Posted on 07/25/2006 5:17:39 PM PDT by SJackson
John Cummuta: Militant Muslims are the culprits in many of world's current conflicts
A letter to the editor Dear Editor: These are the facts:
• On 9/11 we were attacked by militant Islamists.
• But before that, our Marines were attacked in Lebanon by the same Hezbollah that's in the news today, and our embassies were attacked in Africa and the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen, all by militant Muslims.
• Britain, Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and other European countries have recently endured Islamist attacks or threats.
• Indonesia, Bali, the Philippines, Australia, and other Asian countries periodically experience Islamist bombings, kidnappings and threats.
• India is experiencing attacks from militant Muslims.
• Russia's problems in Chechnya are mostly with militant Muslims.
• Iraq's hope for democracy is under constant attack from militant Muslims.
• The African continent is seeing one militant Muslim assault after another on non-Muslims.
• Israel is under constant attack from militant Muslims.
• The world is threatened by one of the most militant Muslim regimes (Iran) developing nuclear weapons.
Notice any pattern here? Every one of these globe-spanning outbreaks of death and destruction was initiated by militant Muslims. The non-Muslim world is under assault by Muslims who interpret the Quran to charge them with the responsibility of converting the entire globe to Taliban-like Muslim states by force. They're taking their lead from the Prophet Muhammad's way of growing Islam in the 7th century and the Ottoman Empire's spreading of Islamic domination in the 16th and 17th centuries - both by the sword - not by a peaceful triumph of their belief system over other belief systems.
They are not fighting and hating us because of Israel, or the Iraq war, or our presence in the Mideast. They are against us because we are the world's largest purveyor of freedom. They hate freedom, women's rights, choice, and especially freedom of religion. They believe in Muslim dictatorships like they had in Afghanistan and currently have in Iran.
That's what they want for the United States, and that's the only outcome that will satisfy these extremists - so how could we ever negotiate with them when the only thing they want is our total destruction as a free society and our total submission to them? Since I don't believe the majority of Americans wants to give control of our country to militant Muslims, we have no choice but to fight them. They won't stop if we bring our troops home from abroad. They won't stop until they win - or we win.
We have no choice but to fight them. The only choice we do have is where we fight them: over there - like Iraq and Afghanistan - or here in the U.S. Pick one.
John Cummuta Prairie du Chien
Editor's note: Mr. Cummuta has a right to his views, but we would note that the governments of Iran, Palestine and Lebanon were elected.
Editor's note: Mr. Cummuta has a right to his views, but we would note that the governments of Iran, Palestine and Lebanon were elected
Guess that make it ok if they want to kill us.
Is this the same John Cummuta selling debt-elimination programs???
Dear Editors, why leave Venzueala, or Cuba off your list
they have "elected" governments too.
That the gov'ts were democratically elected only makes the collateral damage more justified.
Militant Muslims are behind just one conflict:
from the perspective of WW0 that's been going on since the 700's.
I've learned that when fighting or terrorism is reported, and you
can't figure out the motives of the killers...decent chance it's Islamics
just doing what Islamics do.
And the press is just "playing dumb" even if they know it's Islamics at work.
I first had this epiphany with the coverage of the "rebel forces" in
The Ivory Coast in The Los Angeles Times. Couldn't tell what the h-ll
the "rebels" were wanting to accomplish from reading and re-reading the LA Times.
Finally figured it out from Free Republic postings.
Book 041, Number 6985: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Militants, my eye, they are good Muslims.
Jeff Davis
No mention of East Timor.
Probably because one of the Timorese leaders that got the Nobel Prize
was really gung-ho for the USA going after Islamic terror.
I think it was the fellow named Horta, as mentioned in the linked article:
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9610a/etimornews.html
With the exception of Sendero Luminoso and those guerrillas in the southern part of Mexico and MS13, I can't think of any "agro" that the moslems aren't involved in. They started off in the 8th Century trying to convert people by the sword and fortunately Europe was able to turn them back at several points, Tours, Spain, Lepanto and Vienna to name a few. Now Europe is too willing to lay their collective necks on the chopping block and it's going to be up to the United States to take up the mantle of Charles Martel.
True. But when the Europeans finally have had it with the islamo-nazis history shows that they can be vicious and will fight well.
ROFL!
no way! don't believe it....couldn't be......
Sherlock needs a medal.....
Would like to see the list of world conflicts that are not Muslim instigated! I’m sure the list would be much shorter.
I sure hope so. I would've hoped that Ireland would've been Europe's fallback position as it was in the Dark Ages, the repository of civilization. But the last time I was in Ireland, 2002, a lot of enemy were there, establishing their fifth column.
"Would like to see the list of world conflicts that are not Muslim instigated!"
1). Two of my cats hate each other and get into a blood-letting fight every6 to 8 weeks.
A mistake GWB made was defining "democracy", should have been promoting freedom or liberty, on the basis of elections. A single election means little. Freedom, tolerance of opposing beliefs mean a lot. I'd suggest that Adams transferance of power to Jefferson, his opponent, as the result of a free election was a better indicator of the direction of America than Washington's election.
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.