PLEASE BE ADVISED, THE PROBLEM IS ISLAM

Radical Islam is understandably perceived as the origin of the majority of terrorism today. The average Muslim on the other hand, is perceived as being a group that would never become involved with terrorism. This perception is seriously flawed and fatally dangerous. What is the source that feeds radical Islam? The religious ideation is extrapolated from the Koran itself. Islam's sacred literature is the source, which allows for the terrorist attacks we see today. Islam is thought to be a peaceful religion. Both history and current events prove otherwise.

Islam is very clear about not being friends with Christians even though Allah is the Arabic name for God. However the God of Islam is not the God Christians worship.

Sura "5.51": O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them;

Islam differs sharply with Christianity on cardinal doctrines like the divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity. The Koran clearly teaches to kill and dismember your enemies and espouses war for the advancement of Islam. Warfare against unbelievers is repeatedly taught in the Koran. Not every Muslim would ascribe to Jihad and secretly plot against the United States. However sources say Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. (5) With a world population of one in five persons being Muslim, and estimates of 15%, which are radical Muslims, and another 15%, which can be swayed to become radical Muslims, the problem should be apparent. With a population of over one billion Muslims the estimates are 150 million radicals currently with an additional 150 million Muslims who can be recruited into the ranks of radical Islam (6)

While I'm not exactly sure of what I posted that would inspire you to apparently refer to me as a "know nothing", let me say that I'm reasonably well aware of the facts on the ground.

None of the facts you cited surprised me in the least (though you should probably be vewy, vewy cawefull about Wikipedia if you'we doing anything sewious).

As for what I posed about terrorist preferring "soft targets" ... this couldn't possibly be the source for your comment if it was aimed at me. The simple truth is that even a suicide bomber enjoins a lower risk to the "success" of his mission if his targets fall into the class of hardened military assets like pizzerias, weddings, or the dreaded public bus.

This is what distinguishes a "terrorist" from an old school ununiformed partisan: one targets exposed personnel and civilians as a matter of preference in order to inspire terror and fear. The other targets the military forces it opposes. One relies on the cowardice of the enemy––which may well be far away in relative safety. The other relies on the bravery of the local population to endure what an occupier may do in reprisal.

The list could go on, but you get the idea.

Terrorism is a political and public relations war foisted on a people in hopes that they will be prove to be led by Chamberlins rather than Churchills.

It isn't really a bad bet either: even after the way Churchill was proved so very right the Brits couldn't wait to get rid of him till the next emergency arose ... so it may safely be assumed that––"Good being dumb." to quote Dark Helmet––people who don't even have a clue about this sort of evil have acted especially stupid in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

What we see in this article is something not uncommon. The author takes the most bloodthirsty xenophobic verses from the Koran and saying this is the heart of Islam this is what all Muslims believe. The interesting thing is OBL and the terrorists would agree with the writer.
If I may suggest
Knowing the enemy (part I)
Islamdaily.net ^ | 11/22/06 | Mary Habeck

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742640/posts

Who is the enemy, and what is this thing called jihadism that everyone has been talking about? Jihadism is a modern word, not something from the Quran. Jihadis, or jihadists, call themselves salafi jihadi or salafiyya jihadiyya (-iyya in Arabic is equivalent to -ism). When I first saw the term in early 2002, I thought it perfectly described the people we’re fighting and that the ideal name for the conflict we’re involved in might be a war on jihadis, or war on jihadism. However, the root of jihadism is “jihad,” which is actually a good word within Islam.
(snip)
_______________________________________

Knowing the enemy (part II)
Islamdaily ^ | 11/23/06 | Mary Habeck
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1743374/posts

___________________________________

The radical loser (Long Read)
Der Spiegel ^ | 1/12/05 | Hans Magnus Enzensberger

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694568/posts

snip)

There is also no mistaking other similarities, such as the fixation with written authorities. The place of Marx and Lenin is taken by the Koran, references are made not to Gramsci but to Sayyid Qutb. Instead of the international proletariat, it takes as its revolutionary subject the Umma, and as its avant-garde and self-appointed representative of the masses it takes not The Party but the widely branching conspiratorial network of Islamist fighters. Although the movement can draw on older rhetorical forms which to outsiders may sound high-flown or big-mouthed, it owes many of its idées fixes to its Communist enemy: history obeys rigid laws, victory is inevitable, deviationists and traitors are to be exposed and then, in fine Leninist tradition, bombarded with ritual insults.

The movement's list of favourite foes is also short on surprises: America, the decadent West, international capital, Zionism. The list is completed by the unbelievers, that is to say the remaining 5.2 billion people on the planet. Not forgetting apostate Muslims who may be found among the Shiites, Ibadhis, Alawites, Zaidites, Ahmadiyyas, Wahhabis, Druze, Sufis, Kharijites, Ishmaelites or other religious communities.

(snip)

Contrary to what the West appears to believe, the destructive energy of Islamist actions is directed mainly against Muslims. This is not a tactical error, not a case of "collateral damage". In Algeria alone, Islamist terror has cost the lives of at least 50,000 fellow Algerians. Other sources speak of as many as 150,000 murders, although the military and the secret services were also involved. In Iraq and Afghanistan, too, the number of Muslim victims far outstrips the death toll among foreigners. Furthermore, terrorism has been highly detrimental not only to the image of Islam but also to the living conditions of Muslims around the world.

The Islamists are as unconcerned about this as the Nazis were about the downfall of Germany. As the avant-garde of death, they have no regard for the lives of their fellow believers. In the eyes of the Islamists, the fact that most Muslims have no desire to blow themselves and others sky high only goes to show that they deserve no better than to be liquidated themselves. After all, the aim of the radical loser is to make as many other people into losers as possible. As the Islamists see it, the fact that they are in the minority can only be because they are the chosen few.

(snip)

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.