Radical Islam's 'plan' to take over America - Arab-American author outlines secret 20-year strategy to undermine country
Posted on 09/22/2004 7:50:44 PM PDT by MegaSilver
Radical Islam's 'plan' to take over America - Arab-American author outlines secret 20-year strategy to undermine country
Interestins article. It is no surprise about the Muslim/Nazis alliance. Of course this has been around before the Nazis and Communists existed. They've been like that since day one. Don't forget that Arab Muslims rushed in defense of Adolf Eichmann, when he was caught, tried, and executed. Also, Heinrich Himmler wished Germany was a Muslim country and wanted a Muslim empire.
BUMP
I would urge you to read the whole thing.
Tolerance is not tolerance for things judged to be good or true. Such things do not need tolerance. Tolerance is tolerance for error, or it does not merit the name. The reason we tolerate error is error is the natural state of mankind, and to require lack of error on the part of men (1) condemns must men to justified punishment and (2) requires an infalliable judge to decide what is and what is not error. Such a judge does not exist in this world. Governments are least of all capable of it. Governments are no arbiters of truth. Their record in the matter is abysmal, a river of blood spilled for the grossest superstitions and the most patent errors.
We tolerate because we prefer the danger of misguided fellow citizens to the danger of an omnipotent government that claims the sole possession of the truth. Not because there is no danger in the first. We keep the right to bear arms to protect from either. We aren't scared of wicked private individuals because we fully expect to defend ourselves against them if they appear, not because we think they do not exist. When individuals engage in criminal acts we throw the book at them, judging them ourselves in our capacity as jurors, not trusting anybody else to do so with our interests in view.
Freedom is not based on the desire for safety in the first place. It is independently desired even if it brings danger, as preferably to living as a ward of paternalistic states arrogating all judgment of truth, necessity, danger, or guilt to themselves. We expect and get no assurances we won't be endangered by doing so. We will be dangerous ourselves, right back, when the occasion demands.
In the case of militant Islam, we consider preposterous the notion that millions of fellow Americans will prefer so ridiculous and unjust an ideology. But if they do, we will fight against them. We have put up with idiocies from our domestic left that are at least as dangerous - including people who gave atom bombs to Joe Stalin and lobbied for the Khmer Rogue. We tolerate not in ignorance but in majestic strength. Even when they do their worst, they will not stop us. We will re-elect W and wage our war, in contempt of anything either Muslim radicals or the international left can do about it.
Don't confuse the general politics of a state with the folks who live in it. There's a huge difference between the mind-set of people in Manhattan and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. They may both vote Democratic, but the folks in Iowa, the Dakotas, and Southern Illinois are fiercely independent.
Middle America is what liberals like to call fly-over country, but it's the heartland of America. If you take a look at those red and blue states you can get a good idea of where it is. There's only one.
In this part of Tennessee we see muslims in headscarfs passing through, and although they're treated civilly the looks from the locals lets them know they're not wanted here. If they start to proselytize here I can forsee trouble. The rural Christian South is no place for mulims.
Which is why they chose to separate Church from State. They reasoned that the religious conflicts of Old Europe came from the mixing of religion and politics.
Islam not only mixes the two, it does not draw distinctions between them. It can be argued that allowing an Islamic foothold in the United States is akin to allowing foreign embassies to a government whose raison d'etre is to overthrow us entirely.
Freedom is not based on the desire for safety in the first place. It is independently desired even if it brings danger, as preferably to living as a ward of paternalistic states arrogating all judgment of truth, necessity, danger, or guilt to themselves. We expect and get no assurances we won't be endangered by doing so. We will be dangerous ourselves, right back, when the occasion demands.
The inevitable consequence of allowing Islam the freedom of having a foothold in the West WILL be the loss of our own freedom, and many of our lives, as well. It is not a matter of "if," but "when."
If freedom as you define it in the end leads to more--and worse--oppression, then is freedom really worth it?
Ping
What have we done to counter this threat? Dubya has made a start but where are the leaders in Congress, the press, the academy and elsewhere who have come up with effective ways to stop this mortal threat? We should both make clear that those with good ideas are praised and those who support the attack on the United States are identified. FR is helping. What other groups are? We can help knit them together into an effective force. I would like to start by pointing to the Hudson Institute; they have transitioned from their former focus on "thinking the unthinkable" to very good programs on this threat. There are others. Let us bring them to the fore.
Thanks for the post and the ping. I wonder what Lunatic Fringe and the rest of the Dhimmis will have to say to this.
That is their plan for America, just as it is with Europe!
Europe is being overrun with Islam fanatics!
Therein lies the problem with your argument. Did you even read the article I posted?
This internal threat to America is increasing. Between 1987 and 1997 8 percent of all immigrants—two million—came from Muslim countries, but that proportion is rapidly increasing. While overall immigration (legal and illegal) has grown by 300 percent since 1970, growth of immigration from the Middle East has gone up 700 percent, from under 200,000 in 1970 to 1.5 million in 2000. Expected number of immigrants from the Middle East in 2010 will be 2,500,000. These figures are matched and likely to be exceeded by the number of Muslim immigrants from the Indian Sub-Continent (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh). Currently Muslims account for close to one-tenth of all naturalizations, and their birth rates exceed those of any other significant immigrant group. Even a conservative estimate of their number of three million, or one-percent of the population, has alarming security implications and the potential for disproportionate growth.
They are not halfway around the world. They are here. In the West. Our ridiculous immigration policies provide terrorists with a fresh Western Muslim diaspora--and therefore all the recruits and manpower they could possibly want.
The idea that Jewish people seem to dominate business and money concerns is like telling me that black men are trying to dominate the world by excelling in sports.
Both have foundations in tendency, but are still stereotyping.
I do believe I understand the basic premise of the article. The Islamic threat, though based on a corruption of the Koran, by a human designated prophet named Mohammed, is real. What is has turned into is similar to the top echelon of what is called the Democratic Party. And just as difficult to stop.
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.