Posted on 07/10/2005 9:19:10 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The slaughter in London is another grisly wake-up call that likely will go as unheeded as earlier ones. Already the standard narrative is being trotted out: evildoers created by what the New York Times predictably called the “root causes of terrorism”: autocracy, or economic stagnation, or Palestinian suffering, or globalization's dislocations, or Western historical sins, or the war in Iraq (the cause will depend on the political prejudices of the pundit) have “hijacked” Islam and distorted its peaceful message.
And now they are using Islam to justify murder in order to further their own ambitions or dysfunctional psychic needs. Given this explanation, so the story goes, we must be careful not to demonize all Muslims and assure them that we respect their religion and culture. The tale is then wrapped up with fierce threats against the terrorists and protestations of admiration for Islam.
Believing this delusion requires that one ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic jihad against the West, a war of conquest and colonization ratified by centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called “moderates” — those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights — who are the radicals and innovators.
The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam.
Listen to one of the most respected and influential of Muslim clerics, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, on the legitimacy of jihad:
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
"You are right. They'd willingly be slaughtered, than fight for their own country. Millions of Rachel Corries endangering the rest of us, while trying to prevent us from implementing national security. Can we deport them, too???"
They are mentally ill and add to our problems instead of helping.
I see the Muslim threat as an inanimate object -- like a mountain; or you can think of them as a natural phenomenon, like a hail storm or an earthquake.
The enemy is truly our own political correctness.
The outrage I feel is when I hear our leaders demanding that we fight this war without winning it for "generations." It could be over in a couple of weeks if we'd fight it with true resolve. Fewer westerners would die if we only had the will to use the force we (still) can muster. A day might come when we won't feel so confident. I say we should lose the confidence now and fight like it's our last battle. For all we know, the Chinese are waiting in the wings. When our economy is finally in shreds, do you believe for a minute that they'll be merciful?
We never would have won WWII if the ROP faction had been granting pagan and nature worship religious status to the Nazis and the Japanese. One can never eradicate evil, but one mustn't coddle it.
In any case, I sure appreciate the warm welcome.
Thank you!
I have already identified the enemy to my own satisfaction. My task now is to clearly identify them over and over, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, to those I know, and those I meet. My task is to expose to those "fence-sitters" the blatant lies, propaganda, and errors in thinking and reasoning which have been built up around the P.R.O.P.* {Phony Religion Of Peace}.
Tear down the bulwarks of fraud! islaamus mortus est!
A.A.C.
bump
I quite agree!
That said, I favor all muslims being under compulsion of a special law to swear loyalty oaths...
For one reason, and one reason only: It gives the US a legal pretext on a silver platter to monitor them, and to strip them of their citizenship and imprison/deport them as national security necessitates.
Not because for one moment do I believe that more than a smattering of them would sincerely intend to fulfil their oaths.
A.A.C.
Well we know that many liberals are mentally ill, but how do we keep them from jeopardizing our safety?
Excellent article.
But what would the ACLU say??? I think your idea has merit. It would be an "act of good faith".
Sounds like someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on.
How did we handle them 30 years ago before anti social behavior became a PC cause?
wowee , I missed this thread yesterday , ping for a.m. coffee
Better to be an "anonymous nobody" according to the claim of but one, than a unanimous a$$ by the popular acclaim of many, shall we suppose...
My "getting any" at home, or lack thereof, although not your business, is neither a source for boasting nor complaining in any respect.
It is a pity that in the absence of evidence sufficient to support your own aspired-to arguments, you seem impelled to self-immolate what little credibility some in this forum might have ascribed to you, doing so through declasse, misguided, and unprovoked ad hominem attacks, and through putting words and concepts in the mouths of others which did not originate from them.
If it is your sole purpose to provoke an angry, hasty reaction which you might them utilize to manufacture some semblance of victory, or moral superiority in this arena of ideas...
Know that I'm laughing myself partially silly over such a piteous effort, and I am not alone in my bemusement.
better luck next time, kid - you seem to need it.
A.A.C.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14660
THE KEY TO JIHADIST IDEOLOGY (SNIP)
"...It is these notions, deeply embedded in the jidadis’ reading of the life of Muhammed, and not determined by what is happening in what we think of as the real world, that determine their major strategic directions and whom they choose to kill. For example, the terrorists who murdered 190 people in Madrid on March 11, 2004 did not target Spain because of its involvement with the U.S.-led Iraqi reconstruction; the group had been planning the Madrid attack for two years, going back to before the American invasion of Iraq. They attacked Spain because it was the Near Enemy—a formerly Islamic land that they hoped to win back for Islam. Similarly, regarding the all-important question whether the Wahhabist Osama bin Laden would have been willing to work with the secularist Apostate Saddam Hussein in an attack on America, Habeck says it is entirely possible, because bin Laden believes that his primary enemy is the Greater Unbelief, the United States, and therefore in the short term he would cooperate with an Apostate such as Hussein. Then, after America had been finished off with Hussein's help, bin Laden with the enhanced power and prestige gained from that victory could redirect the jihad back at Hussein and other Moslem Apostates.
The key point is that, while specific actions by the West might provoke the jihadis to greater attacks, their fundamental strategic and military decisions are not determined by anything done by the United States or Europe or by other major enemies of Islam such as the Hindus, but rather by which Method of Muhammed each jihadi faction follows, and each of these strategies has its own internal rationality, though it is not a rationality that makes sense in non-Islamic terms.
The same is true for Wahhabism itself, says Habeck. Wahhabism began in the 18th century when there was no Western colonial power in the Islamic world; it was not set off by any Western intrusion into the Moslem lands. Similarly, the contemporary Islamist idea that America is the center of all that is evil in the world, making America the “Greater Unbelief”, was conceived by a Moslem scholar between 1948 and 1951 when he was residing in the United States. This was decades before the U.S. had any large-scale involvement with Israel, and decades before its culture spiraled downhill, though, from the point of view of that visiting Moslem, America was already quite decadent at that point and ripe for destruction..."
Welcome to Free Republic John Filson!
We are told..."we must be careful not to demonize all Muslims and assure them that we respect their religion and culture."
WHAT? Why would we respect their religion and culture? I said this months ago, and I will say it again... It can't be bought, coerced, bullied or legislated. Respect MUST be earned. There is NOTHING about their culture, religion, prophet or koran that deserves respect! Mohamed is evil, the koran teaches evil and its followers are forced to submit to its hate-filled teachings.You submit or you die.
Why are they attempting to legislate "hate-crimes" against anyone speaking out against islam? Because it can't succumb to inspection or criticism. That would expose it for what it really is...an ideology of hate, vengeance, murder and ultimately world domination!
They tell us over and over that they are waging jihad in order to establish the global hegemony of Islam, and we tell ourselves that these Muslims don't understand their own religion.
They admit they want total world domination, and we are so arrogant we think that it can NEVER happen here. Well, we better wake up. They are using our democracy, our Constitution,our lawyers (ACLU) and our own courts to gain power. Look at what they have done elsewhere.
The liberal, hate America crowd will gladly hand our Country right over to them!
In any conflict it's a good idea to take seriously the motives the enemy professes and not rationalize or explain them away in terms of your own cultural assumptions.
Exactly! Their motives are to destroy our Freedom and to dominate the world. Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?
Political Correctness needs to be abolished and we need some leaders willing to stand up and speak the TRUTH!
The information came from this comment:
Posted by razoroccam to GOPJ On News/Activism ^ 07/11/2005 1:36:04 PM EDT · 158 of 218 ^ The building at the center of the Kaaba is the house that Abraham and Ishmael built together.
Here's some information about razoroccam -- maybe you've "learned more in five years than he's learned in a lifetime" so prove it -- what do you think is at Mecca?
http://www.freerepublic.com/~razoroccam/
A physician, scientist, corporate executive, author, and biotechnology/pharmaceutical analyst.
My articles
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9284.html
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9119.html
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8694.html
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9520.html
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=10031.html
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=11455
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12032&catcode=13
Interviews at ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/WTC_weaponsengineering011005.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/WTC_bioterrorpreps011005.html
Reviews of my book, Germs of War (http://www.booksurge.com) http://www.scienceboard.net/resources/bookreviews.asp?cat=1&book=77
I don't know. How did we handle them 30 years ago. I was still in HS back then ;-)
So what was done with screaming liberals back then? My parents censored my tv watching(guess they didn't want me to see the VietNam protests), but Jane Fonda was a bad word in my home.
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.