Posted on 11/22/2003 10:42:54 AM PST by Destro
I'm glad you brought that up. I wonder how many people are aware that in this culture women are for procreation, and men are for 'recreation'?
Are you implying that any of the violence perpetrated by Iraqi terrorists is in any way a consequence of these words of diplomacy? Are you implying in any way that the President is responsible for any of the violence because he has (erroneously) called Islam a 'religion of peace?' What exactly are the "fruits" of his words, in your opinion? I'm serious in wanting to know what you were saying in your post.
btw, I assume you're aware that much of recent terrorist activity has been Islamic terrorists killing Muslims, right?
Terrorists are true Muslims. The essence of Islam is to terrorize people into converting.
Hmm, lessee: The liberal media would hate him, the Dixie Chimps would say they are ashamed of being from Texas, there would be protests on the streets of London...
Very knowledgeable post. I have been flamed to a crisp on my other post about how to handle this. Oh well...Americans seem to be in the "Have to learn it the hard way" mode. Thanks for your post.
That's the part of your assumption that I have problems with....NOT that there are not tenets of Islam that advocate violent, NOT that there aren't extremists (or not so extremists) who believe in violence, NOT that Islam is at its roots looking for converts by force, NOT that there is no parallel in Christianity or Judaism to the violence in Islamic belief and in the Koran.
My question is, does the average Muslim in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter, really want to destroy the world, support what these extremists are doing, and participate in this global jihad......especially now that the extremists are taking out fellow Muslims?
One more point......the average person who calls himself a 'Christian' doesn't know what the Bible says. There are many who are Jewish, who don't practice Judaism as prescribed by Scripture. And the same is true of Islam.
Declaring war against an entire religion would still be folly, IMO.......and I guarantee that the people of Iraq, and those in the Baathist regime desperately and futilely trying to regain power do NOT perceive President Bush as being weak, regardless of what he says about their 'religion of peace.'
Oh, and one more (extra) point.......George W. Bush, as a born-again Christian who does practice his faith, knows that the human heart, regardless of 'religion' or geography is the same, and yearns for freedom, and the love and peace that can only come through Christ.......and I agree with him on that.
By the same logic, we could also say that it's also not in his job description to say that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
But I don't think his "job description" matters here. As an American citizen, he has a right to speak his mind. Period.
The President has been diplomatic about the nature of Islam, and we don't like it.
What do you suggest? Protesting him? Impeaching him? Not voting for him? Calling him names?
As one who trusts that he is doing what HE thinks best, I find this to be a minute error (if one at all), in the overwhelming task of protecting Americans from 'evildoers.' And in that task, he is doing an incredibly good job.
Now, why don't you sit down.....oh, you probably are sitting down......and write the 'gander' a letter of protest, so he knows just how you feel. I'm sure he already knows that there are plenty of folks out there who don't think he should have said what he did, but he did what HE thought was best. That's what he's been doing since he became President.
And last I heard, that's what we elected him to do.
How about just saying politely and respectfully that we don't think it's a good idea to be diplomatic about Islam because it is likely to be perceived as a sign of weakness, and the terrorists are encouraged by signs of weakness?
It's here somewhere....
Islam is very fragmented, I have heard that there are over 200 brands. Mohammad said before he died that there in the end would be many brands of Islam but only his, the true one would be the real Islam.
So now, of course all flavors of Islam think the other guy is the wrong flavor. The only time they band together and stop trying to kill each other off is when there is a Jihad against an Infidel.
The first stage of infiltration is to move moslems into an area with the strict laws of Islam causing them not to assimilate. When they reach a viable point for insurection, then the "higher" tenants are explained and the existing population is radicalized. You can bet that the "converts" within the US are at stage one at this point, and are being slowly converted to stage two.
At stage three they are activated, the Jihad is declared, and insurection is fed till the society is weakened from within. When the existing population is weary of terrorism and is ready to trade anything to buy peace, stage 4, land is demanded for a separate society.
When that is accomplished the existing population demands Shari law be implemented in their areas. (stage 5 if you will) This disconnects the land and the laws from the existing government and in effect creates a new country within the existing country. Now terrorists cannot be punished by the local laws, nor can they be caught by the local police. With no effective defence by the host country, terrorism is then given the full speed ahead and the country becomes consumed from within.
Kinda like smoking cigarettes, it starts in freedom, ends in cancer, develops to death.
No 90% of American Moslems have no idea the track they are on, but Islamic Brainwashing works and works well. The same pattern has worked for 1400 years, and is only broken rarely by actual war. Something the Islamics are currently preparing for with the United States. The primary war tool for Islam has been terrorism for 1400 years. They have destroyed many superior cultures, they produce nothing themselves. It was a religion created by pirates of the desert and has followed true to the course since then.
The spiritual aspect of how is works is as follows.
First they denounce the sin of the culture and pretend to be superior by dressing modestly, not drinking, not cursing and being very religious.
Secondly they put forth their 5 tenants of a pure life, that nobody can really argue with.
Thirdly, once converted they feed pride, lust, hate and greed.
Pride in the superiority of a Moslem over the infidel.
Lust, in denying the natural inclination of human sexuality, they repress the natural and inflame the un-natural. For example, if you dress a woman in a black bag, make every thing illegal that is natural and good with moderation, replacing moderation with forbidden law, the natural sexual drive has no expression. You become very unbalanced an unstable, easily inflamed by the slightest thing. Soon a flash of an ankle is enough to distract you. At that point you your lust potential if you will is about 150%
Next you are told the reason you are so uptight or do not have money is because the infidel is repressing you. After following all these laws for a year or two you are ready for payback that never comes. You are worshiping Satan and God does not bless your works, everything works against you and your frustration level is way high.
Now the greed kicks in, knowing that the infidel's riches are really yours and ripe for the plucking. You are taught the tenants of Jihad. You become a time bomb, waiting for a Jihad to set you off. With Jihad, murder for women, money land is all excused and not only not a sin, but a virtue.
Great system to create an army of mind-numbed robots, and you have to admit it works rather well.
Now I am sure I have oversimplified it, but apply the pattern. It only takes a while talking to a Moslem to figure where they are at. Be careful, there is a trap or two. One of the things they teach is that they cannot kill you if you are a possible convert, but if you refuse Islam outright, you are fair game. So never say no, just say you are curious and are looking into Islam. It calms them right down and may save your neck in the long run.
But 'weakness?' THIS President? Are you serious about that? I have serious problems with anyone who thinks President Bush has been 'weak' in this War on Terror, based on the facts of what has occurred in the past two years.
For the first time in history, we have a President who is standing up strongly against this evil (that has been going on for 20 years), and there are actually those of you out there who say he is 'weak' because of a few diplomatic words??
Can you back up a bit, and see what you are actually saying, in light of the fact that two terrorist regimes have been taken down in less than two years, and that post 9-11 the attacks against America IN America that were predicted have not occurred?
The idea that he has emboldened the terrorists is, to me, absurd. Many of them (who were emboldened by the negligence of the LAST President) are now dead, thanks to our mighty U.S. military, many hiding in caves, many cowering in fear......
These people are evil, and wily, and they will continue to try to destroy civilization. Try being rational about this. Blame the terror on the bad guys. Blaming it on the President makes you look pretty stupid.
I do not doubt your historical understanding. I doubt your conclusion because it is missing too many important factors, which cannot be ignored.
When this President is calling Islam a religion of peace etc., that makes the terrorists (not me) think (not know) that he is showing a sign of weakness.
For the first time in history, we have a President who is standing up strongly against this evil (that has been going on for 20 years), and there are actually those of you out there who say he is 'weak' because of a few diplomatic words??
It is true that Dubya is standing up against this evil much stronger than any of his predecessors ever has before, and he deserves to be cheered on for that, and defended against his liberal detractors. However, it is also true that there are some areas (like this "diplomacy" business) where he has been hesitant to show his strength.
Yes, I think that's the best way to put it: He can be really strong when he wants to, but sometimes he restrains himself in order to "play nice." We should encourage him to be more of a cowboy and less of a diplomat.
War is over, Oslama is hunted down by the Islamics themselves, and all is ok till the nukes are in Islamic hands. At that point they may try again.
I think I would throw in that we are going to destroy the Palestinians as the third punishment for the Islamic attack to prove that we mean business. But that is not necessary, they got the message after Saddam.
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.