Skip to comments.'Our Enemy Is Not Terrorism'
Posted on 07/01/2004 11:06:42 AM PDT by NavySEAL F-16
click here to read article
"Today, probably 50 or more states have schools..."
I must have missed something.
I do not believe that we are in a religious war. I believe that we are in a war with individuals that hate our country, our people, and our way of life, and that these individuals are using their interpretation of the Islamic faith, among other things, to rally support.
I must have missed something.
I believe he was referring to nation states.
Not to mention the Democratic party which is using their interpretation of the Constitution to do the same.
I especially liked the part about the custom agent who saw trouble and did something about it.
He is right up there with the custom officer on the Canadian border who stopped the guy heading to LAX during the Millenium celebration.
People like that should receive more recognition.
Rare truth bump.
And their Anti-American Democrat Liberal Politicians and their friends in the Elite American Media!
Huh? I don't recall anybody in national security saying anything like that.
Duh! Does Lehman think we are all stupid? Of course it is Islamic fundamentalism/extremism. But for PR purposes, we are labeling it terrorism, so all the Muslims don't hate us even more.
I think I've seen some of this said before, maybe in an earlier speech by Lehman. But it's certainly right on the mark. That one comment deserves to be repeated:
"Our enemy is not terrorism. Our enemy is violent, Islamic fundamentalism."
Understandably, Bush didn't want to anger a billion Muslims. But we have to state where the threat lies: With Islamic fundamentalism. We can disagree about how widespread that fundamentalism is within Islam--much wider than it was, after the Saudis funded their Madrassas around the world, as Lehman points out--but we need to name it and focus on it.
I think maybe he goes a bit astray in seeming to deprecate the Saddam connection. It's not only state-sponsored terrorism, but state sponsorship gives it an extra strength it wouldn't otherwise have. Bush was quite correct to go after the regimes that provided shelter, funding, and support. And I think he was right to go after Iraq first, before tackling the root of this evil, Saudi Arabia.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
I must disagree. As bin Laden has indicated on more than one ocassion, his goal is Mecca. He wants to be at the center of Islam and overseeing an Islamic empire. It's more than just hatred of America and our way of life. He has geopolitical goals, not just a series of terrorist actions from time to time to demonstrate his hatred. No, once Iraq falls (which a Kerry administration could cause), Saudi Arabia will be next. With all the oil in the region in Islamic fundamentalist hands, what is next? Of course, Pakistan with its nuclear weapons. At that point bin Laden's Islamic empire will be an economic and military power. Syria and Iran will, of course, follow the fundamentalists, leaving Egypt and a handful of other moderate states, virtually powerless against this juggernaut.
Moderate Islam is almost a joke. They stay quiet and make no statements condemning the fundamentalists. They will put up no fight. Lehman is absolutely correct, and until the Western world understands, they will continue to make inroads into their ultimate goal. Yes, this is a religious war, but we fail miserably in recognizing it.
Beat me to it. President Bush is practicing the fine art of saying "nice doggie" until he can find a big enough rock.
I wanted to post this so that we would know what Lehman says when there are no reporters around. We all know that there is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim", they all have to be fundamentalists or they are not Muslim. Those moderate Muslims (if they do exist) are considered infidels just like Americans.
There are even some conservative talk show hosts that will not admit what the real problem is. I think the thought of what will have to be done is so reprehensible to them and most Americans, they would rather ignore it until it's too late.
A perfect example of our lack of ability to prepare for this are the creatures presently detained at Guantanamo Bay.
What exactly ARE they??
Are they Prisoners of War? Hardly. Prisoners of War are captured in uniform, fighting other soldiers in open combat and representing a recognized government or nascient government which adheres to the rules of civilized warfare, i.e. the Geneva Convention.
Are they criminals? The Supreme Court would have us believe they are with their recent totally flawed, defective and unconstitutional decision stating these creatures are entitled to the same legal protections as any Ameican citizen accused of crime. Crimnals are individuals involved in breaking the laws of the United States or other governmental jurisdictions. They are NOT involved in an international conspiracy to subvert our government, western society and our entire way of life. These creatures are.
So, just what ARE they???
We need a NEW category and description of malefactor to describe these creatures. The closest we can come in history is pirate, but even pirate isn't accurate. Pirates were not bent on the goal of world domination. These people are.
Since they are the agents of an illegal paramilitary operation against the United States and its allies and are
not American Citizens, they are clearly not entitled to the same protections under American law as American citizens and should be subject to military justice under the authority of the President of the United States, and not objects of concern of the Federal Courts. Waging war is the constitutional responsibility of the President, not the Supreme Court.
The judgement of the Supreme Court in this matter should be declared null and void and ignored.
This entire situation is analgous to many others in the recent past where the Federal Courts have distorted the Constitution. Judge Roy Moore comes to mind. The Federal Government is constitutionally barred from establishing a religion. What the individual states choose to do or not to do on this issue is their own concern.
IMPEACH the SUPREME COURT!
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.