The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations

"Indeed, we'll keep the Republic. As long as we have our arms, nothing can take it away. The only "conspiracy" you have to fear is the one to take away your weapons."

Well at least we agrree on this issue.

On the others (CFR) I respectfully disagree with so much power in the hands of so few without constraints and disclosure!

Don't confuse my vigilance with paranoia.

Not at all, and it's good to hear that someone else feels strongly as I do about the second amendment. As soon as it fails us, roughly below 20% of its original intent, our true national sovereignty will not be long for this world. On the other issues, I wonder if you were talking about campaign finance reform. I was talking about the Rockefeller-initiated Council for Foreign Relations, the meddlesome think tank on the Anglosphere's international relations. In either case, I would agree. I'm against campaign finance reform (let the money and media speak for itself). On the Council for Foreign Relations, let us have a return to our original moral guidelines. We should be more confident in what we believe when we conduct foreign policy. With violence or with diplomacy, we should have the courage of our convictions instead of what I see has been 60 years of Machiavellian timidity. [/rant=off]

Suicide bombers are indeed a big threat. But there's also the growing threat of cheap, reliable short-range cruise missile technology exported by rogue states like N. Korea. These nuke terrorists will want no chance of their priceless (to them) nuke being captured at the last minute. So they may prefer delivery by a cruise missile from a ship sitting 80 miles off our shores. Then there is no chance of losing the nuke because of last-minute detection by America. I think we need better methods to detect missiles on ships near our coast and the technology to shoot down these short-range cruise missiles. Something like the AEGIS system can probably nail some of them already, but we need more reliable systems. I'm not trying to give anyone ideas here, but I'm just pointing out the threats and our need to respond.

The only way to win is to go to their f.... mullahs and rip their brains (or whatever) out !!! Not to stop and wait for them to come and get us!!!
Best Defence!!! Attack !!!
Not like my U.E. !!!
Which is selling my life, culture and future !!
1 in a Million of Italians (Me) think it this way, that's the problem, or better the big problem is that europeans think they are so smarter that we don't need to care about geo-politics!!! Think about yourself, that's the new U.E. quote !!!

"There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop"

Ignorant horsefeathers. The school of Hanbal is one of four Muslim legal schools and is literalist. It is not all of Islam. Ibn Tayymia is a teacher of us-them bigotry against anyone who is not a literalist. And is not all of Islam (is not, e.g. Al Ghazali or Ibn Rushd). It is as stupid as saying Pat Robertson wrote New World Order and some 19th century papal encyclicals denounced them, therefore all Christians believe Masons are a world-ruling demonic conspiracy. It is connect the dots straw man reasoning, not reality. Islam is an affair of continents and centuries, of hundreds of millions of varied human beings and hundreds of states. It is not book, let alone a cartoon.

"a radical Moslem power"

But wait, I thought there was no such thing as a radical Muslim or Muslim fundamentalism. There is just Islam, right? So any Muslim power with the bomb will use it immediately, right? So Pakistan has already nuked us, right? No?

Then the adjective "radical" is needed. Because there is a difference between all Muslims and Muslim radicals, between all Muslims and Muslim fundamentalists, between all Muslims and the sects of Tayymia and Hanbal. He knows it, he has to admit it in practice. He denies it at the outset but cannot sustain the denial.

The Muslim world was getting along with us much better a single generation ago than it is now. A century ago, it was ruled by a few despots and some European empires and wasn't capable of making any serious trouble, and was not seriously trying. Arabs were mad at Turks, and willing to ally with Brits against them. There is no place for this obvious historical fact in his cartoon.

Muslim fundamentalism is a new, modern political phenomenon. It echoes older but minority traditions - Hanbal was persecuted in his own day, Tayymia died in jail as a heretic and rebel. It is consciously reactionary. It works with other radical movements in the Islamic world, though it also sometimes fights them.

It is not perennial Islam, or the history of relations between all Muslim countries and all western countries since the 7th century. Above all, Islam is not a political monolith. It hasn't been politically united since the Mongols. They do not agree on who their own rulers are or who their real enemies are, from day to day.

Men like Osama are trying to create such agreement and usurp the power of all the existing rulers, to make such decisions according to their radical ideology. But it is not already there. They are also trying to persuade all Muslims to become followers of Tayymia, but they have not done so. Want evidence? There are 3 million Muslims in the US. Since 9/11, less than 30 have actively carried out Osama's orders, being conservative about it. 1 per 100,000 is not unity.

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.