Islam
Now I am sure that many belonging to the ACLU and liberal left will praise this ultimatum, however I want to know, how come there are not protests of Muslim communities against this. Why? It is simple, Islam does not accept or condone peace in any form, all those who are NOT Muslim must die. At least that’s the feeling I get when they ignore the deaths of innocents but decry the deaths of Muslims.
This letter has not been edited.
Where? Christians along which "border"? Who is the proclaimer?
Just the facts, sir, please.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 22, 2007 01:42 PMNick,
If this were really a 'christian' nation as so many claim, then how can 'christians' approve of torture and the bombing, killing, rape and murder that is currently going on with the approval of this administration???
the 'christians' have a lot to answer for when it comes to their actions.
OG I did not write the letter but I am assuming the author is referring to Pakistan and the mandate to convert christian churches to Islam within 10 days or face execution. Different sites have a varied version. Letter of demand allegedly sent May 8 of this year
Have not researched much as of yet so not sure what it is all about
MICHELLE
What are you talking about? The Christians are doing all this? We all aprove of the war?
Try talking logic like an adult. The insults page is on the grade school page. Same to you grouch, grimes, susan b and whoever else chimes in.
MICHELLE
What are you talking about? The Christians are doing all this? We all aprove of the war?
Try talking logic like an adult. The insults page is on the grade school page. Same to you grouch, grimes, susan b and whoever else chimes in.
Anyone who thinks Islam is peaceful
should do a web search on their beheadings.
There's plenty to watch in their entirety, not like the short clips you see on the left-wing news outlets.
Go ahead, see if you can stand to watch the whole thing, then tell me Muslims are inherently peaceful.
Strange there's never an outcry from the Muslim community when these gruesome videos are put out.
But, the smallest percieved slight, against Mohammad, or whatever, and they're screaming bloody murder.
(pun intended)
Ron Paul for President.
Posted by on May 22, 2007 02:37 PMI have to say the RMN has really outdone itself with today's crop of letters. Is there a cottage industry somewhere that comes up with this stuff? How do I get that job?
Posted by flimflam on May 22, 2007 02:42 PMflim, as Brian Stuckey, he seems to have it figured out.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 22, 2007 03:06 PM02:03 PM,
"Chimes in" on what? There's nothing there to "chime in" to. And no perceivable "logic" either, for that matter.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 22, 2007 03:09 PMNick,
Is this one of those, "Give us the property, or else", things? Turn over the buildings - i.e., "convert the churches" (buildings) to mosques, or other Islamic uses - or have the holdouts executed?
From time to time, there have been outbursts of this kind from the Pakistani hinterlands, where the writ of the National government - such as it is - runs very thin on the ground, if at all. And, of course, there is a whole Afghanistani/Pakistani mix of Taliban, and other fanatics, out there as well.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see what it's really all about.
RickyLee,
Sharia, or Moslem law, is quite clearly a very literal application of "eye for an eye", etc. In the places where it is enforced - including Saudi Arabia - it is, so far as Western culture and outlook be concerned - both bloody and brutal.
But, it is THEIR RELIGIOUS LAW. And I know of no particular reason - much less command or mandate - we have to go in and attempt to change it. The likelihood of Sharia ever becoming, or being, a part of American Jurisprudence is so . . . fantastic and far fetched, as to be beyond ridiculous.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 22, 2007 03:25 PMOG,
judging from some of the comments on this board, people would take Sharia in a heartbeat and embrace it with gusto.
Or so they would lead us to believe.
Civilization is but a thin veneer, which is why we need to be watchful when retrograde ideas are proposed.
Nick: Your transmogrified Jew coming "from the loins of David" says: "Those who will not accept that I should reign over them bring them hither and slay them," Luke 19:27 then, I, the anti-Semite having become a Christian god will separate humans into goats and sheep just like Allah and those to the left go to hell and those to the right go to heaven. Humans are sheep. Jn 10 ~~ It is so laughable if it weren't so absurd.
“My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.” Bertrand Russell
Nick's from the "loins of David" whispers (shouts) in Bush's ear: Attack Iraq, and Christians now have America embroiled in a war in Iraq that is not winnable and even Bush's own choir is telling him: Yo Shrub, you should not have listened to the transmogrified Jew. Me, your friendly deicide having to endure Christianity's chant: "My god is greater than your god."
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com Risen Ape if not Proud Fallen Angel on May 22, 2007 04:01 PMto anonymous @ 02:03 PM
I apologize for not making myself clear.
There are (imho) two different types of 'christians' in this country.
The first are generally 'christians' and never supported this war and follow the words of christ, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, the Beatitudes if you will.
Then there are the others CINOs (christian in name only) who voted a man into office who claims to be 'born again' yet wanted this war and the horrors that it has brought to other peoples. These CINOs are all about revenge, bombing and killing others just because, well they are Islamic/brown.
There is no christ in those that advocate killing.
A prime example of a 'CINO' is Eric Rudolph, the Olympic and Womens clinic bomber, he did what he did in the name of christ, according to his own words.....
This is why the hatin' on the Islamic religion is preposterous. There is plenty of hate and killings in the 'christian' community as well.
Posted by Michelle on May 22, 2007 04:44 PMNick A. Adlon concluded:
"Now I am sure that many belonging to the ACLU and liberal left will praise this ultimatum..."After failing to mention what ultimatum he was talking about.
Conclusion: Nick's opinion is not worth considering.
Posted by on May 22, 2007 05:06 PMA person much like Nick said that all Indians walk in single file. When asked how he knew that, he said that he saw three Indians yesterday and they were walking in single file. [courtesy of Peter Boyles]
Totally absurd "extrapolation" such as Nick is engaging in is one of the favorite tools of bigots. It has been used time and time again by bigots to condemn blacks, reds, browns, yellows, homosexuals, women, you name it.
The question of the effect of the religion of Islam on terrorist Muslims is a very important one, but it should be viewed through a rational rather than a blinded mind. But whatever effect the religion has on some, there are millions of Muslims who are as peace-loving as any of us. Condemning the entire Muslim community is a way of completely avoiding an inquiry into the question. It is a great way for turning supporters into opponents.
Michelle said:
"There are (imho) two different types of 'christians' in this country."The first are generally 'christians' and never supported this war and follow the words of christ, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, the Beatitudes if you will."
These moderate Christians you describe are equally complicit in enabling the radicals to do their terrible damage. Moderate or not, when you call yourself a Christian you are claiming a belief in the supernatural events described in the Bible. All religions are codependant on similar irrational beliefs for which there is no proof. The only way to undermine the religion of Islam is to give up your Christianity.
How could any person justify the horrific acts committed in the name of Islam without believing the undrelying fantasy of the afterlife, which is shared by even the most moderate Christian?To stop the spread of any religion, you must give up all religion.
Pakistan gave the ultimatum, and the facts are called paying attention to whats going on. This was made by the Imams in Pakistan and encouraged by all the Muslims.
Posted by Nick on May 22, 2007 05:45 PMTruth
The "extrapolation" you speak of is not an isolated incident. This stuff goes on all over the world every day. This group of extremists seeks to impose this type of Sharia on the world to establish the Caliphate. There are many millions who believe this way. Are all Muslims included? Certainly not but the "moderate" Muslims are silenced through intimidation, fear and reprisals. This religion of peace has even succeeded in muting the MSM in this country and around the world. Remember the Danish cartoons? Remember Salman Rushdie?
Old Grouch may be OK with this murderous extremism but I believe that it must be confronted as it is EVIL. That does not mean military intervention but it does mean we should not be silent abut it or accept the downplaying of it by our media.
Many are in denial that it could ever gain a foothold here. No, it is not likely but the methods used here in this country would be subtle, using our court system to address (perceived) grieveances in order to gain special concessions. This is the agenda of CAIR, which bears watching. All we need is to be aware and not sleeping.
A Pew Research Report came out today. Of their estimated 1.5 million adult American Muslims, they surveyed 1,050.
Among other things the study reports:
"The poll reveals that Muslims in the United States reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries, when compared with results from a 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Project survey. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are more likely than older Muslim Americans to express a strong sense of
Muslim identity, and are much more likely to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified."
47% of American Muslims think of themselves as Muslims first, Americans second. For those under age 30, the number is 60%.
15% of Muslim Americans under 30 feel that suicide can sometimes or often be justified and 6% responded that they didn't know or refused to answer.
Interesting study. Read it as it is not all bad but those things I cited are troubling. Political Islam is something to take seriously, as it is NOT compatible with a democratic society.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
Michelle - to even try in any shape or form to compare or bring into this discussion Eric Rudolph is a great way to shore up your credibility. There is no comparison between millions of fanatics who advocate violence and murder in the name of religion to one, lone, crazed individual who tried to justify his action in the name of his Christian religion is intellectually dishonest. Christians don't riot when they perceive a slight or disrespect of their religion. (And I'm not a Christian.)
The story of the Muslim threats along the Pakistan border HAS been reported, but it was mostly buried in back pages.
Was Nick's letter a bit hysterical? Probably. He MIGHT have been trying to point out the double standard and soft pedaling Muslim extremism gets in the western press. Just guessing.
RU Serious-
Excellent post,very nicley put.
It angers me to no end to hear Old Grouch mock Americans ,who he views as paranoid,with his "THE FLYING CARPETS ARE COMING,THE FLYING CARPETS ARE COMING" terrorist denying crap. The flying carpets DID come in the form of 911, and ,unfortunately, they will come again.
Actually there is a big misconception here. Islam does not give two choices - convert or die. Rather it gives three - convert to Islam, submit to second-class citizenship and pay onerous taxes and have virtually no rights, or be warred upon (and probably die.) Look up the words "dhimmi" "dhimmitude" and "jjizyah" Read the definitions and weep. See also www.thereligionofpeace.com and www.jihadwatch.org
Posted by Liam on May 22, 2007 06:55 PMCharles B, Old Grouch, Michelle,
You will spend eternity together, good that you're getting to know each other through these blogs.
All of you are moronic imbeciles.
any religious fanatic need to be DESTROYED!
Posted by Fresh on May 22, 2007 07:56 PMFresh - because they absolutist and make silly statements that start out for "all of you..."?
Posted by Liam on May 22, 2007 09:02 PMFresh - because they absolutist and make silly statements that start out with "all of you..."?
Posted by Liam on May 22, 2007 09:03 PMFresh - because they are absolutist and make silly statements that start out with "all of you..."?
Posted by Liam on May 22, 2007 09:04 PMWhen I have questions about Islam, the first place I go to are the wizards on the RMN blog. If it weren't for you all I'd be ignorant.
Posted by on May 22, 2007 09:41 PMUnfortunately for all of us, more people have died on this planet in the name of 'my god's better than your god' than anything else. Why do we demand an apology from mainstream Muslims when their far right wing does something not sanctioned by the Koran and not demand an apology from mainstream Christians when their far right wing members commit crimes (the Murrah building, murdering from ambushan OB/GYN who as a small part of his/her practice performs abortions, raping & murdering members of Islam in Eastern Europe, etc ad nauseum)? I have read the Bible cover to cover & am trying to read the Koran and can say that while the Old Testament does condone violence against others who are non-believers, nothing in the New Testament does, nor does anything that I have read so far in the Koran (although while the New Testament tells one to 'turn the other cheek' the Koran does advocate self-defense.) The religious bigots on both sides who have chosen to pervert the teachings in their holy books have a lot to answer for - and I hope they all roast in their respective hells.
Posted by Mary on May 23, 2007 04:04 AMIslam is not a religion of peace, there are over 700 orders to kill the infidel in their holy book. Mohammed was a terrorrist from the get go and the legacy continues today. 20% of US Muslims think it's okay to use homocide bombers to fight those who are the "infidel". Wake up people, do your homework, the Muslims want you to convert or be killed, stop with the comparison to Christians, there isn't one. Until such time as Muslims change their beliefs about killing the Jew, or killling the infidel..they must be treated as an enemy of the state period. The politcal correctness has to stop and the worry about profiling is ridiculous...when we interred the japanese in WWII did we avoid rounding up japenese so that we wouldn't be accused of racial profiling? NO and it's time we get some common sense back in our system.
Posted by tt on May 23, 2007 06:35 AMWhile it does appear that there are millions of Muslims who support terrorism, I don't think it is sufficient to say, as Serious did, that not all Muslims are in this category. There are some 1.2 billion Muslims in he world. If a hundred million of them support terrorism, that leaves some 1.1 billion who do not. To say that not all Muslims support terrorims implies that the big majority do. The grounds for saying that are purely prejudicial, not rational. To say that not all Muslims support terrorism is a bit like the saying that 90% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.
"27% of American Muslims think of themselves as Muslims first, Americans second. For those under age 30, the number is 60%."
What do you suppose would happen if authentic Christians somehow had to choose between their God and their country, between their eternity and their life on earth, between their body and their soul? A choice between a person's conscience and his government? The main reason Christians are loyal to their government is because their government is loyal to their religion. If that were to change, of course they would choose their religion over their government, their soul over their body. I don't think many people would subscribe to the "my country right or wrong" philosophy.
"15% of Muslim Americans under 30 feel that suicide can sometimes or often be justified and 6% responded that they didn't know or refused to answer."
I have no idea why Serious would post this, what conclusions he would expect anyone to draw from it. Without knowing more about their attitude toward suicide, the figures are meaningless. Without comparing the attitude of Muslims with the attitudes of others, the figures are meaningless. There are many people who can see situations in which they might commit suicide. For example, being caught in the Twin Towers on 9/11. What would most people do if they were faced with a situation in which they would have to sacrifice their life in order to save their child or to save other people? The debate over the right to die is a big one among Christians.
"Political Islam is something to take seriously, as it is NOT compatible with a democratic society."
We don't know, Serous doesn't know, the extent to which democracy can live in an Islamic society. Serious' statement is quite reckless; he DOES NOT KNOW what he states as gospel. The whole policy of the Bush administration is based on the proposition that Serious is totally wrong. That policy may be flawed, but it shows that the proposition is debatable rather than settled. (Serious, I assume you are totally opposed to the Iraq war since its purpose is to try to bring democracy to the Middle East.) There is a strong movement within Islam that opposes having the government controlled by religious leaders; now that is a fact that can be stated as gospel and in all capital letters. There are many Muslims living in the United States; for Serious to say that they have no place here, which would be true if they are opposed to democracy, is to reflect a strongly unjustified prejudice, and even ignorance. To me, Serious' statements suggest a narrow minded and unjustified prejudice against the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, an attitude which will do the nation and the world great damage if it were to prevail.
Serious says that military intervention is not the answer. So, if Serious were right, if indeed 1.2 billion people pursue a religion which supports terrorism, what then is the answer? Serious doesn’t suggest anything.
Certainly, there are "things" about Islam, and about Muslims in general, that are very troublesome. There are serious questions about how compatible Islam is with democracy. But they are questions, not answers as Serious would have us believe. There is a dramatic difference, one on which the fate of the world could possibly hang.
Truth
I suggest you go to jihadwatch.com and read about Islam. Also, before you blow off Robert Spencer as some nutjob, read about who is is and his background on the site.
"15% of Muslim Americans under 30 feel that suicide can sometimes or often be justified and 6% responded that they didn't know or refused to answer."
This was meant to say suicide bombings.
Political Islam is not just a religion, but an ideology which allows for NO individual freedoms and harsh Sharia law. Their treatment of women is legendary. Perhaps you would love living under that, Truth. Try reading some of the writings of those women who have escaped that life and now live under death threats.
I never said that 1.2 billion people persue a religion that supports terrorism - you did. If "only" 100 million of the 1.2 billion Muslims are extremists who take the Koran literally and support violence and murder against "infidels" like you and me, that is not something to be concerned about?
Truth: "There is a strong movement within Islam that opposes having the government controlled by religious leaders; now that is a fact that can be stated as gospel and in all capital letters."
What and where do you find evidence of this?
Posted by RU Serious on May 23, 2007 09:38 AMOn another set of postings, a gentlemen has said, in effect: I may say that I INTEND to drive my car on a vacation trip from here to the moon. BUT until such a venture becomes FEASABLE, it is rather silly to take the statement of intention all that seriously.
(Not an eidetic quote, with emphasis added for making the point.)
The operaive word here, of course, is "FEASABLE".
Now there is no possible argument against the fact that INDIVIDUAL atrocities - such as 9/11 - can happen, even of nuclear devastation magnitude in populated areas.
But I would really like to see those who go on, and on, and on, and . . . about the idea that "Islamofascists" are going to, somehow, INVADE and overwhelm this nation; and take over our government; and invoke Sharia; and cut off Christian heads; and all the rest, consider HOW all this is FEASABLE, and achievable, today.
For the past 1900 years, Islam has projected the idea of its becoming THE world religion. By warfare, using the men and materiel of the day and age, it extended through the Iberian Penninsula in the Middle ages.
The men were migrating tribes from the East part of the Euraisian Continent, for the most part; the Turks being the last great numbers. The materiel was the sword, bows and arrows, and horses, with or without wagons and chariots for supply lines and "rapid deployment", so to speak.
By the end of the 17th Century, Europe was, except for parts of the Balkans, completely free of Islamic dominance; and the Turkish Empire was completely broken up in World War One.
Today, in 2007, NO Islamic nation has a significant naval force. NO Islamic nation has a significant merchant shipping capability. NO Islamic nation has an Air Force capable of engaging even the least of the Western nations; and such Air Force as any one has is under the guns of Israel, whose Air Force can wipe out what little other there be in the Middle Easst in less time that it takes to type here. NO Islamic nation has a massive stockpile of armored vehicles. And, taken all together, the Islamic nations do not have the production capabilities to produce sufficient armored vehicles to even protect their own borders.
To accomplish an invasion and "takeover" in the Western Hemisphere, it is necessary to cross thousands of miles of ocean, with a vast army, a huge Air Force, vast supplies of materiel, and all the rest of the capabilities NO Islamic nation today has.
Not to mention having to be able to conquer the nations of Europe to prevent being wiped out by their armed forces; the area of the former Soviet Union, for the same reason; and China as well. How many "fighting fronts" does this make?
FEASABLE? Or just fantasy? And the same kind of verbal bombast that has been heard for centuries?
"Get Real" says that it annoys him when I point out salient realities and facts concerning the rhetoric and bombast of those who think there is need for some kind of new "Crusades", to deal with Islam. and all the horrible threats of Islamic dominance. I guess we just have to agree to disagree about REALITY.
And of course NONE of the most ardent "anti-Islam" factionaries even begins to want to consider the Patriot Act, right here at home, and the effects it may have on destroying the American Constitution, in favor of an oligarchy based on political beliefs and actions of an equally barbaric, brutal, and vicious ideology of the immediate past. One which is far more insidious, noxious, and at the same time appealing and enchanting in the Western world, than Islam.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 23, 2007 09:45 AMMr. FRESH, of 5/22 @07:56 PM
You say: "any religious fanatic need to be DESTROYED".
Fine, sir. Let us begin right here at home, with, for instance, Dobsonites, Pat Robertsonites, Phelpsites, (in Wichita, Kansas) - the whole family as well as the cult - and extend the good work as necessary, throughout the nation.
Would this, perhaps, be a better use of our Armed Forces, and of our energies and love of war, than attempting to do the job thousands of miles away, in a foreign land, for others, rather than for our own citizens?
Please feel free to reply.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 23, 2007 10:02 AMSerious: "Truth: "There is a strong movement within Islam that opposes having the government controlled by religious leaders; now that is a fact that can be stated as gospel and in all capital letters."
What and where do you find evidence of this?"
Are you claiming that there are no or very few Muslims who do not want the government to be controlled by clerics? I might take the time to produce support for my statement if you simply reject it as untrue. However, if you simply don't know, I'd prefer that you did your own research rather than call on me to do it for you.
However, if you are interested, you might want to inquire in to the "quietist" element of Islam, which is the element that thinks the clergy should take a back seat in politics.
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr108.html:
"Quietism—a conscious distancing of oneself from politics—represents a mainstream Shiite tradition in which the clergy remains aloof from participation in routine politics but reserves for itself the role of observer and critic of political and social events, speaking out forcefully only on special occasions of national and social crisis."
I'm sure you have heard of Ali al-Sistani, who has been a dominant religious figure in Iraq although less so more recently. He is an example of the quietist element.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week631/marr.html contains this statement from a person billed as a non-Muslim scholar in Islam:
"It's very unlikely that [Shii religious leaders] would play a direct political role [in post-war Iraq]. There are divisions among these religious leaders as well. Some don't believe in participation in politics. They're called "quietists." They stay home and take care of religion."
Serious: "I never said that 1.2 billion people persue a religion that supports terrorism - you did. If "only" 100 million of the 1.2 billion Muslims are extremists who take the Koran literally and support violence and murder against "infidels" like you and me, that is not something to be concerned about?"
No, Serious, I never said what you accuse me of saying, that is, that there are 1.2 billion Muslims who pursue a religion which supports terrorism. I also never said that you said that.
Should we be concerned? Of course, just as I state we should in my post.
Serious: "Perhaps you would love living under that, Truth."
Of course, that is trash talk on your part.
Serious: "I suggest you go to jihadwatch.com and read about Islam. Also, before you blow off Robert Spencer as some nutjob, read about who is is and his background on the site."
I have gone to that site and I have read some of what Spencer has to say. I have likewise read others who seem at least as qualified as Spence on the subject who disagree with him. I am wondering if your own reading has been restricted only to people such as Spencer.
In my comment about religion and country, I should have used the word "government" rather than "country". Hopefully, our citizens have loyalty to their country, that is, to the people, but would object to a government which infringed on their rights.
Likewise, it might have been better if I had used the word "principles" instead of "religion" because non-religious (not necessarily non-spiritual) people have principles that I hope is more important to them that a government which does not recognize those principles.
Serious, what course of action by the United States does your view of Islam and Muslims suggest? You say military intervention is not the answer. You certainly infer that a peaceful Islam is not the answer because it is unobtainable. What then?
Perhaps I should also have mentioned the secular government of Turkey, a Muslim country. Saddam's government, in addition to being evil, was also secular in a Muslim country. The governments in other Muslim countries, such as Egypt, are in an ongoing battle with Islamist terrorists. While not secular, the Egyptian government is also not religious.
"Labeling the Egyptian regime as "secular" gives it unwarranted credit. In fact, the regime is neither secular nor Islamist. It is not liberal, conservative, or socialist for that matter. The only term that could accurately describe the Egyptian regime is "authoritarian."
Posted by Truth on May 23, 2007 11:39 AMTruth said, "No, Serious, I never said what you accuse me of saying, that is, that there are 1.2 billion Muslims who pursue a religion which supports terrorism. I also never said that you said that."
In your post from 7:36 a.m. you said, "So, if Serious were right, if indeed 1.2 billion people pursue a religion which supports terrorism, what then is the answer? Serious doesn’t suggest anything."
Maybe you should write more clearly, as it surely looks as if you are saying what you now deny.
As for Spencer, he is not the only source that I read. I've read what others in the Muslim world say, as well. Most of them refuse to debate with Spencer because he can easily shoot holes in their talking points and fallacies.
One of his main points is that many of the "experts" that our administrations have consulted on Islam have backgrounds and contacts in the past with the extremists. These are the apologists that try and deny what the Koran clearly states and the literalist extremists believe and follow. They do not talk with any of the real Islamic moderates, who have largely been silenced in this country through intimidation and threats.
I am not saying that the majority of the world's Muslims are extremists. I never have. I'm simply pointing out that if Americans are truly informed about what their aims are and what their strategies might be it is less likely to succeed.
There are a few examples of countries that have a somewhat secular government. Turkey is embroiled right now in a fight on whether to retain its' secular traditions. Millions have demonstrated in support for it but there is increasing pressure from Islamists.
For OG: Your assertion about no Islamic nation having the military capability to INVADE us - sure, that is true. But you are answering an argument that has NOT BEEN made. We are not talking about an invasion in a conventional sense. Who needs one when all that needs to be done (and by numerous accounts IS ALREADY happening) is to infiltrate your operatives by simply WALKING ACROSS the southern border. Or come in on a student visa and overstay. The government won't know where you are. It has already happened. Remember 9/11? Deny it all you want.
It won't take hundreds of thousands of terrorists. Think in terms of maybe a hundred in cells all over the country in co-ordinated attacks on targets calculated to inflict massive civilian casualties on the same day and then watch the panic set in and the economy crash.
Once the media says suspects or those caught are Muslims watch CAIR denounce the reporting of that fact and the Saudi-funded CAIR spin machine and judicial machine goes into overdrive about American Muslims being victimized. This is part of their strategy, to use our sense of fairness and our judicial system to their advantage. Ever hear of the "flying Imams?" and CAIR threatening to sue the U.S. Airways passengers who voiced their concerns that led to the Imams being removed from their flight? Threatened with a lawsuit for doing what the government asked - being vigilant about suspicious behavior?
Again, I am talking about a relatively small group of extremists.
Do I view them taking over the U.S.? No. The extremists hope we don't notice what and how they are trying to take this country down and cause severe harm.
We should be aware. That's all.
Posted by RU Serious on May 23, 2007 12:33 PMTruth said:
"You certainly infer that a peaceful Islam is not the answer because it is unobtainable. What then? "
If I inferred that, then my ramblings weren't clear. I don't believe that a peaceful Islam is unobtainable. It is simply that the media in this and many western countries are complicit in silencing the Moderate voices in Islam that need to be heard.
The Corporatin for Public Broadcasting quashed a program slated to run in their 10 part series on Islam in America that was exactly that - moderates here in the U.S. explaining HOW they were being silenced. PBS won't run it. They don't like the content.
The mainstream media has been cowed ever since the Danish cartoon flap into portraying a PC version of Islam which won't focus on the extremist elements - Islamism, the ideology. This is not a crusade against Islam, as Old Grouch would have us believe. It is simply standing up to the extremists and allowing moderate Muslims a voice.
I'm not a religious person. I've rejected the mysticim inherent in all religions that is used to keep their flocks under their control. Radical Islamic extremists are the most dangerous group right now and their ranks are growing. Religion and mysticism is the biggest threat to peace on this earth. Until it is vanquished, wars will continue to occur. But we can defend ourselves and the knowledge of what they are up to is the first step.
Posted by RU Serious on May 23, 2007 12:51 PMGotta hand it to you, Nick, you and your people are more single-minded and organized than any group of Americans could be. But...we're on to you. We know what your M.O. is... get the stupid goy americans to fight your enemies for you. Start by making them afraid of muslims. Everybody just write in to the newspapers with scary stories about muslims and we can dupe the Americans into another war for us. Look! Most of these posters here don't have a clue...yet.
Posted by joe blow on May 23, 2007 12:55 PMI'm confused...today is Wednesday right? I am I supposed to hate Mexicans today or Muslims?
Posted by on May 23, 2007 12:58 PMFor goodness sakes, 12:58 PM, you need to keep your calendar up to date. Today is hate gays days.
Thanks for the chuckle into which you folded some wisdom.
Posted by Truth on May 23, 2007 01:05 PMWell thank you for making your view pint known, even in face of the fact that many Muslim youth in the US support suicide bombing as a way to keep their faith. Right, looks like the Muslim community really wants to live in peace with the rest of mankind. When all of humanity evolves and attempts discussions as this, the only modern use that these individuals want to use are high explsives and times and switches.
Posted by Nick on May 23, 2007 01:47 PMThe Taliban, and other forms of "fundamentalist" Moslems, have, in one form or another, been a part of the religion for the some 1900 years of its existence. Just as some form of "fundamentalism" has been around in what the Western world calls, "Christianity", throughout its existence as well.
Both forms of "fundamentalism" are based upon the idea of gaining POWER, power over the lives of others; and, along with power over the lives of others, power in the realms of ideas, politics, even economics and trade. (Mohamed's first goal was to take over Mecca, at that time a very important nexus on the trade routes from China and elsewhere in the Far East.)
Both forms of "fundamentalism" are severely threatened by any evidence, or form, of "secularism", since "secularism" sees power as something residing in the gathering of humans called the State. And the INTERNAL strugle for power, between any "secular" State and any "fundamentalist" religion, immediately calls forth a host of responses from those equivalent EXTERNAL entities elsewhere. Which response inevitably takes the form of rousing a parallel INTERNAL struggle in the respondents.
It is a vicious cycle, and an equally vicious circle. Unfortunately, however, it is one of the most prominent realities of human history. Which human history shows us that the survival of any "secularism" is dependent upon NOT expending its energy in attempting to settle any other INTERNAL conflict between "secularism" and "fundamentalism"; and further, NEVER expending its energy upon even attempting to enter a struggle between factions of/in some other form of "fundamentalism".
The potential of individual acts of barbarity and terror spilling over from elsewhere should serve as both a warning and an incentive for America to get OUT of Iraq, and use its energy, as well as its wisdom and superior strength, to insure the welfare of Americans here at home; as well as giving every support possible, SHORT OF LIVES, to whatever other "secular" entity is itself embroiled in the struggle between "secularism" - sound human government - and "fundamentalism" - rule by the lowest form of power-mongers..
Posted by Old Grouch on May 23, 2007 01:51 PMWhat gibberish. In English, please. You may think that sounded high, mighty and intelligent but it came out as a bunch of mush.
"Which human history shows us that the survival of any "secularism" is dependent upon NOT expending its energy in attempting to settle any other INTERNAL conflict between "secularism" and "fundamentalism"; and further, NEVER expending its energy upon even attempting to enter a struggle between factions of/in some other form of "fundamentalism".
You can't see that Al_qaida is in Iraq because they are threatened by the idea that Iraq just might form a functioning secular government?
You could have saved the last paragraph by just saying that you think we should just get out of Iraq because we're scared. Instead you tried to sound intellectual in your justification. You failed miserably.
Posted by RU Serious on May 23, 2007 09:48 PMPeople who don't want to stop spewing endless babble just because they love to hear themselves talk...won't.
Posted by truthy on May 24, 2007 04:23 AMAnd of course, those who have nothing at all to say, but don't want to stop showing off how much they are lacking, won't either.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 24, 2007 08:12 AMOh come on Grandpa, you can do better than that. How 'bout a complete history of all your great humanitarian accomplishments, and a tirade on how much smarter than the rest of us you are. Please regale us. We are so inferior, we NEED your wisdom.
Posted by truthy on May 24, 2007 08:18 AMRUSerious,
If you read what I wrote, I think you will find that I am pointing out that it is the threat of "secularism" which brings about a rise of "fundamentalism". Which is what is happening with Al Qiada coming into Iraq.
Saddam ruled in a strongly "secularist" way. That was the only reason Iraq held together at all. He did his best to smother both brands of "fundamentalism" during his rule, Shia and Sunni alike. With him gone. There is no Iraqi leader who can take his place. Partly because of our own short-sighted idea of "bringing (Western, American) peace and democracy", to a place where neither concept is even much thought about, much less seen as a way of government.
As to the last paragraph, are you trying to say that I am saying that "we are scared"? That's not in there at all. Nor do I even imply that. Rather, seeing that we, as Westerners, and part of a Western culture and milieu that is expending our energy - and lives of our Armed Forces - trying to impose a cultural difference of great magiture on a people who don't understand it, and don't want it, would do better to turn our efforts and energies to solving problems here at home.
I will leave projections of "fear", and/or "scared", to your imagination, if that's where they came from.
History is more than just memorizing dates, times, places, and names of a few great individuals who have left a mark. It is also an overview of human thought, and human behavoir throughout the period of recorded time. A synthesis of historical materials calls for also becoming aware of the whole range of human record, insofar as anyone be able so to do.
For the most part, you usually rise above the level of those posting nothing more than the kind of, "know it all already; and what I don't know, I don't need to bother to even try to learn" form of reply, as seen immediately above. And I think you really belong among those who are above that other level.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 24, 2007 02:50 PMOld Grouch,
Saddam was a secular dictator who ran a Sunni-based government that routinely butchered the Shia, and Kurds for that matter, to keep them under his control.
The idea that he suppressed religious fanaticsm is nonsense. He flamed religious fanaticism and used centuries-old hatred to remain in power.
His control was founded in rape, torture and murder not some enlightened understanding of the advantages of separation of church and state.
Your notion that we should look far another Saddam to unify Iraq is absurd.
Your claim that Iraqis' have no understanding of peace and democracy is equally absurd. Twelve million citizens showed up twice to vote for self-rule under threat of death and they continue to fight and die every day in the hope of freedom.
You are comfortable and safe here in the US but the Iraqi knows he can't afford to buy into the terrorist propaganda which forms your opinion.
Posted by James Jones on May 24, 2007 04:46 PMAh! Yes! Jonsey now comes in to tell us all what somebody said that wasn't said at all, and further obfuscate everything as much as possible.
Although I can't "refute" the wonderful one about fetuses being "persons", because they aren't chipmunks; and they can't be chipmunks because chipmunks cannot compose the Moonlight Sonata; which was Jonesy's major contibution to one of the anti-abortion lines a while back, I'll do my best to keep what I am saying as simple as possible.
I said Saddam was a "secular" ruler. His method of ruling is not relevant to that; and all the piousity about the methods neither adds nor subtracts from the simple basic statement.
I said that, as part of his "secular" rule he "DID HIS BEST to smother 'both brands of fundamentalism'". That this in turn resulted in the equal and opposite reaction of an increase in fanaticism is moot. That fanaticism was kept under sufficient control, by whatever methods, as to not cause his downfall by any INTERNAL actions.
I said: "With him gone, there is no Iraqi leader who can take his place." That should be simple enough for even Jonesy But, he goes on to claim that I have some notion that we should look for another Saddam. I never even hinted at anything such as that, when making a simple observation of the absence of any one currently able to be a replacement.
I said that "Western, American . . .democracy is something not much thought about, much less seen as a way of government."
While Jonesy tells us that 12 million showed up twice to vote for self rule, he fails to mention that their religious leaders, and the members of the government voted for, have both made statements to the effect that they want America, and Americans, OUT, NOW - or certainly, as soon as possible. And he fails to mention that the government elected went on a 2 month vacation, without ever attempting to solve the massive internal problems of water supply, electrical supply, etc., etc., that presently plague the country in attempting to restore its destroyed infra-structure.
He says they "continue to fight and die every day in the hope of freedom". However, that is completely opposite to the news reports, where even the American command tells us that there is no effective Army, and the domestic police are doing very little - or nothing - to develop a sufficiently strong force, or presence, to allow them to take over from American Troops.
Never mind that, however, if Jonesy says they continue to fight and die, well . . . they MUST be doing it. Mustn't they?
Then Jonesy tells us that my "opinion" is formed from "the terrorist propaganda". Since I get the news from the Rocky, and from my Comcast home page, and Channel 9 when I get the chance in the evening, I really would like to know just how these are "terrorist propaganda" sources.
But again, never mind that. Jonesy says it. That must be it.
Since attempting to carry on rational discussion with someone who continuously puts words in where they never were before, as well as asserting one holds positions one did not take - but are merely fantasies, substituted for his own inability to comprehend what he reads - is futile, foolish, and a waste of time and energy, I see no reason to go further here.
He has his own claque; and they can serve to keep him entertained..
Posted by Old Grouch on May 24, 2007 06:21 PMOld Grouch,
Time is short so I'll cut to the chase.
You are one of the faint hearts that want to abandon Iraq and retreat into that comfortable pre-9/11 world.
The lessons of the worst attack on American soil in history is lost on you and now that a few years have passed and you have regained your voice.
You pine for the good old days when Saddam might have murdered a few hundred thousand people a year but that's o.k. because CNN didn't put the pictures of the slaughter of your TV every day.
But there are those among us who recognize the danger and have the courage to fight the war on terrorism. We understand that their concept of governance is pre-feudal and that their postions on women and other faiths are reactionary. We will not be persuaded that it is we not they that are responsible for their violence.
We will fight to remove every trace of their religious fanatcism from the face of the earth in any part of the world they infest over and against your whispering from the shadows that we cannot succeed.
I recommend you stay under the covers and don't keep aksing if we've won yet - we will tell you when it's over.
James Jones shows that same ignorance as so many others. He thinks that Iraq is the centerpiece of al Queda when in fact it's in Afghanistan where more troops are needed, troops that are now in Iraq.
But James is not alone in wanting us to keep a large force in Iraq. He is holding hands with Iran in this regard. It may be that we need a continued presence in Iraq, but that continued presence should be what the commission recommended, mainly advisers to the Iraq army rather than combat troops.
But James is no sissy. He is willing to sacrifice as many lives of people other than himself as is necessary to prove his point that the heart of terrorism is in Iraq. No faint hearted guy, this James Jones!
Why do we have these stupid people who think that being brave is sending other people to their deaths?
Posted by Truth on May 24, 2007 09:09 PM