Frightening to Ponder Whether Terrorists Will Defeat Democracy (Are you ready for some Islam?)

The Calgary Sun ^ | January 4, 2004 | Paul Jackson

[TaxPayer2000]

I've read this many times, and it still comes across as nitpicky and hair-splitty.

may I suggest reading the following: Democracy VS Republic

[TaxPayer2000]

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government."

note to self:

seems to me it is unconstitutional for the USA to be a democracy

[Quix]

THANKS.

Good post.

I think Hal has some good points in the following:

Mailing-List: contact

end-times_news-help@associate.com

From: Gladrags2@webtv.net (Anita Bush)

Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:44:15 -0700 (MST)

To: end-times_news@associate.com

Subject: A NEW KIND OF MAD POLICY

AMERICA AT WAR 1/3/2004

A New Kind of ''Mad'' Policy

Because of its soldiers' religious convictions it is more than willing to die in order to attack the U.S. This enemy has no identifiable country or family against which to retaliate. Its followers are dispersed over a number of Muslim countries, so there is no place or specific people
against which to retaliate.


So what does this new kind of enemy hold dear? What is it that he holds so dear that he will cease and desist rather than lose it?


During the "good old days" of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the U.S. kept them in check by having an arsenal of nuclear weapons that would obliterate their country if they attacked ours. It was called the doctrine Of "Mutually Assured Destruction." This brutal but effective policy kept the massive nuclear arsenals of both sides from ever being used.


Is there a way to apply this doctrine to this new unique threat? I believe there is.


This new enemy is fanatically devoted to the religion of Islam. Islam holds certain religious sites to be sacred and holy. They believe that they are an essential part of their religion and are enshrined in the Koran as essential
to their religion. Especially the Ka'aba in the Great Mosque in Mecca.


Mecca is the most holy place in Islam. Medina is the second holiest place. Arabia is generally the holiest country on earth to the Muslim in general and the Fundamentalists in particular.


On a personal level, a devout Muslim believes that Uncleansed contact with pigs sends him to the deepest hell. We need to let it be known that if we catch and convict any Muslim terrorist, we will sew him into pig
skin, execute him before a firing squad and bury him in it.


So here we have some things that are of utmost and Critical importance to our new enemy.


So here is my suggestion. Why don't we let it be known that if any Muslim, be he a member of al Qaeda or any other terrorist group, launches another attack on any of our cities, we will obliterate Medina. If he attacks again, we will obliterate Mecca and the Ka'aba. If he
attacks again, we will make Arabia uninhabitable for 10,000 years.


We face a fanatical and brutal enemy who is religiously motivated. This is the only kind of language he will understand. So we must face him with the few things that will truly strike terror in his heart.

Otherwise, we are fighting a war that will only increase in the death and destruction of our people. It is gaining fanatical followers every day.


Brutal? Yes! But effective - you bet! The choice is clear. Do we have the will to survive or not?


http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4829#TOP


Email Author: Hal Lindsey

mailto:hal@hallindseyoracle.com?Subject=Commentary_Comment


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Luke 21:28 "And when these things begin to come to
pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your
redemption draweth nigh."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is an information list only, NOT a discussion list;
please direct your responses to the discussion list at:

end-times@associate.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To subscribe, send ANY message to

end-times_news-subscribe@associate.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Gritty]

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!" -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Some advice is eternally useful. Most of the advice from our Founding Fathers falls within that category!

[Blake#1]

You will recall I compared the Puritans/Pilgrims (Mayflower), not the Founding Fathers, all dressed in black and white to the peaceful Muslims. These Puritan/Pilgrims were the first here in great numbers. They are reviled and cursed today. So are the peaceful Muslims.
You must not fall into the trap of "all Muslims are evil". The Muslims that the USofA is helping to establish a new government in Iraq are my idea of peaceful Muslims. They could become our greatest ally in the Near East.

[Quix]

GOOD POINTS.
THANKS.

[DarthMaulrulesok]

The situation is indeed dire, but for the Muslims, not for us. Consider:
1. Islamic terrorism, if I am correct, is essentially dispersed and diversified into numerous cells. There may be some central sources of planning, funding, recruiting and so on and these sources no doubt also provide technical assistance, but the cells themselves are autonomous, and can probably mount attacks without specific directives from above.
2. Islamic terrorism has the aquiesence, if not neccesarily the apporval, of a large proportion of the Islamic population in a given area. There are mosques where Imans drum up support for the cause; there are openly-operating Islamic social organizations and charities that raise money and try to find recruits; there are Islamic schools that indoctrinate the youth in the spirit of Jihad, and so on. All of this is of course in addition to the support for terrorism in Islamic countries proper.
3. As far as I know, it is impossible to know for sure where the terror cells are, or which Islamic countries provide the greatest support. Even if a single given terrorist supporting country is conquered and occupied the others can take up the slack (if they want to).
4. As long as the terrorists stick to conventional weapons, the problem may be manageable. If enough terrorists are killed and enough of the supporting networks and (countries) are neutralized, the terrorist problem might be reduced to a nuisance. However, what if, some mad scientist in Pakistan (or elsewhere) was to mass produce chemical or biological or nuclear weapons and distribute them widely to terrorist cells? What could the US do?

a. The US could not surrender - due to the dispered nature of terrorism there is no one to surrender to, even if the entire country wanted to. Even if the US was to convert to Islam, the Whaabi Muslims would consider all non-Whaabi muslims unacceptable, so there is no Sufi option. And Whaabi Muslims themselves are considered unacceptable by other Muslims.
b. Any given act of retaliation would lead to more terrorism with WMD.

So:

The only rational US response would be to ensure there were no Mulsim cells capable of such an act. The only way to ensure that would be to destroy Islam everywhere.

Let us all hope and pray that it never comes to that.

[My Dog Likes Me]

Jackson's essay is idiotic. First off, Americans shouldn't be grouped into this weird term "the West." As if we like soccer! We're Americans and can mass murder with the best of them when we have to (without going home afterwards and throwing up).

Let Jackson paint his directional arrow towards Mecca on the balcony while he quivers and prays for some weird compromise. As for me, if crazy Arabs keep throwing sand in our transmission, they're done.

[SauronOfMordor]

Expand on it a bit, and you could make a near perfect argument for closed national borders, in my humble opinion.

What defines the US, or any other country, is not the Constitution but our culture.

When I say "culture", I don't mean art, but the broader definition of the commonly accepted values and attitudes. Constitutions and laws are just meaningless scraps of paper unless they are backed up, and enforced, by cultural attitudes that declare "THIS is the standard of behavior we demand, we will not tolerate gross deviations from the standard."

An example is the Battle of Athens, Georgia. In 1946, faced with a corrupt sheriff committing vote fraud, with the help of thug deputies, a bunch of returned WW2 vets engaged in armed insurrection to force an honest ballot count. The culture refused to tolerate that corruption

The culture is upheld and sustained by the people. If you have a great influx of people from another culture, their imported culture will prevail in the areas that they dominate. An area that is close to 100% Somali WILL be Somalia, whatever the official laws happen to be. An area that is close to 100% Mexican WILL be Mexico in all important particulars. Allowing people in from incompatible cultures will alter and weaken the traditional American culture unless it is done so slowly that the immigrants children are absorbed into the American culture. When permanent enclaves are allowed to form, this won't happen

[SauronOfMordor]

Correction: it was Athens, Tennesee, not Georgia