Posted on 10/19/2010 12:28:21 PM PDT by betty boop
>>Actually, Muslims are minorities in the Philippine, Nigeria, and India; but yet they cause a lot of havoc anyway.<<
Yeah, it really is in phases.They cause havoc there, but where they are the majority it is much worse. Search google for bible, koran, violence and “freerepublic.com” and you will find a great article on freerepublic from the early part of the century that lays it all out very nicely.
Muslims are peaceful, until they’re not. They are like Pit Bulls with bad owners.
And all that that implies.
Cannot -- or may not?
Just did so... (See tagline...) So, I guess I can...
As for "may", I refuse to ask a muslim's permission for anything...
I will kill muslims rather than submit to Sharia. And, if necessary, I will do so -- in defense of the Constitution I swore to "uphold and defend"...
I agree.
The state Dept needs to stop issuing visas to Muslims coming from majority Muslim nations; simply because their minds have already been poisoned with hate against us from their media and mosques.
Either way, same outcome.... The reason why there is no practical difference is because the fundamental evil that lies at the root has not yet been exposed to the American public at large in a rational, understandable way.
Assuming there are still rational Americans out there, and not just a passel of pansies for the politically correct view. The holding of which is rewarded by our political class in so many ways, and punished in so many others.
Hello, First Amendment!!!!
Case in point: NPR, who fired Juan Williams early today, evidently on grounds that he is a highly observant, rational, not to mention non-racist human being.
We cannot have free thought, free speech in this country!!!!
Although "we" — i.e., the U.S. Constitution — fully protects obscene art such as Serrano's "Piss Christ" (enuf said); a painting (artist's name mercifully forgotten) of Mary, Mother of Jesus, incorporating elephant feces and other "suitable" ingredients; not to mention the marvelous "performance art" of such renowns as Annie Sprinkle, et al. All such free speech expressions are fully guaranteed by the First Amendment on the basis of recent SCOTUS reviews.
But we cannot allow Juan Williams to state the obvious in public!!!
Why is HIS free (and utterly rational) speech not "protected," guaranteed?
NPR, hang your head in shame!!! If you've got it in you to do it!!! [And you probably don't!!! You folks have become a moral sewer.... If I were Juan, I'd consider myself well worth ridden of you!]
Best wishes to/for Juan Williams.
Sorry I digress, ,dear TXnMA! I will never submit to sharia myself. I will not subject my living neck to that dead yoke.
Thank you ever so much for writing!
When I read your article, Overseer, I was so very glad to append it to the article at the top, for further discussion!
Your qualification as an Arabic linguist for the National Security Agency — thus presumably as a person who can understand a foreign culture in terms of its own language — definitely lends credibility to me (at least) that you are a person knowledgeable respecting the present question....
I am so very glad for your insights!
I only hope and pray that your insights can have some sobering effect on the folks out there that would trade anything for their own personal peace, welfare, and security (as they imagine it). I mean the very folk who think that the solution to all human problems is answered by the pathetic whine, "Why can't we all just get along?"
The Doctrine of Kumbiyah ever seems to be the answer of the brain dead.
Jeepers, I hope not too many brain dead will show up at the polls on November 2! LOL!
Thank you ever so much for your outstanding article, Overseer!
Thanks for the kind words.
It is very frustrating to try and sound the alarm when the enemy is not only at the gates, but actually within the gates. A few years ago shortly after 9/11, I wrote and expressed my outrage to Gordon England, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, that he would permit CAIR to set foot on the grounds of Quantico, VA, and conduct their BS. Turns out his right hand man is Hisham Islam.
You can’t say anything even slightly negative about Islam. Witness NPR today. CAIR and their ilk successfully and forcefully deploy the tactics that Alinsky taught and used so well: Isolate, personalize and then demonize. These tactics work very well for all our enemies. This is what they do, this is how they operate.
And all the sheeple said, “Amen.”
Oy!
On that score let's do "realpolitik," involving the scoping of a real war. On that theory, the absolutely most effective military tactic, after identifying who the snake is (i.e., the enemy), is to decide to decapitate it, to cut it off at its head. I am told this is absolutely the best method of dealing with a poisonous snake: Kill it at its "root," at its head via physical decapitation.
So it seems eminently reasonable to me: Go for the head of the snake.
Which, regarding the jihadi war on Western Civilization, if I am not very much mistaken is to be found in Tehran nowadays.
The weird thing is we, America, have been in an undeclared war with the "sovereign" state of Iran since 1979. We have so far refused to acknowledge that such a war is on-going; but this very war is the entire centerpiece of current Iranian domestic and international policy, and has been for the past 31 years.
We Americans evidently think we can ignore a war, even if our devoted enemies insist on waging one — against us.
Anyhoot, I'm with you on the requisite military planning issues. To go after the head of the snake (which inspires and funds international jihadism), what we should do is simply bomb Tehran plus all its known nuclear and military sites into smithereens, into total oblivion. [Such an operation would relieve the civilized world of obnoxious scientists and politicians.]
Hopefully we don't need nukes for this. Indeed, nukes ought to be avoided (for reasons of innocent civilian casualties and mass environmental damage).
But it seems to me you could load a whole bunch of bombs down onto Tehran, Dresden style; use daisy cutters and massively penetrating bombs against their nuclear sites — possibly aided by EMP weapons (if the U.S. Military ever bothered to develop them). A massive strike of this scale would probably lessen, if not solve, threats against U.S. national security, and give a breather to our ally Israel.
We could do it. And it would probably work — i.e., achieve the goal. At least in the short run....
But just because one can do a thing, does that mean one ought to do it? I ask that especially because there is a younger generation in Iran that is putting itself at risk by defying the theocratic political order (seemingly of seventh-century mentality and culture) in favor of greater openness to the outside world, and a more congenial attitude toward "modernization." [Meaning: Westernization, not to put too fine a point on it.]
I suppose there would be great satisfaction on the American side if the Mullahs' trained monkey, Ahmadinijadh, were to blow up anytime soon. But I imagine he is expendable in the Mullah's view anyway, if I read that cabal correctly. A-jad is just a front man for organized evil practiced privately by a cabal of experts....
Their biggest worry right now is the disaffection of their own young people, in droves. The Mullahs claim to operate a "'democratic society." This claim rings hollow, false, when we see them persecuting their own young people, for their principled dissent from the "mandatory" assent to the Allah-authorized "powers that be."
They don't have a First Amendment in Iran. Allah would NEVER approve of such a thing!
I just mention all of this, mrreaganaut, because I think that some of the above tendered "observations" may have tactical significance, and also may require our forbearance....
'Tis a thorny problem.... We seek the balance, the true measure....
The price of peace is eternal vigilance.
Thank you oh so much for writing, mrreaganaut! And for your kind words.
NOT ME, Overwatcher!!!!!!!
Not EVER!
Scream from the roof tops, scream from the lamp posts! We must tell the Truth we see!!!
Truth is Truth. And it will set us free.
Otherwise, one remains benighted, doomed.
Thank you, Overwatcher!
The Copts(christians) in Egypt murdered their country by diversity..
As happened to the Marionite christians in Lebanon..
currently whats happening in URP...
Some cultures are simply better for "people" than others..
Some cultures are benign others are predatory even murderous..
Islam is a murderous culture.. it didn't evolve into one it was one from the beginning..
AND will remain one... in the end..
A Good muslim is murderous a Bad (or nominal one) isn't..
That'd make a great tagline.
I disagree: Tehran is the lesser head of two. Riyadh is the real source of terrorist ideology and money, dramatically outpacing Iranian efforts. We don't see it because the Saudis have spent so much money corrupting the state departments around the world (including our own). The Saudis have the subtlety that the Iranians lack.
10 out of 12 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, and 100% of Islamic Studies departments are funded - at least in part, usually entirely - by Saudi money. Nobody in the MSM reports this, because Saudis own large shares in all the networks, including FOX. The commies didn't have a bottomless supply of money, and that's why they lost the Cold War. What can stop the Saudis?
You have a point, mrreaganaut! But to me, it's just that Saudi Arabia is not overtly at war with us, but I believe Iran is. They are already fighting proxy wars against us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I do agree with you that Saudi Arabia is definitely the source and chief funder and exporter of the Wahabbi ideological view of Islam — which is backward, bloody-minded, irredentist, misogynistic, tribal, mired in the seventh century, and which easily crosses the line into a radical view of what "jihad" is.
What really infuriates me is the silence of so-called "moderate" Muslims, especially in America, whenever the radicalized jihadis succeed in pulling off bloody attacks against innocent civilians. To my way of thinking, their silence makes them complicit in these acts.
Though I did receive some heartening news the other day, on Fox. They featured a gentleman by the name of Zudhi Jasser, M.D., of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a "leading American Muslim voice taking back Islam from the demagoguery of the Islamo-fascists." He said that Islam needs "a period of modernization and reflection." He wants American Muslims to understand that, under the U.S. Constitution, there is a fundamental separation of church and state (so forget about implementing sharia law here). In effect, he was saying that America is at once a polity that maintains a secular order for governmental purposes, and a polity that respects and values the religious inspiration and insight of people of all faiths. Indeed, that protects and guarantees them.
So there are Muslim voices out there that do condemn the Islamo-fascists. I just wish there were more of them.
Thank you so much, mrreaganaut, for your excellent observations!
Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful essay, dearest sister in Christ! Sorry to be so late to the party...
Hi dearest sister in Christ! Thanks for your kind words! It’s great to see you!
I have heard Dr. Jasser twice on the Mark Levin Show, and am impressed with what he has to say. I want to believe he is truthful and sincere. And, if that is the case, I also truly wish there were more like him.
However, as in “The Infestation Grows,” I do not believe there is any such thing as a “moderate” Muslim, although many people wish there were such a thing. Either you are a Muslim, or you are no longer a Muslim - one or the other. Sure, maybe there are Muslims who want to reform the backwards entity that Islam represents, but that effort will probably get them nowhere except the edge of a sword on their necks.
Perhaps a moderate Muslim is one who has been “westernized” or “Americanized.” But, when push comes to shove, with whom will they stand? Us, or the enemy? A Muslim can swear allegiance to the US Constitution all day long, but on the battle line I don’t want one of them behind me.
BTW, because of what Iran has done, and continues to do, every single one of its strategic targets should be erradicated, not necessarily with nukes -just wiped out.
Saudi Arabia exists to promote Wahabbism, for sure. But, I think they are extremely fearful of Iran and of what events the actions of that rogue state can precipitate.
The superficial difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran is that the former is Sunni Muslim, and the latter Shi'a Muslim. This makes them theological enemies. But there appears to be not a dime's worth of difference between them when it comes to embracing Islamic theocratic law. Both are anti-Western. It's just that Iran is more obvious about it. I mentioned they are already conducting proxies wars against us, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also they are waging proxy war against our ally, Israel, through Hamas and Hezbollah.
Probably it is the latter that is really concerning to the House of Saud. They like "stability" — the status quo greatly enriches the ruling house, what with all that oil wealth, the price of which they manipulate to their own advantage; and they don't want anybody to "rock the boat." As long as their customers are from the West, they can't let their anti-Western sentiment show too much....
I'd like to believe that there is such a thing as a "moderate" Muslim; but the jury's still out. Your point about assimilation into the American system as promoting such a possibility is well-taken. But then the question becomes, are they actually assimilating? I notice that honor killings are taking place here, and it isn't the Amish who are perpetrating them....
The Amish aren't big on assimilation either. But they respect the American legal system and generally conduct themselves as full, responsible citizens, following the law, paying their taxes, exercising the franchise, etc. Plus I am not aware of any Amish plotting against Americans....
Thank you so much, Overwatcher, for your excellent observations!
Saudi Arabia exists to promote Wahabbism, for sure. But, I think they are extremely fearful of Iran and of what events the actions of that rogue state can precipitate. The superficial difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran is that the former is Sunni Muslim, and the latter Shi'a Muslim. This makes them theological enemies. But there appears to be not a dime's worth of difference between them when it comes to embracing Islamic theocratic law. Both are anti-Western. It's just that Iran is more obvious about it. I mentioned they are already conducting proxies wars against us, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also they are waging proxy war against our ally, Israel, through Hamas and Hezbollah.
Probably it is the latter that is really concerning to the House of Saud. They like "stability" — the status quo greatly enriches the ruling house, what with all that oil wealth, the price of which they manipulate to their own advantage; and they don't want anybody to "rock the boat." As long as their customers are from the West, they can't let their anti-Western sentiment show too much....
I'd like to believe that there is such a thing as a "moderate" Muslim; but the jury's still out. Your point about assimilation into the American system as promoting such a possibility is well-taken. But then the question becomes, are they actually assimilating? I notice that honor killings are taking place here, and it isn't the Amish who are perpetrating them....
The Amish aren't big on assimilation either. But they respect the American legal system and generally conduct themselves as full, responsible citizens, following the law, paying their taxes, exercising the franchise, etc. Plus I am not aware of any Amish plotting against Americans....
Thank you so much, Overwatcher, for your excellent observations!
The true test of “moderates” of any religion would be in a culture that is predominantly of their faith. It is in such a culture that one would find how outsiders truly are viewed.
Therefore, the best place to view “moderate” Islam would not be in the USA. It would be in Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc. How are non-Islamics treated in those cultures?
The best place to view “moderate” Christianity would be in the US, Germany, Brazil. How are non-Christians treated in such cultures?
What does that authority of predominance do to the expression of their religion in terms of treatment of those not part of their faith group?
In short, I must conclude that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, and I must conclude that there is such a thing as moderate Christianity.
When in the majority, moderate Islam seriously discriminates against all others. For all practical purposes it disappears.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
That’s why I’ve decided to remove the absurd “radicals” label . . . whenever I can think to do so.
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.