Here's another real eye opener:
Posted on 01/27/2006 8:13:06 AM PST by bayouranger
Washington 's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.
(Excerpt) Read more at faithfreedom.org ...
I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked... Ping!
Nah, he's just an old-school Buchananite isolationist who thinks poor, victimized Islam will suddenly become peaceful if the world would stop bullying them on behalf of the evil Zionists.
He's obviously never seen the inside of a Koran. Either that, he he sympathizes with certain elements of it (I'll leave the "which elements" part to your imagination).
Is it impossible for you to believe that some Arabs would NOT want American Military presence in their Holy Land?
Why do you think we moved our bases out of Saudi Arabia
That's a pretty liberal use of the word "holy". SA is the epicenter of islams unholy conquests. Don't forget this infidel..we were NOT allowed to use the Prince Sultan airbase for GW2.
So why the move of bases out of SA?
The agenda Islam has for EVERYONE including every single human being on the planet:
1. CONVERT to Islam and live by "Islamic Religious Law"
OR
2. SUBMIT to Islam and live by "Islamic Religious Law" and be considered less than human pursuant to "Islamic Religious Law"
or
3 DIE
There are no other choices in their agenda.
So do I.
However...
We all know Islam is NOT a religion of "peace" as we in the United States define peace. We also know that most (all?) Muslims support conversion of the world to Islam, by force if necessary.
However, right now, most Muslims are sitting on the sidelines. They have NOT taken up arms against us, although they are not providing much help either.
The trick is to keep the Muslims who are not actively fighting us from joining in the fight against us. The constant refrain that Islam is a "religion of peace" is sending the truthful message that we do not wish to pick a fight with all of Islam.
Whether we can keep the war confined to a limited group of "radical" Muslims is not certain. If we fail, we will find ourselves in a worldwide religious war that the west is ill equipped to even understand. Most liberals still equate Islam with Christianity, and dislike the Christians more than the Muslims. These liberals have encouraged our enemies, and substantially weakened our ability to defend ourselves.
Although we hope we can avoid a wider war, current developments in the world do not bode well for our efforts to keep Islamic radicals from sweeping their more relaxed fellow believers from following in their footsteps. War is coming in Iran, and probably coming in Palestine as well. Syria is likely to join in. When this happens, it is easy to see how the rest of the Islamic world could be swept in as well.
It appears Iraq transferred its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction to Syria before we invaded, and Iran has developed its own. Iran has missiles that can hit Israel, and even much of Europe. Hezbollah has a terrorist network with people in every western nation. To think Iran and Syria have not provided WMD capability to these terrorists is delusional.
We could be standing on the verge of the first world war featuring the use of weapons of mass destruction.
The URL linked in the second post.
Did Buchanon really think that? I thought he was just isolationist for purposes of isolating ourselves from a problem(s) rather than dealing with the inevitable "ever diminishing world size."
As well as being "careful" about distinguishing between an "Illegal Invasion," and "migrant workers just here for a job."
I do like Pat.
Not when he hurts GOP, but he is one of the few and honest brave men left.
'Isolationist' is a compliment.
Because they(SA pigs) did not support the 2nd GW. You should check out the saudification website. Take a look at our so-called friends. See what type of handouts they give out at the Saudi-funded mosques, all 90+% of them. It's a real eye opener.
You don't think part of it was that our own agencies came to realize that same objectives can be achieved without offending people?
They had asked us in, then they asked us out. We usually don't stay in a country where the legitimate government (questionable in the case of SA I know, but recognized by the whole world) of a country does not want us, unless we are at war with that country.
True.
Since Qatar and UAE are available, it was concluded same military obejectives can be achieved without riling local populace.
Hey, listen up. My unit was in GW1 & 2, and Afaganistan later on. I'm all for helping out in any way possible. What I'm getting at is this:
We are always willing to confront evil in the world, but in this instance..we have been avoiding the true nature of this war.
Islam is not a religion of peace.
EOD.
Off to work.
Take care FReepers!
Me too...thanks!
Here's another real eye opener:
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.