The unnecessary sacrificing of American blood and treasure

How many of the Iraqis whom our military valiantly and selflessly risk life and limb to aid believe it is their duty -- just as it was Mohammed's -- to "fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle"? How many of our bravest and best sacrificing for these Iraqi children (and for us) understand that the Ideology which replenishes their enemies' ranks faster than they can deplete them is Islam?

How many of them realize that -- contrary to what our Commander-In-Chief claims -- Islam is not a Great World Religion of Peace but the malevolent dictates of a god of blood? How many realize that the President of the United States, the most powerful man on Earth, is needlessly sacrificing them to the gods of Multiculturalism?

How long will the President persist in this suicidal misapprehension?

Unsurprisingly impeccable judgment from a usual suspect

From here:

. . . even as we provide the global jihad with legitimate justification for attacking the U.S. civilian population by continuing to occupy land that isn't ours.

The moral inversion in this statement is disgusting; it's limited understanding embarrassing.

There is no justification for attacks on our civilians. This author should have said "as we provide the global jihad with another pretext for attacking" our civilian population.

Of course, to Allah and his false prophet, no Infidel civilian is truly innocent (nor, when circumstances require the proper vocabulary, even a "civilian"). Regrettably, to the nescient and self-centered It's All About Us. We Deserve It.

Suicide bombing is just one tactic used in today's Global Jihad. There are many other ways to subjugate or kill Infidels in order to establish the rule of Allah. Just ask the House of Saud, Ahmed Bedier, or Mahmoud A.

How many of those "Communist and Socialist Arab" suicide bombers were Methodists? Of those three-hundred-plus attacks, how many were directed against Israel (wrongly defined by their Islamic, MSM, and European Socialist/Muslim-appeasing enemies as "Occupiers")?

Whose land were we occupying when the Barbary pirates attacked, killed, and enslaved American sailors in the early days of the Republic? What about when a resurgent Jihad exploded against the United States in '79, '83, and throughout the '90's? In 2000? Whom were we oppressing when nineteen devils in the service of Allah used our own planes to slaughter thousands on 9/11?

Whose lands were the ancient pagan, Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, and animist populations of the Old World "occupying" when Islam slaughtered, raped, enslaved, and subdued them?

What this pundit (and those he mocks) fail to understand is that the only "legitimate justification" needed by the faithful Muslim to war against and kill Infidels is the command of Allah, the example of his false prophet, and the fact that we are not Muslim.

To faithful Muslims, all Infidel land is rightly seen as belonging to Allah. It just our fault for being on it before they got here.

The difficulties facing an honest and decent Muslim

How is a statement like the one below received by other Muslims? Judging by the lack of public demonstrations in support of it, not too enthusiastically.

Surely Dr. Hamid has and will face charges of apostasy and blasphemy from his own, and accusations of intolerance from the Infidel Left for his brutally honest critique of Islam (thereby exposing the suicidal worthlessness of Multiculturalism). In fact, at his site he notes a less-than-tolerant reception from fellow Muslims:

For over fifteen years I have tried to preach my views in mosques in the Middle East, as well as to my local community in the West, but have faced the unwavering hostility of most Salafi Muslims in both regions. Muslims who live in the West—who insist to outsiders that Islam is a “religion of peace” and who enjoy freedom of expression, which they demand from their Western hosts—have threatened me with murder and arson. I have had to choose between accepting violent Salafi views and being rejected by the overwhelming majority of my fellow Muslims. I have chosen the latter.

It appears that "tiny minority of extremists" are neither tiny nor misinterpreting Islam.

And as the President reassures us that Islam is a great religion of peace and "conservative" pundits like Hugh Hewitt refuse to even open Islam's sacred texts (or to receive those who have with anything better than contempt and derision), the problem in the West grows:

As time has passed, this violent and threatening behavior has become more common: Dr. Wafa Sultan in the US, Abdul Fatah in Egypt, and many, many others have received and continue to receive death threats. Recently, Dr. Nawal Al-Sadawi, a liberal Muslim thinker and women’s rights activist, was forced to flee Egypt because of her public statements. Dr. Rashad Khalifa was murdered in the United States after he published his own re-interpretation of the Quran which was less violent than was traditional. In Egypt, Dr. Faraq Fuddah was shot to death after publishing condemnations of Jihadists. Egyptian Nobel Prize winner Najib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck for writing his novel, Awlad Haretna, perceived by Salafists as blasphemous. The list goes on. Still, the majority of members in many Muslim communities have adopted the violent teachings of the Islamists.

Tragically, the difficulties with Islam cited by the good doctor are the direct expression of the will of Allah and the example of his apostle (as recorded in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira). Finding a way for good, decent Muslims to remain so seems an insurmountable challenge, since the problems Dr. Hamid notes are exactly what Allah and his prophet from hell want:

When I discussed the implications of the violent passages with a few Sufi clergy, they suggested that one “should be good and peaceful to all mankind” and that “the understanding of the violent verses will be clarified on the day of judgment.” These views were not based on rigorous Islamic eschatology, however, or on an objective analysis of the religious books. They merely embodied a desired perception of Islam. My secular parents offered the same tolerant perspective, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. But for me both responses were unsatisfactory because they suffered from the same problem—they were not theologically grounded. My difficulty was not resolved, and I continued to live with a complex dilemma.

From here:

I was born a Muslim and lived all my life as a follower of Islam.

After the barbaric terrorist attacks done by the hands of my fellow Muslims everywhere on this globe, and after the too many violent acts by Islamists in many parts of the world, I feel responsible as a Muslim and as a human being, to speak out and tell the truth to protect the world and Muslims as well from a coming catastrophe and war of civilizations.

I have to admit that our current Islamic teaching creates violence and hatred toward Non-Muslims. We Muslims are the ones who need to change.

Until now we have accepted polygamy, the beating of women by men, and killing those who convert from Islam to other religions.

We have never had a clear and strong stand against the concept of slavery or wars, to spread our religion and to subjugate others to Islam and force them to pay a humiliating tax called Jizia.

We ask others to respect our religion while all the time we curse non-Muslims loudly (in Arabic) in our Friday prayers in the Mosques.

What message do we convey to our children when we call the Jews "Descendants of the pigs and monkeys"…. Is this a message of love and peace, or a message of hate?

I have been into churches and synagogues where they were praying for Muslims. While all the time we curse them, and teach our generations to call them infidels, and to hate them.

We immediately jump in a ‘knee jerk reflex' to defend Prophet Mohammed when someone accuses him of being a pedophile while, at the same time, we are proud with the story in our Islamic books, that he married a young girl seven years old (Aisha) when he was above 50 years old.

I am sad to say that many, if not most of us, rejoiced in happiness after September 11th and after many other terror attacks.

Muslims denounce these attacks to look good in front of the media, but we condone the Islamic terrorists and sympathise with their cause. Till now our ‘reputable' top religious authorities have never issued a Fatwa or religious statement to proclaim Bin Laden as an apostate, while an author, like Rushdie, was declared an apostate who should be killed according to Islamic Shar'ia law just for writing a book criticizing Islam.

Muslims demonstrated to get more religious rights as we did in France to stop the ban on the Hejab (Head Scarf), while we did not demonstrate with such passion and in such numbers against the terrorist murders.

It is our absolute silence against the terrorists that gives the energy to these terrorists to continue doing their evil acts.

We Muslims need to stop blaming our problems on others or on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

As a matter of honesty, Israel is the only light of democracy, civilization, and human rights in the whole Middle East.

We kicked out the Jews with no compensation or mercy from most of the Arab countries to make them "Jews-Free countries" while Israel accepted more than a million Arabs to live there, have its nationality, and enjoy their rights as human beings. In Israel, women can not be beaten legally by men, and any person can change his/her belief system with no fear of being killed by the Islamic law of ‘Apostasy,' while in our Islamic world people do not enjoy any of these rights.

I agree that the ‘Palestinians' suffer, but they suffer because of their corrupt leaders and not because of Israel.

It is not common to see Arabs who live in Israel leaving to live in the Arab world. On the other hand, we used to see thousands of Palestinians going to work with happiness in Israel, its 'enemy'. If Israel treats Arabs badly as some people claim, surely we would have seen the opposite happening.

We Muslims need to admit our problems and face them. Only then we can treat them and start a new era to live in harmony with human mankind.

Our religious leaders have to show a clear and very strong stand against polygamy, pedophilia, slavery, killing those who convert from Islam to other religions, beating of women by men, and declaring wars on non-Muslims to spread Islam. Then, and only then, do we have the right to ask others to respect our religion.

The time has come to stop our hypocrisy and say it openly: ‘We Muslims have to Change'.

Tawfik Hamid

One island of clarity in a vast sea of conservative nonsense

And not just the MSM are blind when it comes the Source and Sustenance of Islamic terrorism and other forms of Jihad, though on this poll some conservative pundits are experiencing mild to moderate cognitive dissonance.

From Diana West: Media bombs.

Funny how small 26 percent sounds when it describes, for example, the number of American voters who support the Senate's mass-amnesty, goody-bag bill for illegal aliens. In this case, the one in four people polled by Rasmussen this week who hope the legislation pass comes off as a minority voice, especially when compared to the whopping 72 percent of voters who favor border enforcement and the reduction of illegal immigration.

But 26 percent looms large when it describes the number of American Muslims, ages 18-29, who support suicide bombings "in defense of Islam" -- one of the sensational, if sensationally under-reported, findings of a recent Pew poll. According to Pew, the total Muslim population in America is 2.35 million, 30 percent of whom are between 18 and 29. By my figuring, the suicide-bomb-approving cohort works out to 183,000 people. The poll also tells us that 69 percent of younger American Muslims say suicide bombings are never justified. While representing a majority almost as great as the percentage of American voters who favor border enforcement, 69 percent in this particular case is wholly inadequate; indeed, it is a strikingly poor showing.

Why? In the case of the immigration bill, the poll reflects public opinion pertaining to a political process, a no-holds-barred, expletive-laced, free-for-all that, loathsome as it may sometimes seem, remains democratically rooted in a non-violent contest of ideas, politics and flim-flam. In such a context, one-quarter of anything pales next to three-quarters of anything.

In the case of suicide bombing, however, the context changes. According to Pew's data, one-quarter of younger American Muslims approve of the presence of skin-ripping, skull-crushing, organ-piercing violence in civilian life as a religious imperative -- "in defense of Islam." (The Pew pollsters declined to define "defense of Islam," but having lived through Pope Rage, Cartoon Rage, Koran Rage, Satanic Verses Rage, etc., I think it's safe to say this is a rather broad category.) Such approval for religious violence is not just another unfettered political opinion finding expression in a poll-taker's tally. On the contrary, the fact that a significant young chunk of American Islam believes such violence has a place in society indicates something closer to the end of unfettered political opinion. It may signal the beginning of physical coercion as a factor in the American political process. This helps explain why the 69 percent figure is no consolation prize; only unanimity is acceptable here.

It's not that a physical fear factor pertaining to mainly Islamic terrorism hasn't long existed -- just take a look at the dispiriting security perimeter erected around the Capitol, for instance. But this Pew poll may mark the first official acknowledgement that such violence, and, equally important, the threat of such violence, actually find approval within the American polity.

Something new and barbarous under the sun, right? This is why it's all the more disturbing to review the happy headline-spin the story received. The blogger Ace of Spades provided an early roundup of the Orwellian tags, which included: "Poll: Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle" (USA Today); "Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds" (New York Times); "Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook" (Voice of America). My personal fave: "Upbeat portrait of US Muslims" (Sacramento Bee). The accompanying stories were no less giddy.

But why the journalistic rush to depict the shocking story as so much happy talk? Therein lies a tale, one of fanatical religious fervor-on the part of the mainstream media (MSM). Like other politically correct elites, the MSM follow their own version of the "true faith": multiculturalism. Multiculturalism preaches that all civilizations are the same, all religions are the same, all peoples are the same. The Pew results, meanwhile, tell them something else again: Some people -- some young American Muslim people -- approve of suicide bombing in defense of Islam. Does this finding perhaps introduce a qualitative difference among civilizations, religions, and peoples?

That is, is there something more desirable about societies that don't inspire and glorify suicide bombings -- something worth preserving? Conversely, is there something about Islam our own society requires protection against? This is very tricky territory for the MSM. The logical answers are multiculturally blasphemous.

The MSM response: it's better to say nothing at all. Or better yet, just smile. Big grin. Happy story. It's one measly quarter, after all. Just one in four. And isn't that something to be upbeat about?

We do not need racial profiling in the War on Terror

For Islam is not a race.

Neither are we in a war against a tactic -- we are engaged in a War of Self-Defense Against Islam, a war which many have had to enter over the centuries, many of whom were too slow to respond, too unprepared to win, and too weak to survive.In baseball, two out of three would make an MVP or a batting champ. Two out of three here is killing us, and neither President Bush, his cabinet, nor his "center-right" pundits show any signs of realizing their fundamental error.

From here.

Hugh Hewitt is right to call for strong measures against allowing terrorists entry into our country. There is a problem, however.

Last week Hugh noted the need for greater scrutiny of Arab immigrants. He couldn’t be more wrong. This blindness—indicative of many in the West—has (and will) cost many American lives.

The problem is not the terrorists’ race, it is their ideology. That ideology is one of war and conquest of the non-Muslim for Allah. Mohammed commanded: “Fight against the people until they confess that none but Allah has the right to be worshiped and Allah is his messenger.” He also instructed the faithful in how to deal with Infidels: “. . . invite them to Islam . . . if they refuse, offer them to pay the poll tax [jizya] . . . if they refuse to pay, then fight . . . .”

Albanians were planning to carry out attacks here in the U.S. A story today notes that Muslim terrorist groups are recruiting among American blacks because, like Hugh, too many people are looking for “Arabs” or “Middle Eastern-looking men.”

The problem is Islam.

Italian bus jihad

The article only identifies the attackers as "Albanian." Buddhists, of course. From here:

MILAN, Italy (AP) - Three armed men hijacked a regional bus Tuesday in northern Italy and set it on fire after freeing the passengers, officials said. An off- duty police officer was injured and two of the three hijackers were apprehended.

The bus was traveling south from Alessandria to Acqui Terme, cities southwest of Milan, when the men—armed with a pistol and knives—took it over and forced the driver to turn off the highway and onto a state road heading in the opposite direction, a carabinieri official in nearby Novara said.

An off-duty police officer who was on board tried to intervene and was stabbed, but was not in serious condition, the official said.

The hijackers allowed the passengers to get off when the bus reached Alessandria again, but then forced the driver to keep going before the bus came to a stop near Trecate, on the outskirts of Novara farther to the north, Sky TG24 reported.

There was an exchange of fire and the gunmen set the bus on fire before fleeing, officials said. Two of the gunmen, both Albanian, were apprehended and authorities were seeking the third, the Novara carabinieri official said.

Another carabinieri official, who declined to give his name, said one of the gunman who was apprehended was being treated for an unspecified injury.

Fire crews and investigators picked through the burned-out skeleton of the bus as it continued to smolder. Sky TG24 said the men had doused the vehicle with gasoline they had brought with them before torching it.

Religious bigotry fueled by ignorance and bitter experience

Unlike that motivating much of the LDS' wolf-crying, this is an unfounded charge. A few comments on Instadhimmi's inaugural post:

My own experience, however, is that Christians can lose it, too. Death threats aren't the same as murder, of course. But I was appalled at the behavior I experienced, which included nasty threats, wishes that my wife would suffer Terri Schiavo's fate, and nasty phone calls to my home as my wife recovered from heart surgery. That behavior, from religious pro-lifers, seemed kind of un-Christian to me. So pardon me if my faith that things can never get worse is weaker than Bryan's.

It appears a certain personal animosity toward "Fundamentalist" Christians motivates the comparison with the Religion of Jihad. In his own words, Instapundit indicates the comparison is unfounded, yet he still makes it.

This brings certain points to mind:

First, isn't it improper to indict an entire religious group because of the actions of a few? Unlike Islam, name any cases of Fundamentalist Christians threatening and carrying out violence in the name of Christ and citing Biblical justifications for their actions.

Second, anyone who would equate Fill-in-the-Blank Christianity with Islam needs to "hit the books" and get it straight. Such an equivalence indicates compromised judgment, a dearth of knowledge, or both.

Third, Islamic violence against Infidels and Apostates is commanded by Allah and his apostle, and for nearly fourteen hundred years has been carried out around the world as Muslim knowledge, belief, resources, and zeal allowed. Though Christians have done evil, that behavior is contrary to the teachings of Christ and atypical.

Fourth, where are Hugh Hewitt's outrage and cries of "bigotry," or is that only reserved for justified theological criticism of his next PotUS?

Fifth, those who would call themselves "Christian" should strive to behavior properly in all circumstances.

When the facts desert you, just claim Religious bigotry

Is it really though? An all-knowing God must have created us certain in the knowledge that most of His children would never accept his word. He knew, before we were even born what our fates were to be. What sort of God creates a soul knowing full well it is destined only for Hell?

More to come.

Out, damned spot! out, I say!

The spot of false doctrine, that is. Persisting in error despite obvious and overwhelming contrary evidence does not wisdom make.

From here:

Latter day revelation has clarified many of the Biblical inaccuracies and inconsistencies that have resulted from translations.

Without the Original Texts (or their numerous manuscript copies, which we have today), how can you possibly know that "inaccuracies and inconsistencies" exist? Without the Originals (or their copies), how can you make any corrections?

Problems with translations are an entirely different category than copying anomalies. Translations can and should be revised using the best information available. Variations in manuscript copies of the Originals are easy to compare because so many copies exist that are from various geographic locations around ancient Christendom.

That a tilde or number in one family of copies is errant is possible to determine by comparing that manuscript with any of the manuscripts from other families.

All of that leads to a high degree of confidence that we know what the Original Manuscripts actually said.

Besides all of that, there is no way the Apostle John's quotation of Christ's statement that "God is Spirit" is a distortion of "god is an obedient, flesh-and-bone being fornicating on another planet."

To continue to promote such nonsense is utterly indefensible.

This is an area where you and I will most likely come to a disagreement. I believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and I believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

You believe that your god is either unwilling or unable to preserve his revelation, or if he is, that he doesn't mind contradicting himself.

Any deity that reveals one thing and then later contradicts his first story is a liar and a fraud.

I'm assuming you either do not believe in continued revelation or, at the very least, you do not believe that there is a living prophet today.

I believe that Jesus Christ will not contradict Himself. If any "prophet" comes along and says something other than what God has said, he is a liar and a charlatan.

I do. I have no tangible evidence of this. I have a personal testimony that it is true.

Subjectivism is no basis for religious faith. One's experience should be interpreted in light of what God has revealed through His Prophets and Apostles. If your personal experience leads you to embrace something contrary to the Word of Christ, you have allowed yourself to be deceived.

I agree with the scripture you mentioned. In the next life they are neither married or given in marriage. Marriage is an Early ordinance and cannot be performed after this life. Thus if you are not sealed on Earth you will not be sealed in Heaven.

No, He said they are not married, as in they are not in the state of being married. If he meant only that unions are not made in the next, He would not have then noted [*see below] . . . .

Also, Jesus specifically compares our state in the afterlife with regards to marriage by comparing us to His angels. Unless you want to say that they are married in this life and that carries over into the next, the only reasonable interpretation of this is that angels are unmarried and so will we be.

My whole intent was to share that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in the same God and Jesus Christ that the rest of the Christian community does.

It seems unwise to lie about YHWH and His Christ if you want to please Them.

*Correction on Matthew 22:30:

Shane wrote, "In the next life they are neither married or given in marriage."

In Shane's version, Christ seems to be making a contrast between a status and an act. In Christ's version, he notes our celibacy by comparing our marital status to the angels':

"Jesus answered, 'You’re mistaken because you don’t know the Scriptures or God’s power. When people come back to life, they don’t marry. Rather, they are like the angels in heaven.'"

Shane's "sealed on Earth, sealed in Heaven" adds to (and contradicts) Christ's revelation, something He forbids.

The sound you are about to hear . . .

. . . is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.

. . .

In the event of an actual emergency --

-the destruction of your Constitutional rights in the name of "the People";

-national, state, and local politicians pandering to a lazy, self-centered, greedy, irresponsible, and ignorant electorate (both groups feeding off your still-warm flesh like vultures);

-our political, media, and academic elites sleeping, lying, and stealing as the West hurtles to the edge of the precipice (with some even getting out to push);

-or the ubiquitous lie repeated ad nauseam, ad infinitum that the ideology inspiring fourteen centuries of global slaughter is actually a "Religion of Peace"

-- you would have been instructed where to tune in your area.

But no, nothing to see here, folks. Nothing at all. Move along now.

A more important issue

From here:

While some evangelical Christians are defending the presidential candidacy of Mormon Mitt Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, another prominent pastor is going further in his condemnation – saying a vote for the former Massachusetts governor is a vote for Satan.

The question of whether or not it is appropriate for Christians to vote for a Mormon for president is not nearly as important as making clear the fact that Mormonism teaches and preaches a false god, a false christ, and a false gospel.

Despite LDS protestations to the contrary, one cannot teach that god was an obedient, flesh-and-blood man procreating on an alien planet -- and that his son was a spirit brother to the devil -- and expect to be defined as "Christian."

Neither will a Christian reject the doctrines found in the Church's universal statements of faith: the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Islam preaches violence

Unless you are a sentient being.

The following appears to offer some useful factual information to those willing to wade past the hateful language, redundancy, and pseudo-psychoanalysis and through the blanket, anti-religious bigotry (talk about throwing the bathwater on the baby!):

Muslims . . . set his [Mohammed's] life as the perfect example to follow for all mankind (al-insan al-kamil).

Perfection as in:

• the decapitation of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza
• the attack on the Khaybar Oasis
• the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak for mocking Muhammad
• the marriage to little Aisha @6 and consummation at 9

For over 1400 years devout believers practiced Muhammad's example through . . . dawa, demographics, dhimmitude, and ultimately death to those of dar ul-harb [Jihad] . . .

• The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)
• The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)
• The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)
• The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)
• The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)
• The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)
• The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)
• The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)
• The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)
• The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)
• The Jihad against Chinese (751)
• The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)
• The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)
• The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)
• The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)
• The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)
• The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)
• The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)
• The Jihad against Romania (1350 to 1699)
• The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)
• The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)
• The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)
• The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)
• The Jihad against Albania (1332 - 1853)
• The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)
• The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)
• The Jihad against Austrians (1683)

Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)

• The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)
• The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)
• The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)
• The Jihad against the Germans (1945 onwards)
• The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao (1970 onwards)
• The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)
• The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)
• The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)
• The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)
• The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)
• The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)
• The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)
• The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)
• The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)
• The Global Jihad today (2001 – ongoing)
• The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001– ongoing)

All this time, providing countless examples of 'religiously inspired' murder, rape, slavery, extortion (jizyah), modern age pedophilia, piracy, thievery, deceit, fraud, desecration . . . all traits valued as the highest of morals in what some want to call 'one of the three great monotheisms' . . . and encompass all these 'virtues' as a religion . . . Islam.

Running from the facts is no way to win an argument

More from here.

JayHub continued, speaking of Israel . . .

". . . they won it by right of conquest in 1948, kicking out hundreds of thousands of other long term residents in the process."

A war ("wars," actually) Israel did not begin.

And as for "kicking out," much of that displacement was the result of the Palestinians' co-religionists encouraging them with promises of swift victory and easy spoils to step aside.

"I think the Palestinians have been treated very badly any way you look at it and don't agree with the argument that they're just getting what they deserve because they're poor and ignorant, or that Israel economic success and history means we should not question its past or the bodies buried there."

I would support neither of those positions.

However, it appears the only "crime" of which you can accuse Israel is its being reconstituted in the first place.

The reason it is an "explosive" situation is because one side -- Islam -- can never, under any circumstances tolerate land that was once under the rule of Allah belonging again to Infidels.

That is why, more than any other supposed justification you can conjure up, the Muslim world hates Israel. Just ask Hamas:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

"Allah is its [Hamas'] goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For JayHub . . . From here:

"When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted.

"By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland – the Promised Land . . . .

"That's not to say there wasn't always a strong Jewish presence in the land – particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.

"A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.

"'The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property,' the book states.

"Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

"As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don't blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.

"Winston Churchill observed in 1939: 'So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.'

"Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

"Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war – not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.

"In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

"Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps – not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.

"Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.

"This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

"It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone . . . ."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . . as demonstrated by the Hamas charter (and to JayHub's chagrin), the conflict has never been about Justice, or Self-Determination. It has always been about Mohammed's hatred of Jews:

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:

Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JayHub serves himself poorly with . . .

". . . arguments over Israel always start with arguments over facts . . ."

Where else should an argument begin (or end)? Or do you prefer emotional and irrational bald-faced lies instead?

". . . and his "facts" are one sided."

If they are "one-sided" (and therefore, misleading), present evidence of that.

If you do not, then all you're making are unsubstantiated and -- in light of the facts noted so far -- false assertions.

"If I wanted to spend more time on this we could go back and forth on the facts for a very long time."

Sure, why bother with facts?

"I also fear his claims are underlain by a belief that God has given the Jews the Land of Israel . . . ,"

In making this ad hominem attack, you are ascribing to me something I've never claimed.

Whatever my personal beliefs on the subject may be, they have NOTHING to do whatsoever with the factual statements I've shared.

Why even speculate? Why not just address the questions of fact?

". . . which I think is ridiculous to start with."

It is ridiculous to maintain a position based on emotion and without any corroborating evidence.

It is even more ridiculous to hold a belief despite solid, contradictory facts.

Worst of all is running from an argument without presenting any proof for one's position while mocking and lying about those who do.

"If you believe that, why argue about the history of the settlement of Israel at all - since God's said it, who's to dispute it, right?"

Nice attempt at changing the subject. Straw men burn easy.

Obviously, that is a different question.

"I don't think we'll agree either, Heather, since you seem to see all Muslims as Evil Apes out to kill us all and cannot separate Palestinians claims from Islamofascists jihads."

Another lie, JayHub?

Where did Heather call Muslims "Evil Apes"? She was referring to Islamic beliefs about Jews. Did you misread, or did you intentionally misrepresent what she wrote?

You know what Hamas says about its goals. There are many other, not too dissimilar "Palestinian" terrorist organizations.

If the "Palestinians" accept, support, and elect such people, what meaningful difference is there between "Palestinian claims" and "Islamofascists jihads"?

In the case of Hamas, its charter proves there is none.

Rather than criticize Heather, perhaps you should try to correct the "Palestinians" and their terrorist public servants. Of course, misrepresenting what Heather or I write will not result in your beheading or a large crater appearing where your car used to be.

I hope that you will reconsider your (false) ad hominem attacks, address the facts [I've shared, and present the evidence] that you believe I've neglected.

If not, I would like to leave with the following, one place from where Muslim anti-Semitism comes. Yes, it comes from Allah and his apostle, here speaking of Jews:

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

The devil is in the details

More from the thread linked in the previous post.

And/but/so... Thank you for your courteous reply. I would like to address a few points.

"But your historical highlights are selective. I could pick out similiar astocities, crimes, and bad faith actions by a bunch of groups through the ages, and use them to support a thesis that Christianity is the root of all evil."

That would be a tu quoque argument, a logical fallacy.

The point I was making is that Islam's core texts (which contain the expressed will of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed) are the source and sustenance of offensive warfare to make the world Islam (Jihad).

To argue that others have done the same (whether or not that is true) does nothing to address my assertion.

I would also note that it is impossible to construct from the words of Christ a theology of offensive warfare, whereas in Islam Jihad is a central doctrine.

"Your quotes are instructive; now how about turning your attention to the Old Testament?"

The only Old Testament command for warfare was given to the people of Israel as they entered Canaan. The command was limited to that time, place, and target only, unlike Islam.

Over the course of the Qur'an's revelation, Allah's doctrine on warfare evolved through several stages. Initially, when Mohammed was weak, cooperation with Infidels was urged. As Mohammed grew in power, warring in self-defense was allowed. Later, it was required.

Finally, after Mohammed had realized military, political, and economic success, offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who resist conversion or subjugation was required. Those commands are for all times and places until the hegemony of Allah is established over all mankind.

"My point is a selective reading of any religious tradition allows one to choose what one wants to believe about its followers..."

I think I have succinctly dealt with that accusation, but if I have not addressed it to your satisfaction, please point out to me from the Islamic texts where I have misrepresented them.

My point -- the point that so many overlook, deny, or ridicule -- is that, just as the "Islamofascists" themselves confess, jihadists are obeying Allah and their prophet. They are neither perverting, distorting, nor taking out of context their scriptures.

Fourteen hundred years of Islamic theology, law, and history seem to support them.

Again, please read Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira for yourself. Demonstrate where I have misrepresented any of Islam's "sacred" texts.

I would also ask that you show from the Biblical writings where YHWH/Christ make any universal commands for offensive warfare against non-Christians/non-Jews to establish their rule.

"But specious quotes . . . "

If that is a reference to my comments (I can't tell), please demonstrate from Islam's texts that they are actually specious.

"I do take exception to the notion that anyone who voted for Hamas supports jihad. Hamas was able to establish itself by providing social supports - schools, medical centers, libraries, etc. - that were lacking in Palestine."

Isn't that similar to praising Hitler for his organizational efficiency? Is not Hamas' sworn purpose to destroy Israel?

"I don't blame the Israelis, but the plight of the Palestenian people is a sad one, and they are understandably desperate for a saviour. That doesn't mena all of them are terrorists."

I have not argued that they are all terrorists.

How many support terrorism? How many support terrorism against Israel? How many support attacks against the United States? How many would welcome the return of the Caliphate and the global rule of Shari'a?

How many of those who do not are willing -- or able -- to resist their co-religionists who do?

I welcome those who publicly refute and reject forever Jihad and Shari'a, and I fully support those who truly stand for fully equal rights for all non-Muslims and women within Muslim lands.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In arguing against painting with too broad a brush, it should be asked "Who's holding the brush?"

JayHub wrote:

"I would not lump the Palestinians in with Islamic jihadists because they are essentially involved in a civil war with the other occupants of what was British Palestine over how that area is to be governed."

You wouldn't lump them, but perhaps these would: Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP); Hamas; Palestine Islamic Jihad; The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC); and Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) are all "Palestinian Islamic jihadists."

And what does Hamas, a group cited above for its charity work (didn't an American politician cite OBL's humanitarianism not long ago?) say about this? Straight from their charter:

• "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

• "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."

• "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

• "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

• "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

• "Allah is its [Hamas'] goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief."

Are you familiar with how the "Palestinian" refugees came to be? Do you know what brought about that "civil" war?

Upon its rebirth, Israel's Muslim neighbors sought to wipe it out of existence. The poor "Palestinians" were told to leave for a bit, let the military do its work, and then they'd be able to move back in and take over. Only events did not follow that narrative. Israel successfully defended itself several times against its "Islamic jihadist" neighbors. And which Middle Eastern nations accepted into their lands the displaced "Palestinians"?

"You may not like their tactics, but they fight with the weapons they have . . . To say they attack civilians is true, but the point of war is to break the other side's will to continue and they have few other options. . . . This is why Dresden and Tokyo were fire bombed in WWII and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked."

Since Arabs and Muslims are allowed citizenship in Israel, and since so many Infidel states (including Israel) aid the "Palestinians," is not Peaceful Co-existence an option?

Since Israel has bent over backwards to make peace with its neighbors, even to the point of (suicidally) giving up land to its enemies, is there no way that the "Palestinians" can compromise?

If you are here justifying "Palestinian" suicide bombings against Israel, would you also argue that Israel has the right to fire-bomb/nuke "Palestinian" camps?

Only a hint of a beginning

I respect Hugh Hewitt. Admitting the "painful facts" to which he points is only a hint of a beginning.

From here:

And/but/so wrote:

"Honestly, since you labeled everyone who voted for Hamas (as well as most of the Muslims in the Middle East) Jihadist terrorist supporters . . . ,"

Are they not? Can you imagine any terrorist group being elected to national prominence in the United States -- even if we had anything remotely resembling such an organization?

What is the one factor common among all "Islamofascists"? Poverty? Frustration and humiliation at not being accepted by racist whites? Colonialism? Western decadence? Envy of our freedoms? Hatred of President Bush?

No, it is the word of Allah and the example of his apostle that unites and motivates jihadists and their supporters, for Mohammed commanded and practiced:

"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

In the West, we always hear of the "Five Pillars" of Islam, and they are innocuous. It is this "Sixth Pillar" -- Jihad -- of which we do not hear (and of which Muslims-In-the-Know want us to hear nothing) that is required of all able-bodied Muslims.

In traditional, historical, Qur'anic Islam, the faithful must struggle in Allah's cause to make the world Islam. Offensive warfare against non-Muslims (violent Jihad) is one way of accomplishing this.

And violent Jihad is not limited to suicide bombings, as Muslim bloodlust throughout history confirms. How did Islam slaughter and subdue the Middle East, North Africa, Western and Eastern Europe, and Asia?

And though today Islam lacks the organized armies it once did, we still see all sorts of rape, enslavement, shootings, beheadings, and explosions in the name of Allah: Spain, Serbia, Turkey, Madrid, Beslan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Niger, etc., all testify to the creativity of Allah's servants today.

Besides violent Jihad, there is the slow, "peaceful", Civil Jihad, whereby those who would subjugate the world to the Tyranny of Allah are using the West's own liberties and legal systems to undermine and eventually replace constitutional government with Shari'a.

Add to that Islam's demographics (especially in Europe), and it is clear that within our lifetimes, we will see Islam plunge one or more European nations into a new Dark Age, only this time, the barbarians may have nuclear weapons and the ideological impetus to use them.

These are the issues Hugh and Dean ought to be addressing, not trying to shield Mormonism from the criticism it deserves or trying to "prove" that which is self-evident (that many liberals are ignorant, craven, or both).

". . . the next logical question is what to do about it. . . . how about filling us in on the solution?"

1. Admit that it is the "tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists" who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam's god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion's scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam's "sacred" texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West's dependence on Muslim oil, the Accident of Geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don't blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ScarletPimpernel wrote:

"How many Islamists want to kill us? We just don't know."

It is not just "kill". As noted above, Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Instead, the question to ask is: "Do you support the establishment of Shari'a [Islamic law, cruel to non-Muslims, apostates, and women] in your nation?"

"So stop being alarmists, silly."

"Alarmist"? "Silly"?

Were the formerly pagan, Jewish, and Christian tribes of Arabia "alarmist" or "silly" when Mohammed and his Ummah raped, enslaved, and slaughtered them?

Were the formerly great empires of Constantinople and Persia "alarmist" or "silly" when they were conquered, humiliated, and destroyed by the faithful of Allah?

Were the predominantly Christian/Jewish lands of Palestine and North Africa "alarmist" or "silly" when their peoples were converted, subdued, and slaughtered so thoroughly by Mohammed's successors that now their pre-Islamic history is forgotten or denied by many?

Was Spain "alarmist" or "silly" for having to fight for SEVEN AND ONE-HALF CENTURIES to free itself from Muslim rule?

Were the peoples of eastern Europe "alarmist" or "silly" for enduring for over a millennium the rape, kidnapping, and butchering of its men, women, and children (only recently curtailed by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire)?

Were a million Armenians "alarmist" or "silly" when they became victims of "divinely-mandated" genocide?

Was Vienna "alarmist" or "silly" when Islam stormed its gates as late as the seventeenth century?

Was India "alarmist" or "silly" as 70-80 MILLION of its people were butchered by the Religion of Peace?

Are the ten percent of young African boys who survive being captured, enslaved, castrated (without anesthetic), and forced to march for miles into their servitude "alarmist" or "silly"?

Who is being "alarmist" or "silly" when Muslims enter a village in Sudan, ask the women "Muslim or Christian?" and then slice off the breasts of and leave to die in the street those who answered wrongly?

Is it "alarmist" or "silly" when a Copt father -- whose daughter has been kidnapped, raped, and forcibly married and converted into the Religion of Tolerance -- goes to the local sheriff to report the atrocity and has that government official respond, "Don't worry. She's safe in the hands of Islam now"?

Is it "alarmist" or "silly" to note children being slaughtered (some even raped) the first day of school (Beslan), or beheaded on their way to school (Indonesia), in the name of Allah?

How is it "alarmist" or "silly" to note that around the world today, wherever there is a significant Muslim population, intimidation, destruction, and death follow, as in France, where several of its cities face the long-term prospect of being swallowed by "Zones Urbaines Sensibles"?

How is "alarmist" or "silly" to recognize that one fifth of the world's population has the POTENTIAL to know, believe, and emulate their prophet's declarations, two of which are:

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

and,

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

dstarr wrote:

"Given enough supporters, the real crazies can operate . . . The supporters, being less than hard core, are open to reason and persuasion, unlike the hard core crazies.
Bottom line, what counts is the size of the support base, not the number of crazies."

The "crazies" obey the command of Allah and follow the teachings and example of Mohammed.

A Voice of Dhimma in the West

I commend Hugh Hewitt, for he is closer than ever to admitting the identity of The Enemy We Shall Not Name.

Yet, Mr. Hewitt (and the rest of the West's political, media, and academic elite) are still so far from the truth. Instead of identifying and addressing the fact that it is Islam itself that fuels Jihad, Hugh is asking for numbers.

From here, first in response to Mr. Hewitt's request:

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of those who who know and believe Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah -- and that Mohammed's life (as recorded in Sira and Hadith) is to be emulated -- support offensive warfare against Infidels and Apostates to make the world Islam.

Allah commands:

". . . fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5),

and,

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

And Mohammed, Islam's Ideal Man (Allah calls him a "beautiful pattern of conduct"), stated:

"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

This fact -- that Allah and his false prophet require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam -- is the central fact yet to be acknowledged by our political, media, and academic elites. It is the only truth the admission of which will allow the West to fully defend itself at home and abroad.

As long as the President, Rush, Hugh, et al., insist on misdefining Islam in terms of its heretics and apostates, they only contribute to America's ignorance, and they delay the day we finally begin to defeat this ideology.

The men and women of our military who sacrifice life and limb for our Life and Liberty deserve nothing less.

The Defense of the West requires nothing less.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bri64LA wrote:

"Scribbler, I hate to tell you this but the Islamist started a nice little terror war back in 1992. Bombings, beheadings, etc."

It's worse than that. "Islamist" atrocities began at the command and with the participation of Mohammed 1400 years ago.

And/but/so added:

". . . the only things unifying the multitude of different groups that can be lumped together as "the enemy" is a basis in Islam, and a hatred of the US."

IT is not a "basis in Islam," but Islam itself -- as defined by its "sacred" texts (Qur'an, Sira, Hadith) -- that provides the Source and Sustenance of violent Jihad.

From this flows naturally hatred for Zionists and Crusaders.

toady contributed:

". . . EVERY Muslim ?

"You can't have a war on a tactic. You can only have a war on a people and if you don't know who the people are, you can't win. You can't win because you don't know when they have given up."

Denying the truth because there is no easy answer does not seem useful in addressing the problem, does it?

There are other steps non-Muslim nations can take short of "killing every Muslim."

A few ideas to start:

1. Admit that it is the "tiny minority of Islamo-fascist fundamentalist extremists" who are teaching and practicing the will of Islam's god and founder, not the heretics and apostates who want to distort or ignore their own religion's scriptures and history.

Pope Benedict and Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus were correct.

2. End all aid (financial and otherwise) to Muslim nations.

3. Expel Islam's "sacred" texts and their preaching from all non-Muslim lands. Short of this, treat them with the contempt and venom Mein Kampf or any other genocidal hate manifesto deserves.

4. Confine Islam to its own borders and rescue the non-Muslims within them.

5. End the West's dependence on Muslim oil, the accident of geology that has fueled the resurgence of Jihad around the world.

Sticks and stones make break bones, but they don't blow up synagogues.

6. Crush all governments supporting and exporting violent Jihad, just as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were no longer allowed to practice their own totalitarian ideologies.

Echoing error

From the usually outstanding Dean Barnett:

Allow me to echo Hugh’s sentiments on that shameful New York Times hit-piece on Mormonism. The sentence that really jumped out at me was “A good Mormon is a busy Mormon.”

If the Times were working with any other minority, there would be literally no way to finish that formulation in an inoffensive manner. Go ahead. Give it a try.

“A good Jew is a ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________ Jew."

“A good African-American is a ­­­­­­­­­____________ African American.”

“A good Latino is a _____________________ Latino.”

“A good woman is a ______________________ woman.”

Dean's falling into the Muddled Mormon Mind Meld.

To equate religious profession with race/gender is irrational (or dishonest).

The former is chosen and can be revised or rejected. The latter is permanent (despite the efforts of some to the contrary).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A follow-up... After scrolling down Hugh's page, I see now why Dean would make such an appallingly inaccurate analogy.

He's just elaborating upon Hugh's malformed comparison (which comes from the same sort of "logic" as, "Don't critique Islam. What are you, racist?")

A more accurate analogy would be: "A good Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc. is a ______________________ Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/animist/etc."

Being a member of one of those groups, such a statement would not necessarily be offensive.

(This is not an endorsement of the Times piece, by the way.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's Mitt . . . This is what someone above describes as representing the Republican Party (emphasis mine):

"Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said...he opposed implementing a FLAT INCOME TAX, calling the concept "UNFAIR.”

"...Romney’s tax talk last week coincided with the debut of a new campaign ad in which he vowed that as president, he would ensure that federal spending on programs other than defense GROWS MORE SLOWLY than the inflation rate."

DISCLAIMER required for the reading/logic impaired:

--No, I do not oppose Mitt as president on the basis of his faith.

--No, I do not see any other major candidate who matches what I want in a president.

--No, I don't think the Democrats are any better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bot undermines his own argument . . .

"Could Mitt Romney be more "Christian" than Evangelicals?"

Obviously, that depends on one's definition of "Christian."

Jesus said, "If you love Me, obey My commands." How would promoting error about the person and work of Christ and His Father qualify anyone as more "Christian" than someone who believes and teaches the truth?

And how does comparing one group to another indicate anything about its truthfulness?

The only way to determine if Mormonism is "Christian" is to compare its doctrine and practice to the Word of Christ.

"Protestants and Catholics subscribe to the Nicene creed, which was initiated by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century to rid Scriptures of the Apocrypha . . . ."

That is patently false.

The Apocrypha remained in the Christian Bible up to the time of the Reformation; even Luther kept it in his translation of the Scriptures into German, calling the texts useful and edifying.

The Roman Catholic Church (from which Luther was unwilling ejected) still uses it.

The Council was called to address Arius' false teachings on the nature of Christ (a heresy not too dissimilar to Mormonism's):

"The Nicene Creed was written in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea. Hundreds of pastors and theologians were gathered at this council to respond to a false teaching that had arisen in the Church. This false teaching stated that Jesus was not true God [created, not eternal; inferior to the Father; etc.] . . . you can see all kinds of phrases that were included specifically to refute this false teaching."

The Council, representing all of Christendom, voted overwhelmingly against the heresy because it contradicted the Word of God.

It is unsurprising that Mormonism would oppose a Council and Creed defending the Bible's teachings on the nature of God, and that they must lie to do so.

Islam also attacks the Creed.

"which made reference to the oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship."

Old and New Testament?

"First Century Christian churches, in fact, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:

. . . Baptism of youth (not infants) . . . Lay clergy . . . Anointing with holy oil . . . white clothing . . . ."

All these practices are still observed throughout Christendom today.

(And Infant Baptism was practiced, or why would the first Christians have been accused of Infanticide?)

"Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to Constantine”s corruption (see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) Lecture XXI)."

Much of its form was kept, since the Bible and the Church was Jewish.

Fulfilling the Mosaic ceremonial law was not retained.

"Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them . . . ."

Early Christians were persecuted by Jewish authorities for preaching the Messiah. They were persecuted by Rome for refusing to worship the emperor.

They kept their practices secret to avoid persecution.

"A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate beings, united in purpose. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane . . . ?"

He was praying to His Father.

One cannot pick and choose Scripture, which teaches that Christ and His Father are One in nature, co-eternal with the Holy Spirit. Three Persons, One God.

Apparently, you would have them separate beings, which makes Mormonism polytheistic.

"The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin...Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit . . . ."

Again untrue. The doctrine of the Trinity is not derived from one verse. It is summarized from the whole of Scripture.

"Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6)."

Your Malachi reference has nothing to do with Baptism, but with the coming of John the Baptist and the Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:29 is arguing in support of the Resurrection, not for baptism for dead ancestors. Where else does the Bible speak of such a thing? Nowhere, but it does say that "a man is appointed to die once and after that, the judgment."

"The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ . . . .”

Again, since Mormonism preaches a different christ and a different gospel, how can it be called in any meaningful way "Christian"?

"we consider who might be the more authentic Christian."

Here's the whole Mormon/Muslim "You Christians lost the truth and our prophet has it" argument.

"If Mitt Romney is a member of a denomination which embraces early Christian theology, he is likely more “Christian” than his detractors."

As noted throughout my posts on this topic, no Mormon can be considered as embracing "early Christian theology." "Early 'Christian' heresy," yes.

And poll data may demonstrate Christian apostasy, but it does not make the heretic orthodox.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TOm's abject error:

"Arius and the JW’s are the sola scriptura Christians."

"Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura" is Biblical. It is Trinitarian. It is Lutheran. It definitely does *not* belong to heretics.

That you would try to characterize both Jehovah's Witnesses (Christ is a "god", not the eternal God) and Arius (Christ is a second, or inferior God; not one essence, nature, or substance with God; not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal) as being "sola scriptura Christians" demonstrates either the magnitude of your confusion (colossal), or it indicates the depths of deception to which you are willing to sink to lead astray those ignorant of Biblical, historical, orthodox, Christian theology and history.

Stop speaking falsehood.

Every honest-minded person here should research for themselves (not using Mormon/Muslim propaganda) the Nicene Creed, the Council of Nicaea, "Sola Scriptura," etc.

What's next, "Mormons are more Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox than Catholics/Lutherans/Orthodox"?

The slaughter of the innocent continues at the hands of Allah

And if the President had understood Islam, much innocent life may have been spared. From here:

Iraq’s Assyrian Christians face extinction four years after the toppling of Saddam, says Ed West. “When they cook a dish in the Middle East, it is traditional to put the meat on top of the rice when they serve it. They kidnapped a woman’s baby in Baghdad, a toddler, and because the mother was unable to pay the ransom, they returned her child – beheaded, roasted and served on a mound of rice.”

The infant’s crime was to be an Assyrian, but this story, reported by the Barnabus Fund, went unnoticed in the West, like so many other horrific accounts of Christian persecution in Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq, Muslim militants have bombed 28 churches and murdered hundreds of Christians. Last October, Islamists beheaded a priest in Mosul in revenge for the Pope’s remarks about Islam at Regensburg. But never let it be said that jihadis do not have a sense of ironic humour: that same month they crucified a 14-year-old Christian boy in Basra.

The latest report by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that two million Iraqis have fled since the invasion, and almost a third of these are Assyrian – who are down from 1.4 million in Saddam’s Iraq to fewer than 500,000 today.

The Assyrians are one of the world’s oldest civilisations. Their empire collapsed in 612 BC after four and a half millennia of civilisation; Rome was still a village and the Angles and Saxons were a thousand years away from forming a partnership. Now, while one of the world’s oldest Christian nations faces extinction at the hands of Islamic extremists, the West does nothing.

Albert Michael and Eva Shamouel are the British representatives of the Assyrian Aid Society (AAS). Both fled Baathist Iraq as children, joining Britain’s 8,000 strong Assyrian community based in west London. “I was brought up in an area of Baghdad called Dora before coming here when I was six,” says Albert. “Dora was entirely made up of Assyrian Christians, but then the Baath party came along, and Saddam moved Arabs in to break up the concentration.” Now the whole city, particularly Dora, is a no-go area.

The AAS was founded in 1991 after Saddam moved his troops into the region commonly known as Kurdistan, although it is also the historical homeland of the Assyrians. A few members of the Assyrian Democratic Movement formed an emergency relief group to help those most in need of food, water, medicine and blankets, the first humanitarian charity to reach those refugees. “Since then we have raised $4.2m [£2.1m] from our own efforts,” says Albert. Most comes from America, but the British branch has recently become more organised, receiving official charitable status last summer.

So far they have received little help from outside their own people: “There were a few donations; the French embassy, one or two churches in Germany.” This is not down to an absence of Christian charity, they point out, but ignorance. “I still remember this image of a woman holding a child fleeing for her life in 1991,” says Albert. “The BBC interviewed her, and she was referred to as a Kurd, even though she was speaking Aramaic. Everyone was labelled a Kurd.”

Aramaic is the language of the Assyrians, who are also referred to as Syriacs, Chaldeans or ChaldoAssyrians. “We have five different churches, several dialects, and three different names, but we are one people,” Albert stresses. Aramaic is also, of course, the language of Jesus and was spoken (with an American accent) in Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ.

Albert and Eva’s forefathers have been Christian since at least the second century, and helped to spread the Word as far as China. Their history has been one of struggle. They survived the Muslim Arab invasion of the seventh century, and centuries of Turkish rule, a period that culminated in the genocide of 1914-1918, known as the Sefyo (“sword”). While Turkey remains in a state of denial about the murder of one million Armenians, the rest of the world is largely unaware that as many as 750,000 Assyrians and 200,000 Greeks were also butchered on the orders of the Turks, largely aided by the Kurds.

Assyrian groups around the world recently wrote to Sylvester Stallone after it was announced that he is making a film about the Armenian Genocide. “We hope Sly doesn’t forget us,” Albert says. After Iraq was created with the help of the Assyrians – nicknamed “Britain’s smallest ally” in the First World War – they suffered persecution at the hands of the Arabs, who accused them of being conspirators with their imperialist fellow Christians.

The 1933 massacre of 3,000 civilians in Dohuk, northern Iraq, inspired the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to coin the word “genocide”. Now, Arab militants have almost cleansed southern Iraq of Assyrians, and in the north, Kurdish extremists are behind numerous unpublicised murders. “The Kurdish authorities don’t even want to recognise us – they call us ‘Christian Kurds’ ” – an irony that would not be lost on their compatriots over the border, officially labelled “Mountain Turks.”

The plight of Christian women is especially grim. Eva points out: “A lot of women, both Christian and Muslim, are forced to cover their heads, whereas before you could go out without being intimidated, or having acid thrown on your face.” Albert explains that it was unheard of for Christian women to turn to prostitution before. “But now there are numerous accounts in Jordan and Syria, and all out of desperation to feed their children. Some are selling their body parts, kidneys, but the worst case I heard was a woman with two children who had given up hope of feeding them. She ended up selling her children to Muslims.” The women – often widows – are not allowed to work, while the West refuses to shelter them, finding their existence an embarrassment to Britain and America.

The AAS raises the money in the West and hands it straight to compatriots in the Middle East, with minimal administration costs (readers will also be pleased to know they cannot afford “charity muggers”). The funds pay for schools, housing, medical clinics, farming machinery, irrigation projects and other vital basics. “Saddam destroyed over 200 of our towns and villages, but with our very limited resources, we have rebuilt hundreds of homes.”

But their main hope is for a Christian administrative area in the Nineveh Plains, once their ancient capital. Without this protection, their numbers will shrink until they will reach a tipping point. Soon, Assyrian civilisation may only exist in the British Museum, where their monuments still draw tourists from around the world. In the year that Britain agonises over its past role in the slave trade, it is inaction – on the part of a nation that both created and destroyed Iraq – that now threatens to blacken our country’s name.