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 ...
placemark
Your statement insults the American men and women who are living, fighting, and dying with and for Iraqi and Afghani Muslims.
No, I'm suggesting that we deport public converts to Islam and revoke all known Islamic immigrants. We should start tomorrow. There might well be some green eyed and blue eyed citizen converts. I'd put them first on the list.
This man is so right.
Don't forget theirs is one of the most patriotic generations of Americans. The Vietnam Vets are among their generation. The vets, especially the ones here, know the dirty low down on freedom -- that sometimes you have to fight tooth and nail for it.
I shudder to think what will become of us when the Vietnam Vets are gone. I hope this new crop of Gulf War vets is learning from their old commanders, and I trust they are.
Understood. And I'm thinking of the Swift Boat Vets, who kept John Kerry out of the Oval office in 2004. I have to say that I was amazed that they succeeded.
No it doesn't, and anyway, you already used that same line earlier.
Your schtick is worn out - you need a new and improved one.
In WWII, the US interned more Italians than Japanese and Germans combined. Both the Italians and the Japanese were fairly readily distinguishable from run-of-the-mill, waspish Americans (the Japanese much moreso, obviously).
Many Japanese and Germans were found to be spying for the Axis powers against the USA. No Italians ever were.
Yet the Italians were the very last to ever ask for recognition, and official apologies. Very few (unlike the Japanese) ever sought land or financial reparations.
Today we are constantly battling against political arms of the muslim believers who keep insisting there is not and never has been, an elephant in the room. But if we are only to judge by history, then using it as a guide, it is clear to see that every nation in which islam and its adherents have achieved first a foothold, then protection of its rights and later political power and representation - has come under attack by islam from within and without.
They are not foolish enough to risk supporting nor acting out full-blown deeds of war when they yet lack sufficiency of numbers, but make no mistake in your blithe ignorance - when and if they can, they most certainly will. History demonstrates this as a repeated pattern.
They lie to our faces (because their religion not only permits, but proscribes it) and laugh behind our backs as they plan and plot and use our Constitution against us.
They care absolutely nothing for it; it is worth less than toilet paper to them, and you deceive yourself if you think otherwise. Shariya law, not the constitution of the US or any other country, must have primacy over the daily lives of every muslim. Otherwise they are nothing but an apostate muslim to their brothers.
We must be willing to in a limited scope, temporarily abrogate our Constitution (as was done in the case of the Italians, Japanese, and some Germans during WWII) if we are serious about surviving this war on terror.
We should do it in this case to ferret out an enemy moving among us at will and less distinguishably than the aforementioned ethnic groups, we can do it in a humane manner, we have done it before and our republic has survived and become stronger.
For all the errors in judgment and grievances AMericans have been guilty of in our history, we have also shown a unique capacity in all the world to admit where we have erred, redress the wrongs, and bind ourselves together as a people once more.
If we fail to do what is needed here to protect our people from this gathered threat, our Constitution will be declared summarily irrelevant by those who steer the Phony Religion Of Peace.{P.R.O.P.)
And that would be the greater sin, given that so many educated fingers point out the historical consequences.
A.A.C.
There is no place in civilised society for a faithfully practising mohammadan adherent, for a blood trail follows in his wake.
Very well put, thank you. There is a time and a place for answering these inane arguments against self-defense, a God-given right. Now is the time. I refuse to be silent while clever miscreants plan the destruction of my society under the guise of religious freedom. I know what religious freedom is, and I'll defend it. We'll make sure we still have it after the war is over.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out to me a long term society under the boot of Islam that ISN'T, cruel, enslaving, and waring with anyone that questions their autority to rule the world under the evil Islam.
Bump
Deportation based on religion is a violation of the First Amendment. In addition, CJ is quite right that it insults the Afghnistan and Iraqi troops we are working with.
You are full of lots of bluster and ranting, but the President was quite right in defusing the religious war aspect of this. Given the uneducated state of the majority of the world's Moslems, we cannot declare a religious war, even if it were true, which on our part it is not. A religious war declaration (and deportation of Muslims) would alienate people we need to help us. We need countries like Jordan, Turkey, and Indonesia to support us, or at least not actively work against us.
You are not in charge of foreign policy, and how lucky we are that is the case!
I suppose now you will call me (select one) a Muslim sympathizer, a Bush-bot, a RINO, or just plain stupid. Guess what: I don't care.
I didn't want to believe this either. But the truth is the truth, no matter how painful.
In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.Mohammed and Mohammedanism
Catholic Encyclopedia (1911)
"Moderate" Mohammedans are simply cultural Mohammedans. They don't take the tenets of their religion seriously.
And yet we've used deportation and internment before during WWII. Is the situation any better now?
What if the Shinto religion had been declared protected by the first amendment during WWII? Would we have not rounded up most of the Japanese on the west coast and interred them on that basis? Would we have avoided confronting Japan in the Pacific with our oil and ore blockade during the late 1930s? Although the point isn't quite analogous to our situation, you can at least see that followers of a fanatical religion should not be enabled to neutralize our defenses through our own laws. Consider Satanism: is it a 'religion' and do you find human sacrifice a protected practice? Of course not. Islam, with its poor record of citizenship, is impossible to differentiate between a death cult and a valid religion. I'm not making this up. The 700 casualties from last week stand in quiet testimony. So do the 49 dead. And so do the 3,000 dead from 9/11.
In addition, CJ is quite right that it insults the Afghnistan and Iraqi troops we are working with.
Not at all. In fact, it should invigorate them. They should know that we are serious about winning this war. They should understand that we will not be tricked into letting down our defenses. Until we do get serious enough to defend our homeland against immigrants and converts, do you think they seriously believe we can win on their own territory? The war is being fought with much of our capacity to win held in check by political correctness. I think the 700 casualties from King's Cross should remind you that we can't afford PC anymore.
We need countries like Jordan, Turkey, and Indonesia to support us, or at least not actively work against us.
How can Jordan or Indonesia give you a shred of domestic security? They're foreign countries. What their citizens do should be irrelevant to whether or not your children make it home from school today.
Also, I didn't say a word about a religious war. I simply said that I can't trust people who devoutly believe in Islam enough to live here in America. It's up to them to change our mind. Besides, with that hope of yours -- that we'll get enough help -- what will you do if you see it failing? How will you know if it is failing? What evidence might let you know that the policy isn't working? Will you consider any evidence at all?
I argue that the 700 casualties could become 7,000 or 7,000,000 next time. When will enough casualties let you know that we can't secure our homeland until we're deporting fundamentalist Muslims? Are you at least ready to limit their immigration by religion? Are you willing to profile Muslims? We have a problem that isn't being solved. How do you plan to solve it?
You are not in charge of foreign policy, and how lucky we are that is the case!
This is domestic policy. Think about it. Our domestic policy is what has set us up for continued inability to defend your children. Are you prepared to continue sticking to that now failed policy, even when 7,000,000 people might die in the next attack?
What do you think about the evacuation of Birmingham? What if there had been a dirty bomb, and what if all 20,000 of those people were dying of radiation poisoning now? Would you at least consider altering the course then?
It took deadly nerve gas, mass graves and plastic shredders to quiet down Iraq so that Saddam's minority Baathists could run the country.
That's what some poster in here means by "taking it up another notch...".
The only thing that will slow down the Islamists is brute force and deadly force.
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.