Terrorism Has 'Everything To Do With Islam,' Author Charges

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/13/02 | Marc Morano

[aardvark1]

When you are in a conflict and you don't know the true nature of your opponent, you are at a tremendous disadvantage

I think the problem is worse than this. I believe we actually do know the true nature of our opponent, but in our attempt to have the appearance of fairness, we refuse to act on what we know to be true.

[fporretto]

The Spencer book is a brilliant and terrifying thing. Working entirely from facts -- the Qur'an, the hadith of Muhammad's life, and the history of the spread of Islam -- he constructs a powerful case that Islam will never be compatible with American concepts of individual liberty, secular law, and human moral equality. Highly recommended.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[gPal]

killing close to 3000 of us in one day wasn't enuf...it's just in our nature to wait for a really major catastrophe...when 10s or 100s of thousands of us are killed(by chems/bios or a more probable nuke shipped to ny docks)...then and only then will the borders be *almost* closed to arabs(muslims) along with 10s of thousands of muslims being deported and/or interred...that is of course if doing so doesn't cost *too* much oil or money...

[livius]

"we refuse to act on what we know to be true.

I think this is partly a distorted attempt to be "fair" and partly real confusion about how to deal with this ancient enemy of the West (and of Christians, Jews and even Hindus everywhere).

We are more or less prepared to fight the modern "isms" but not for a resurgence of an enemy that has, since its birth, been trying to conquer or kill anyone who refuses to accept it. One of Spencer's excellent points was that there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam, and that the "moderates" are, sadly, the ones who are out of step with Islam, because it is violent in its scriptures and from its very earliest years.

If I recall correctly, Mohammed fought 70+ battles - and only one of them was defensive.

[RAY]

This pains me to state, but Robert Spencer speaks the truth. Islam is a religion of piece only when it is on their warped terms. These Islamic people will never rest or peacefully co-exist in a “freedom of religion” secular society, and in fact, will continue to oppress in any society.

In truth, their society, with respect to religion has not matured enough to coexist in a free society. Their growth rate in the US is truly alarming. If a majority, or a significant number, they will be much more of a problem, they religion simply is counter to the basic tenants of this country’s founding. It seems, we can thank the feel good politicians of the 60’s, including the Kennedys / Democrats for this sorry state of immigration – and the blight it has created.

[fivecatsandadog]

Their growth rate in the US is truly alarming

This past September, Hillsdale College (Michigan) held a seminar on the topic, “How to Think About Islam.” Nine guest speakers, both Islamic and non-Islamic, and several faculty members offered divergent views on several questions about radical Islam, terrorism, etc.. A flyer for this seminar somehow found its way to my mailbag here at work. A disturbing comment made by one of the professors really caught my attention: To renew itself, Islam must resume its pilgrimage. All the world will be better for it.

Full article here...

I think it's going to be a long ride. They're not going to stop until every one of us either converts to Islam or dies.

[holden]

To renew itself, Islam must resume its pilgrimage. All the world will be better for it.

Meaning: Islam has historically been left (i.e., put itself) in one desert after another. To find fresh oases, out of which it has not yet sucked its children's welfare, it now covets the wealth of the West. They may make enemies, but they're clever (they'll blaze the trail by killing and maiming dozens for each martyr--i.e., act cowardly), and they've got god on their side.

HF

[norraad]

The clearest understanding of the danger of icklam is right here on freerepublic. Thank you all.

[FreedomPoster]

>>I think the problem is worse than this. I believe we actually do know the true nature of our opponent, but in our attempt to have the appearance of fairness, we refuse to act on what we know to be true.

If you're talking about Dubya and "peaceful, friendly Muslims", I have another "take" on the situation:

Often, diplomacy consists of saying "nice doggie!" to a snarling mongrel, whilst looking for a rock.

Hopefully I'm not just whistling in the dark.

[Skywalk]

I just love guys like Hooper who talk as if there are major Jewish or Christian movements like the Islamic Jihads and Al Qaedas. There simply AREN'T. It's not like some guy killed a bunch of people because he thought aliens told him to do so and he HAPPENED to be Muslim. They're killing people FOR their religion, and not just in one place, but all over.

Besides, the idea that it's not Islam is preposterous. Please show me the passages in the Lotus Sutra or anywhere else in Buddhism that call for the slaughter or deception of your enemies. Please point me to the massive Buddhist terrorist organizations bent on world domination.

When Islam apologists can do that, maybe i'll consider their case.

I think of it like this, compare Mohammad's life(according to the stories, at least) with Jesus or with Buddha. For all that, compare his life to Kung fu'tze or Lao tze. I can't think of a major religion that has as its CENTRAL figure someone so violent and who sanctions violence as the direct wish of God(let's not get into the Old Testament)

[GirlShortstop]

I just love guys like Hooper who talk as if there are major Jewish or Christian movements like the Islamic Jihads and Al Qaedas. There simply AREN'T.

Hooper has had more than enough time to study and deliver specifics if he wished... the lack of substance in his stance is quite revealing. The adopted defense of Islam that he's chosen could well be summed up as "nuh uh....I know you are, but what am I?"

[uncbuck]

"they've got god on their side."

They think...

We are a country that works while we stay a european culture. (Far east asians have adopted european style cultures as well, whether they want to admit it or not.)

We must adjust our imigration laws to keep this a european style culture!

[Stefan Stackhouse]

The new testament contains absolutely NOTHING that could even remotely be construed as a command or incitement to Christians to use violence against non-Christians, either to spread our faith or for any other reason. People who call themselves "Christians" and who have employed violence in the name of their religion are doing so in VIOLATION of Christian scriptural commands.

On the other hand, the Quran contains EXPLICIT language that COMMANDS violence by Muslims against non-Muslims, to spread their faith and or other reasons. People who call themselves "Muslims" and who have employed violence in the name of their religion are doing so in OBEDIENCE of Islamic scriptural commands.

This is a significant difference. The medieval "Christian crusaders", it can be argued, were being disobedient to their faith. The modern Islamic terrorists are being obedient to their faith. Thus, it is legitimate to focus on Islam itself as the issue.

[SlickWillard]

I can't think of a major religion that has as its CENTRAL figure someone so violent and who sanctions violence as the direct wish of God(let's not get into the Old Testament)

Actually, it's quite instructive to compare the Old Testament with the New Testament. The Sermon on the Mount is a devastating line-by-line refutation of Moses's ministry, and, as such, is one of the secondary reasons the Rabbis loath Jesus to this day.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

they've got god on their side.

No, what they actually have on their side is the Prince of Lies, the old deceiver, the leader of the Jenn, Lucifer. How shrewd of him to disguise himself as a counterfeit of the angels serving the one and true God, and thus to lead billions astray. How shrewd of him to use a fraudulent "prophet" to mislead billions away from Christ. How shrewd of him to use a violent, profane man to start a violent, profane religion that wages war against the true religion founded by the Prince of Peace.

Islamic terrorists are violent, hateful people because they are faithful followers of a violent, hateful religion founded by a violent, hateful man through the inspiration of a violent, hateful Satan.

When someone claims that "Islam is a religion of peace" I am reminded of what was said of the ancient Romans: "They created a desert and called it 'peace'".

[TLBSHOW]

Spencer believes the U.S. is not prepared to fight a war on terrorism because the nation fails to understand the true nature of Islam. says Robert Spencer, author of Islam Unveiled We are at WAR with ISLAM, the sooner we ACCEPT the TRUTH the sooner we will WIN! Islam is the enemy and terror is a bi-product of this enemy we face. The sooner we accept who the enemy is the way to victory will become clear. said TLBSHOW

[agrace]

"Islam promotes itself first and foremost as a religion of peace ... Islam spread throughout Southeast Asia and Africa entirely by peaceful means," Young told CNSNews.com.

You bet, I'm sure it's only recently that Muslims in Africa (the Sudan, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast etc) and Southeast Asia (the Philippines, Indonesia etc) have resorted to violence to get their point across. </ sarcasm >

[F16Fighter]

"If you're talking about Dubya and 'peaceful, friendly Muslims', I have another "take" on the situation:

Often, diplomacy consists of saying "nice doggie!" to a snarling mongrel, whilst looking for a rock. Hopefully I'm not just whistling in the dark."

I concur...

We should assume that behind closed doors Dubya has been counseled that ALL Islam is indeed diametrically opposed to ALL non-Islamic culture and religion, thus it's believers a genuine threat inside America every day of the week. Whatever we see or hear on TV from Dubya is pure show to "let sleeping dogs lie" -- for now.

[tsomer]

When you are in a conflict and you don't know the true nature of your opponent, you are at a tremendous disadvantage."

Even worse-- when you're in a conflict and don't know yourself.

At least Bush doesn't have that problem.