Skip to comments.Unspoken
Posted on 01/29/2008 9:06:24 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
By implication the struggle between Hesher Islam and Coughlin is symptomatic of a far larger and unresolved debate, which might be summarized as being over whether or not "Islam is a religion of peace", an assumption which has undergirded the War On Terror From September 11 onwards.
One of the implicit strategies of the War on Terror has been to fight Islamic terrorism in conjunction with the populations of Muslim countries. In Iraq, for example, the alliances between Coalition Forces and local groups have formed the basis for attacking and eventually destroying al-Qaeda.
This strategy has many benefits, not in the least because it allows the West to form alliances with groups and populations who might otherwise set their faces against America if it openly declared itself against Islam. It would be hard to imagine how to proceed in either Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan if America were to openly declare that Islam was in fact an ideology as noxious as Nazism. But citing the advantages of a policy assumption doesn't answer the question of whether the assumption is true; it doesn't settle the question of whether Wilders -- or Coughlin -- are correct. I am agnostic on the point. Nor do I expect any answers soon.
There seems to be a bipartisan political consensus not to examine the subject of political Islam publicly. It is the most verboten of foreign policy subjects. But like other "open secrets", its exclusion from formal discussion doesn't banish it from public consciousness. It merely pushes it underground, like Barack Obama's middle name.
The key problem with subjecting the question of political Islam to debate is that every other conclusion except that of regarding it as a "religion of peace" implies consequences no one dares face. Concluding that Islam is a 'religion of war' would precipitate a revolution in diplomacy, energy policy and military strategy. It's a bottle of nitro nobody wants to shake; it's a can of worms nobody wants to open: not a Republican administration and most especially not a Democratic one.
Explosive questions such as this are as likely to be resolved by events as by debate. To a very great extent the West is genuinely hoping that Islam is a "religion of peace"; and I suspect many Muslims are too. Unfolding events will resolve the issue -- and perceptions -- one way or the other. Ten years from today we'll have a better understanding of the truth.
The Religion of Peace has been fighting a war of conquest against the world for almost 1400 years. No reassessment or ducking of reality will alter the progression. The Islamic War will continue, with occasional hiatus when Jihad suffers a temporarily crippling setback, for so long as there are Moslems and infidels sharing the same universe.
Most will submit rather than have hundreds of millions killed and the planet irradiated.
Refusing to stand up and state the obvious for fear of what it implies is an act of cowardice.
The stench of fear permeates that article.
And ultimately it will get hundredsof millions killed and probably the planet irradiated, anyway.
The Hidden Army Of Radical Islam
F183: handstaves: or, javelins
F184: men...: Heb. men of continuance
F185: set up: Heb. build
F186: Hamonah: that is, The multitude
F187: goats: Heb. great goats
I could be wrong, put picking up dead Muslims for more than seven months sounds like ... what our Lord will have us do.
Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible; Chapter 38, Verse 1-13 sheds some light on this.
One of the best study tools I can recommend is The Companion Bible: Enlarged Type Edition [ LARGE PRINT ] ( Hardcover ) found at Amazon.com for $40.94. That's half of what I paid for mine.
the land of Magog = of the land of the Magog. If "Gog" denotes and symbolizes all that is powerful, gigantic, and proud , then "Magog" is symbolical of the same lands and peoples. Magog was a son of Japheth.
the chief prince = the head, or leader of Rosh. Heb Ro'sh, which may point to Russia.
Meshech and Tubal The Sept. renders these Mesoch and Thobel; i.e. the Moschi and Tibareni, occupying regions about the Caucasus. All these are nations distant from Palestine: not near nations, or nations connected by consanguinity. They were also descended from Japheth ( Gen. 10: 2 ).
11 Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, F73
that ye love the LORD your God.
12 Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations,
even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: 13 Know for a certainty
that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you;
but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes,
until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you. 14 And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. 15 Therefore it shall come to pass,
that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you;
so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things,
until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you,
and have gone and served other gods,
and bowed yourselves to them;
then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you,
and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.
Who among use cannot clearly see how this applies to us today?
We ignore the laws of God, pollute His Sabbaths, and we wonder why we have the problems of today. Didn't He tell us " I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror " in Leviticus 26:16 ?
Weren't we told in Deuteronomy 28:20 what would become of us for all the wickedness we do by forsaking GOD? We have been warned!!!!
Prophesy passes in front of our face on TV and we sleep... Our preachers don't teach us what to look for.
An example (I'm a student and I could be wrong):
40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41 He shall enter also into the glorious F88 land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. 44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious F89 holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And they that be wise F90 shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
FOOTNOTES: (Chapter 11)
F88: glorious...: or, goodly, etc.: Heb. land of delight, or, ornament
F89: glorious...: or, goodly, etc.: Heb. mountain of delight of holiness
F90: wise: or, teachers
Verse 40 "At the time of the end" ...Isn't this the time just before Christ returns? Notice verse 1 of chapter 12... the resurrection.
. Daniel 11:40 ... "push at"... I see the Sep 11, 2004 World Trade Center as a 'push at' situation. And didn't we "come against him' with almost everything we had?
Look at all the countries we're going into and compare it with verse 41 thru verse 43.
The question is in verse 44... what tidings will trouble us, perhaps 'confirmed nuclear weapons like suit-case bombs' in the hands of terrorist?
But all is NOT well, as we see in verse 45. Who is helping us now, and how long will they remain with us against this religious war?
And notice in verse 4 that the understanding may not be given until the end. Isn't knowledge increasing in leaps with todays' computer assisted study tools?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm speaking as a man, a very concerned man.
I suspect he's right about that, in ways I don't even want to think about. And I found this post by Rodney to be spot on:
A belief system which fails to renounce conversion by the sword is incompatible with Western Society. The resulting binary solution set is reform of the belief system, or the destruction/suppression of same.
We already know the truth. islam is wholly incompatible with Western civilization. It is a murderous political philosophy every bit as odious as Nazism.
It masquerades as a 'religion'. We should no more tolerate its continued existence than we did Nazi Germany.
The question is: what are you going to do about it?
As the author notes, "To a very great extent the West is genuinely hoping that Islam is a "religion of peace"; and I suspect many Muslims are too."
I suspect he's right about those "many Muslims." Can you suggest an approach that does not turn those Muslims into enemies just because of the circumstances of their birth?
The premise of your question is invalid.
Assume it's 1943 and change just one word in your question: "Can you suggest an approach that does not turn those Germans into enemies just because of the circumstances of their birth?"
Now do you see how silly your question is?
It's a bit disingenuous to accuse me of "invalid premises," when your own assumptions are demonstrably false.
It's not 1943. If you want to use the Hitler analogy, today's circumstances are a lot more like 1935, except the Allies have already challenged and confronted Hitler, and the General Staff has not thrown in with Hitler. (This is, btw, supposedly what would have occurred had the Allies responded militarily to Hitler's early moves.)
The question is: do you want to declare the rest of Germany's population to be "the enemy," and thereby drag them into the war?
It is pointless to torture that particular analogy any further. Rather, it is more useful to assess the nature of the Muslim world, and the place of the Islamofascists within it.
One important facet of the Islamofascist strategy is to encourage a general sense of "Islam vs. the world." They want us to consider all Muslims as belonging to a homogeneous mass, all of whom are enemies. And they want Muslims to believe this, too. That way (so the reasoning goes), any small war involving the West vs. a faction of Muslims can be leveraged into a global holy war. This is apparently one of the key beliefs of Ahneedajihad's "12th Imam" sect.
The whole "Islam is naziism" approach actually plays directly into the hands of folks like bin Laden or the Iranian mullahs.
But the fact is, most Muslims are not Islamofascists, nor are they likely to become such. There is no need to fight a holy war against them, nor is there any rational reason to push them into corners where they believe that a holy war is the only possible response.
Gen. Petraeus has demonstrated that the key to defeating Islamofascism is to teach normal Muslims the value of living in a modern, civil society. And the Islamofascists have helped him along by their own actions.
It already is. If you believe differently, you aren't paying attention.
But the fact is, most Muslims are not Islamofascists,
Incorrect. islam is fascist. Ergo followers of islam are by definition fascists. Your statement is akin to saying "not all Nazis are fascists." It's demonstrably false. They believe to the core of their beings in a fascist ideology.
There is no need to fight a holy war against them,
Why not? They're fighting one against us.
Gen. Petraeus has demonstrated that the key to defeating Islamofascism is to teach normal Muslims the value of living in a modern, civil society.
General Patraeus has demonstrated no such thing. islamofacism hasn't been 'defeated' in any sense of the word. It's been seriously degraded in two countries. That's it. While it wanes in Afghanistan and Iraq, it waxes in Iran, Pakistan, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and those fetid ratholes mistakenly referred to as 'palestine'.
Go read their book. I have. Until you do that, you're talking without any real knowledge of their beliefs.
He said a bad word.
Is that the best you can do?
No need to waste words arguing against bullshit.
When someone resorts to a profane one word response, you know you've won the argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.