deceive others and we sure won’t lie to ourselves.

Jan 10, 2009 - 7:26 pm 49. Cybergeezer:

28. Leatherneck:
Nice sarcasm; Looks like you know what’s happening; Semper Fi.

Jan 10, 2009 - 8:26 pm 50. David H:

fred I agree with your post 48. about Islam, I too have read the Quran and the ahadiths and see Islam for what it is, I have been reading about Islam since 1997 and have been reading Jihad Watch since 2003, and I am not in government, Valerie might be.

However there is something I would point out, a focus on the Muslim Brotherhood is an important part of the fight, I believe that without such an organisation such as that, Islam would die, the issue is Islam, I have no doubt of that, but certain groups like the MB are blocking change by the mass of people who are lead like sheep.

I found comment 5. incorrect as a Brit and wanted to point that out as it may have been an attempt to link Christianity with Islam, we called them the IRA, never Catholic terrorists, because to be a terrorist would go against the Catholic faith, but calling someone an Islamic terrorist is correct as terrorising someone to further Islam is part of the religion…

Jan 12, 2009 - 4:41 am 51. LynnS:

The first time President Bush called Islam a peaceful religion, I was puzzled, as it seemed completely false considering the behavior of its founder and his cronies. Could it have been to protect this country from anarchists who look for any excuse to riot and cause well….. anarchy, or from those who use any excuse to harm another people who are different? And/or was he trying to shield this country from the leaders of OPEC etc. who seem always to be hunting for an excuse to punish the West, a customer of theirs whom they secretly hate. Whatever the reason, if there is one, I might never know, but it seemed strange that it was one of the few issues that the MSM seemed to not challenge the Administration with, and in fact they took it further by rehashing over and over the West’s sordid history disregarding the good, and reminded us constantly how the terrorists side that the attack was due to our appalling foreign policy. Another words we are to blame for being attacked.

It could be one of the reasons that people are turning more and more to the internet for their news, opinion pieces and research. I am grateful that the internet does not stifle talk about Islam. Thanks for the good article.

Jan 12, 2009 - 9:00 am 52. Michael:

uh Grover, Don Joe, with respect, I would submit that ALL attempts to frame the conflict or the rhetoric by ANY contextual standard other than purely Secular is like a blind man arguing to dim the room lights. The Christian answer is not a remedy. It is a competing brand of ignorance which obfuscates the issues because of your incorrect assumption of an identity where Christianity and America are one and the same. With apologies to our outgoing leader, we could no more claim America is a Christian Nation, than we could a Muslim Nation or more accurately, BOTH have equal rights to stand forth and make such untenable claims. Our Founding Fathers very deliberately established a uniquely Secular Government, where final points of law are subject to measurable ‘reason’. Until the issues are addressed from this purely Secular perspective, there can be NO resolution. The ideologies don’t play well together. Never have, fundamentally never will, despite Christianity’s slight edge in social maturation–I’m of the opinion ‘Santa’ has you both beat. Please, let us all dispense with attitudes of outrage, righteous indignation, and the mere concept of “Political Correctness” because these are inevitably born from “Faith” — a thing which has NO place in the mechanism of law and governance… as UN-’PC’ as it is for me say it.
Great article of unsurpassing ‘reason’, David Rusin! Hearty applause.
Michael

Jan 12, 2009 - 2:12 pm 53. Leatherneck:

Thanks Cybergeezer. Keep you ammo dry.

Over

Jan 12, 2009 - 3:02 pm 54. Bernard Chapin:

“The second sign arrived days later when Operation Infinite Justice became Operation Enduring Freedom.”–Moment I first worried about Bush being Mr. PC. I was right to be scared in retrospect. British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is a character out of 1984. Well, excellent piece, David.

Jan 12, 2009 - 4:12 pm 55. Marc Malone:

Michael – How can you think that this is not a Christian Nation? All of the founders were devout Christians. The only thing that dictated otherwise was the first amendment proviso that the State shall make no establishment etc…. It didn’t say that the Church should stay out of the State, but rather that the State should stay out of the Church.

The fact is, the Constitution was founded upon Christian principles. Read the Preamble again. The problem is two-fold: Some Justice misinterpreted the First Amendment as “separation of Church and State”; and our universities teach that religion is all just primitive superstition without teaching the balancing arguments that allow one to decide for oneself.

For all your atheism, you can’t show one thing that has ever disproven the Truth of the Bible. It has never been disproven. Not one bit. After all this time. That should tell you something.

Jan 13, 2009 - 2:09 am 56. LynnS:

Kalen: While I think that the government and others might have sound reasons to fight fire with water, I believe that it is wise for us to also fight fire with fire. I think that rewriting history to pretend that the religion of Islam was peacefully spread throughout the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Africa, and that Mohammad was a benevolent founder of that faith is doing us great disservice. We have heard over and over that Islamists do not hate the people of the West, but hate it’s culture, government and foreign policy. Why would it be unwise for us to say that we in the public do not hate the followers of Islam but abhor the founder Mohammad’s methods of conversion and his call for death to the Jews and Infidels. Sooner or later one has to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Those like Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson and others should not be faint background voices. The barbarian crowds are not at bay anymore, they are nipping at our heels.

Michael: I would like to submit to you that there are Christians that read the words of Jesus and it is their sword to fight against the Islamists and their doctrine. Pretending that our society and government was established on purely secular beliefs, also denies another fact. We are a predominately Christian nation and the founding fathers were well aware of the value of that faith and it’s contribution to making this society a more perfect union. Starting your opinion with all due respect, and in the middle equating religious belief with belief in ‘Santa’ gives your real thoughts away.

Jan 13, 2009 - 6:08 am 57. Michael:

The Bible has never been disproven?… Tempting, but I don’t believe this is the place for such a discussion, Marc. I’d be happy to respond if it is deemed appropriate. Obviously this subject tends to inflame passions. Fact is, I most definitely am NOT an Athiest. I’m simply a firm believer that no human yet born can accurately define the nature of God, especially humans who lived two thousand or fourteen hundred years ago. I mentioned “Santa” only because, according to his legends, the character of his inclusive tolerance and peaceful philosophy, much like “Jainism” seems more evolved than the self-limiting, historically violent institutions of Islam and Christianity. These ideologies are clearly alternate manifestations of religions and Myths which have existed in numerous other forms throughout recorded civilization. Details provided ad nauseum, but only by request *@drewstudios.com. And I’m *mollick. The Founding Fathers DID claim to Christian motivation, as was the overwhelming custom of the day, however, what they ACTUALLY implemented, was more Masonic by way of philosophy. They utilized classical Greek and Roman knowledge to form their best guess of a viable “Republic” and expressly refuted a “Divine Kingly Right”, although admittedly it was a close thing. The “Great Experiment” — the separation of Church and State, has indeed reformed the Western world and given us that ’slight’ edge of social maturation over the Middle-East. Strict adherence to a primitive, tribal doctrine is EXACTLY what endangers our world, be it the Qur’an OR the Constantine mandated collection of stories of Jesus — what was PC for Niocea in 324 AD.
God/Allah, our world, our Universe is far bigger and more complex than any one of us can comprehend. The nature of everything, perhaps even God, seems to “evolve”. The key to success is remaining ‘adaptable’. Christianity has come part of the way. Islam (with the exception of Sufism) has not, thus the concept of “Jihad” — necessary to maintain a few nomadic desert tribes 1400 years ago, has become a global imperative for 1.7 Billion people.
We’re in big trouble. They’re allowed to ‘lie’. Expected to — if it advances Jihad. The limited Christian perspective can’t apprehend this and so much else about their culture. Solid, demonstrable “Reason” is our… only “prayer”. Hehe.

Michael

Jan 13, 2009 - 7:58 am 58. Debbie:

I have seen apathy and complacency in the Western World. I cannot imagine how any American could set by and watch this country become indifferent to what is taking place in Western society, and all over the world. Islam is radical and extreme, and wants to impose Sharia Law and Sharia finance on the struggling businesses in America.

This is how they get their foot in the door, so to speak in Western society. We must address them and call them by their correct name, Islamic terrorists, who impose violence, and domination on free societies. There is a good majority of the muslim world, who does not believe in the violence that is spreading, but they are afraid to speak out against Jihad.

These peaceful muslims have also been hijacked into the extremist world of their fighting, hateful brothers and sisters.

I think every new elected official should be aware of this politically correct farce, in calling them Islamic fundmentalists. Their principles are not fundamentally sound at all, and they will use the same tactics no matter what we call them. Anyone with a voice for truth should speak out in defense of Freedom!

I would also like to remind everyone that we should all be praying and repenting for the Almighty to stop this terrible spread of Islamic terrorism and violence, and to give Israel protection from her enemies.

History has seen Hitler’s Holocaust, the Tyranny by the Roman Empire, and now another enemy far more brutal and uncarring than the previous two co-sponsors of extremism, violence, and evil.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:02 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: