Here's the issue: At the university, the liberal knows and is friends with Muslim individuals. They are pleasant, nice, friendly, just-like-me, etc. How, therefore, can anybody be hateful and frightened of Muslims, given the plain evidence that the dozen or so Muslims I know personally myself, are just as good and decent a person as anybody else?
How do we get decent mainstream liberals to see the larger reality of political Islam? Its core documents? Its core behaviors as a local, regional, state and national, and global force?
Conservatives make it difficult because they want to fight everybody. But why not have the college progtards fight the Muslims over their differences?
This could blow up in their face.
Oh, you mean they don’t really bomb buildings, rape women and slit throats? That’s just an untrue perception?
“Friends, VCU’ers and countrymen...Lend us your necks!”
Any non-muslim who has educated themselves on Islam can reach no other conclusion than that Islam is an inherent danger to all non-muslims. All muslims therefore are an inherent danger.
Mad Mo made it so.
The closer they adhere to the example and teaching of their prophet the more dangerous they are.
ISIS is as close to pure Islam as exists currently.
Stereotypes exist for a reason.
Most stereotypes are shortcuts to characterize a known peculiarity or behavioral pattern.
It’s simple:
Mention muslim and people think of terrorism and uncivilized behavior.
Mention Mormon, Amish or Hindu and people do not think of terrorism and uncivilized behavior.
Muslims do not and cannot by their Koran except ANY religions belief other than Islam.Muslims are not tolerant to my religion even in my own country....I, as a free person, do not except that and will not except that....they live here under false pretenses....to say otherwise is a lie. Muslims are a danger to America for that reason.
That tired old equivalency argument. Yes, statistically, in every sizable enough group, there will be "outliers," or "extremists" if you prefer. But in what other group do those outliers routinely behave like rabid animals?
Or, put another way, there are extremists, then there are MUSLIME extremists. It's only the latter that are hacking off heads, burning people alive, melting them in acid baths, enslaving them, and in general acting like there haven't been any advances in civilization since the days of cavemen.
Japanese Buddhist monks tending exquisite rock gardens didn't negate the reality of Pearl Harbor.
What what in hell difference does that make that most people in ANY horrible historic time are 'nice'.
NONE.
Do a million gentle peasants farming poor soil undo the horror of a Stalin?
Of course there are lots of nice Muslims.
And that fact has NOTHING to do with the current discussion of limiting Muslims coming here until we know what the hell is going on with the religion.Think about it Allison Norlian...
1400 years of history provides proof against this lie. If muslims want to be regarded as human, they can easily turn away from that sub-human ideology, and just become human. They choose to remain connected to that insane death cult, providing cover for terrorism, funding terrorism, excusing terrorism, and resisting all attempts to stop terrorism, lying about Islam's violent history and present, lying about their own intentions. Islam is not compatible with human civilization.
Ten Arabic Words: A challenge to national security professionals engaged in the Global War On Terror
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3432874/posts
/snip/
In light of this, it’s particularly sad to see disgraced former General David Petraeus heap even more shame upon himself, with his recent call for a mindless capitulation to Islamic extortion threats, extortion threats which have been ongoing against kafirs for 1,400 years. With fourteen centuries of history to examine, “Don’t make the Muslims angry, or they’ll run amok like uncontrollable sub-human savages, and kill lots of innocent people” is a wretched strategy for a former American general and intelligence agency director to espouse.
His call for the end of free speech rights anywhere and anytime that they “offend” Muslims is no different than warning a beaten wife not to anger her chronically abusive husband again, lest he give her yet another violent thrashing—which would then be entirely her fault. In fact, she should be punished again, just for provoking him after being warned not to!
This is not merely the heckler’s veto, which we are, sadly, familiar with today on the American college campus. This is the Muslim terrorist’s veto, and it means forced submission to Islam’s shariah law as the price of temporarily forestalling Muslim violence. Shame on David Petraeus for siding with the perpetrators of Islamic terrorism, and not the victims. But at least his motives are transparent: pure greed. Petraeus, who has no background in finance or economics, is making millions of dollars by hustling in Muslim nations for the multi-billion-dollar global hedge fund KKR. They want something for their money, and he gave it to them in his recent Washington Post column. (Read “Why David Petraeus really wants you to shut up about Islamism,” TheFederalist.com, May 18, 2016.)
Let me offer you another simple test that you may apply to your own national security work space and mission. If you have been ordered to purge the ten listed Arabic words (and others) from your official GWOT lexicon, and instead to hand over the task of analyzing “Islamic radicalism” to alleged “moderate Muslims,” then you are being played for a fool by our nation’s most implacable and devious enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Fifteen years after the twin towers came down, you have no excuse for such obliviousness. After the next 9-11, you will not be able to plead ignorance yet again. As a national security official, you have a duty to perform your own due diligence. You must educate yourself, and reject the politically-correct blindfold that you have been ordered to wrap around your own mind.
Sun Tzu wrote: “if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”
Today, we are literally outsourcing our intelligence analysis in the GWOT to the OIC and various Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Simply do a search for “Holy Land Foundation, Hamas, CAIR, and FBI” to begin your overdue education. Is it any wonder that the official “Countering Violent Extremism” narrative holds that there is utterly no connection between Islamic terrorism and Islam? That the Islamic State, which quotes chapter and verse of the Koran as justification for its every decision, is not Islamic? That Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph of ISIS, who holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad, knows less about Islam than President Obama and his American-trained national security staff?
In 2016, ignorance of the reality of the Islamist threat is no longer an excuse. Many resources are readily available if you are willing to look unblinkingly at the light of truth. I would suggest the online video lectures given by Stephen Coughlin and Dr. Bill Warner as starting points. Those who need or desire to read an exhaustively researched (over a thousand footnotes) academic treatise on the present Islamist threat should carefully study Coughlin’s “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.”
After 9-11, Mr. Coughlin was an acclaimed subject matter expert and frequent high-level lecturer at the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon, until 2008 when he was made persona-non-grata on federal property as an unwelcome “Islamophobe.” And who made the determination of Mr. Coughlin’s “Islamophobia?” The same Muslim Brotherhood front groups that our intelligence agencies now rely upon for their understanding of “violent extremism,” which, of course, we are assured has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
We know this must be true, because President Obama has told us so. Unless, of course, he is practicing taqiyya on behalf of the ummah. Taqiyya is a bedrock principle of Islamic shariah, a ready tool for Muslims to use when they are dealing with kafirs. And not only radical Muslims, but ordinary, everyday, “moderate” Muslims. According to the shariah, it’s not a sin when a Muslim lies to a kafir in order to promote Islam. In that case, taqiyya is just a very clever form of dawah, helping to prepare the kafirs for the final Islamic jihad victory.
Now, go look up the Arabic words that you didn’t know, and read the article again, with fuller understanding. Then, go ask your colleagues how they did on the quiz. In the current threat environment, when mistakes are punished with passenger jets falling out of the sky, seventy is a failing grade for a trained and educated national security professional.
Please strive to do better. Your country is depending on you. Don’t let us down again. Educate yourself, and then prepare to stand firm against the prevailing winds of political correctness. Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Remember your core values, and stand tall against America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Funny, but I don’t think there’s a companion Christian Advocacy Task Force at VCU.
Lots of them have read Hadiths.
They are aiding and abetting an enemy to destroy the last crumbling bastion of the West and Christianity.
The only "moderate" moslem is a dead moslem...