Replies

He's not describing nation building AT ALL.

Nation building means taking over a country and trying to remake it, that's not what he was advocating. There's no occupying element and occupation is the cornerstone of nation building.

He's talking about evangelizing the positives Western culture as Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II did behind the Iron Curtain. His point is these people generally only know madrasas and Sharia. Not all of them, of course, several Mid-East heads of state have been educated in the United States.

You're right - his plan is for the U.S. government to change the muslim culture !

To think that one can change muslim culture in the same way that Western powers worked "behind the iron curtain", i.e., eastern Europe, reveals a misguided and deadly notion that every culture can be remade in the same Western mold using the same means of simple immersion into it.

This idea completely disregards the muslim fanatical hatred of non-muslims and the ubiquitous teaching of lying to one's enemies throughout the culture.

Muslims have absolutely no difficulty "getting along" in a Western nation. And being there does absolutely nothing to erase their underlying arrogant hatred of non-muslims.

My earlier post - when I described the father and the son who came to America - THE SON WAS ANWAR ALWAKI - the American-born al-qada terrorist.

HIS FATHER WAS A FULBRIGHT SCHOLAR. alwaki himself had multiple college degrees obtained here in the U.S. All his exposure to the U.S. did absolutely nothing to make him like us at all.

How stinkin' stupid are we to allow people - who have as their life's ambition a desire to kill all of us - to continue to immigrate here and learn our ways, out thinking, our planning, our tactics, our technology ?

Newt and the Rep+Dem establishment (let's call it RDE) are utterly ridiculous in their arrogance and sheer stupidity. The same thinking in rampant in the U.K. elites.

One reason a muslim national leader smiles and is friendly towards us is that he's getting what he wants. The other reason is he thinks he's gonna get killed. It's real simple, that's why college boys don't get it. It's kill or be killed, the law of the jungle. That's all the "rabid dog" mentality of islam knows.

The hatred and arrogance of islam is not easily "reformed".

Some - of their own volition - come to see the bloodthirsty killing as wrong. Often they convert to Christianity. But this conversion work is simply done one way - by exposure to the Bible. Certainly nothing is achieved by their exposure to the wickedness of modern secular Western culture; in fact, the situation is made worse.

If they come to see anti-muslim hatred as wrong but do not convert, but simply give up islam or somehow try to continue but give up only the violent desires - the key factor is - do they give up the hatred of non-muslims, notably Christians, and especially Jews ? And then one has to find out if they are not lying to meld into Western society. In Nazi Germany, some of the non-Jewish population was latently anti-Semitic. A great deal of the population was not, but some were. So when Jewish persecution became known, i.e., what the camps were for, most people kept quiet to avoid getting sent off to the camp themselves. But their were three categories of reasoning: 1) truly believing it was wrong and keeping quiet out of fear and trying to survive 2) being ambivolent and keeping quiet out of fear and trying to survive and 3) secretly liking the idea and keeping quiet and being actually happy about it. To use this "secret thinking" model for muslims in America today - what are they really thinking about their non-muslim neighbors ? The answer is easy to obtain: get them to give you their real take on Jews and the nation of Israel. The answer you get will be all too familiar and repugnant if you're a student of history. Look at the video, over and over, of the townsfolk in Germany being forced to walk through the camps after liberation. Shame on us for not learning that it is wrong to be ambivolent about psychotic hatred based on race.

How does this tie into the preaching of the Gospel ? If a foreign nation is composed of a populace who are unbelievers with a false religion (heathen), but are otherwise friendly towards us, we get along with them fine. As long as the economy is good and there are no wars, we are lulled into a false sense of having no responsibilities towards God. But in the case of heathen nation that suddenly wants to make war on us - and what's more difficult they don't fight fair but send their citizens into our country through our wide open doors to begin taking us over from within - now we start to perhaps wish that we had evangalized that nation so we would not have that invasion taking place, but only the peaceful immigration that we tell ourselves it is in order to sleep at night.

We can continue with our mistaken, modern sense of "freedom of religion", but it will be our undoing if we don't realize the whole of our error and correct it.