Readers' Attention
The two following blogs are related. Perhaps reading the second one first would be the beter approach.
US vs Islam - Is all quiet on the Western Front????
Mike, thank you so much for a very lucid response (the first and only so far--not that I expected any to begin with), and pointed questioning too, I might add, to my Liberal (far-left?) reflection on Tom's friend's anti-Muslim and anti-Obama administration rant. I am hopeful of providing you with as an equally clear and sensibly stated rejoinder.
[I really enjoyed your introductory paragraph..."Warning: If you don't read this the Great Pumpkin will eat you up. ...you can go suck an egg!"]
First, I went back and reread the article being discussed. I wanted to fully redigest the essence of the article to affirm or countermand my response. After rereading the article several times and reflecting on my remarks I found that I was initially prejudiced against the article before even reading it because of the warning in Tom's lead-in statement, "...he is pretty right-wing so...contains some anti-administration/Obama inferences,..."
Secondly, I really believe that any extremist position, whether Right-wing or Left-wing, that advocates against and actively pursues a policy that engenders the depuration of segments or politic bodies, and specifically religions, of our society to where they cannot openly advocate for their cause, religious or otherwise, and where these actions facilitate fear-mongering and hate-mongering, poses a serious problem to the safety and security to not just only individual Americans but to America itself. That this promulgation of fear-mongering and hate-mongering and depuration of classes or entities is considered as patriotic escapes me. And, though being unpatriotic may not be necessarily anti-Americn it surely doesn't seem, to me, to be pro-American.
Now, your questions:
Q: I'm puzzled about your closing as well. What is the pitiful morass to which you referred? Is it Christianity, Democracy,or both?
A: I believe our country is in a terrible multi-faceted quagmire (pitiful morass) encompassing the economy, a disfunctional infrastructure, fragmented foreign policy, and a decimated world opinion that threatens and hinders our ability to ameliorate world problems. It would probably take a book to completely synthesize all these elements, but let me just say that if the congress would have been Democratic during GWB's reign and the POTUS had been other than GWB we'd not be in this pitiful morass. Don't believe I'd include Democracy or Christianity in the morass.
Q: Define the scope of the pitiful morass and what you believe to be the root cause; not placing blame on anyone, but rather what action or activity you believed caused it.
A: For "Scope," see above. "Root cause" blame has to be placed--and it's squarely in the lap of the Republican Party, Republican congress, a Republican POTUS. Their actions/and decisions led this country into a personal and completely unnecessary unilateral (illegal) war of choice with Iraq (which helped to kill our economy [and many young Americans] and erode our world status); "rubber-stamped" every action asked for by GWB leading to the most gross and unconstitutional abuse of Presidential power in the history of this country (which not only produced a climate of fear throughout the nation, obliterated many of our constitutional freedoms and rights, but reduced the confidence in our nation's leadership and produced "laws" which led to the decimation of our banking/marketing system--which led to our housing crisis [with the help from Congress' complete lack of "Inspector-General" supervision]);
Q: I would like you to define "right wing" in the context you used it.
A: Do you not think this is a lead into blaspheming democrats up and down the pike: 'Those in the know are quite aware that our political and military leaders either refuse to understand or don't understand and the true nature of our enemy and the many different tactics they employ." That kind of talk certainly doesn't sound like left-wing rhetoric to me with a Democratic administration in office. Also, does the statement, "Obama Busily Appeasing Jihadists." sound like President Obama is being lauded?
Q: I have difficulty understanding how someone expressing concerns about what he describes "Islamist enemies" as anti-American.
A: First, I did not say he (or anyone) was anti-American for being concerned about our "Islamist enemies." I said there was a "slightly anti-American flavor" in his writing. I probably should have said "un-American," as I felt he was advocating our own "holy war," jihad, against Muslims in general since he, inclusively, equated or related the various nomenclatures of "Islamist enemies" (Islamists, Jihadists, Islamist enemies, militant jihad) to be Muslims without qualification. How about the Nation of Islam?
Muslims, people of the Islam faith, believers in one God, Allah, believe in and follow the Five Pillars of Islam, the Islamic way of life, which does not advocate general militant jihad (the extension of Islamic domination over the world) but employ jihad only in a protective manner. Also, Islamic law directs a communality with People of the Book, revealed religions such as Jews and Christians. One particular obligation of the Islamic faith is to "commend good and reprimand evil."
The people of the Islamic faith, Muslims, nor the Islamic faith itself, are not our enemies; I don't believe we have over 1,200,000,000 (1 billion 200 million!)--at least--Muslim enemies facing us down. Woe unto us it that were true! Let us be specific in who we attribute to be our enemies. Can we say terrorists are Jihadists? Probably so, since the present-day vernacular of Jihad ("holy war" for God; Jihad being a term that both prescribes and directs how a devout Muslim focuses his daily life to do all things necessary to live his life in a manner commiserate with the "Islamic way of Life" as prescribed by the Quran) has been corrupted into "Jihadist," meaning specifically one who militarily conducts war against non-Muslims perportedly in the name of Allah in an effort to kill or subjugate non-Muslims and spread "Islamic' dominition, the "Islamic" faith, both politically and culturally, around the globe. These militarist Islamics, Jihadists, are fanatics who in no way represent the real, the true Islam. It is the Jihadists, and only the Jihadists, whether they be Al Queda, Taliban, or whatever fanatic, extremist, Muslim splinter group, who are the terrorists not Muslims.
Another friend, I guess, asked me how I could compare the spread of Islam to the spread of Democracy and Christianity.
A: First, I did not outright "compare" the spread of Democracy and Christianity to the spread of Isam. That being said, the Islam faith encompasses both a political and religious precept and the Quran dogma calls for the spread of Islam--but does not call for it to be in a militaristic manner, a military jihad. I understand the body of the Christian faith also calls for the spread of "The Word," the word of God. And, can anyone not challenge that GWB called for the spread of Democracy around the world?
This may not satisfy everyone, and it most likely will not, but hopefully most will at least understand where I'm coming from--I believe in the constitution of our United States of America, the right to freedom of speech and all of the other rights embodied in our constitution; I believe in fair play and justice for all; I believe in the Golden Rule and God; I believe passionately that our government should first do no harm--and then to never do any harm; I like to believe we have honest and honorable politicians; I believe that no one is guilty until proven guilty; and I believe that no matter how bad things get, whether nationally or personally, that the sun will rise tomorrow on a new day that may just be the beginning of the resolution the many challenges that face each of us and those that face our country.
[I really enjoyed your introductory paragraph..."Warning: If you don't read this the Great Pumpkin will eat you up. ...you can go suck an egg!"]
First, I went back and reread the article being discussed. I wanted to fully redigest the essence of the article to affirm or countermand my response. After rereading the article several times and reflecting on my remarks I found that I was initially prejudiced against the article before even reading it because of the warning in Tom's lead-in statement, "...he is pretty right-wing so...contains some anti-administration/Obama inferences,..."
Secondly, I really believe that any extremist position, whether Right-wing or Left-wing, that advocates against and actively pursues a policy that engenders the depuration of segments or politic bodies, and specifically religions, of our society to where they cannot openly advocate for their cause, religious or otherwise, and where these actions facilitate fear-mongering and hate-mongering, poses a serious problem to the safety and security to not just only individual Americans but to America itself. That this promulgation of fear-mongering and hate-mongering and depuration of classes or entities is considered as patriotic escapes me. And, though being unpatriotic may not be necessarily anti-Americn it surely doesn't seem, to me, to be pro-American.
Now, your questions:
Q: I'm puzzled about your closing as well. What is the pitiful morass to which you referred? Is it Christianity, Democracy,or both?
A: I believe our country is in a terrible multi-faceted quagmire (pitiful morass) encompassing the economy, a disfunctional infrastructure, fragmented foreign policy, and a decimated world opinion that threatens and hinders our ability to ameliorate world problems. It would probably take a book to completely synthesize all these elements, but let me just say that if the congress would have been Democratic during GWB's reign and the POTUS had been other than GWB we'd not be in this pitiful morass. Don't believe I'd include Democracy or Christianity in the morass.
Q: Define the scope of the pitiful morass and what you believe to be the root cause; not placing blame on anyone, but rather what action or activity you believed caused it.
A: For "Scope," see above. "Root cause" blame has to be placed--and it's squarely in the lap of the Republican Party, Republican congress, a Republican POTUS. Their actions/and decisions led this country into a personal and completely unnecessary unilateral (illegal) war of choice with Iraq (which helped to kill our economy [and many young Americans] and erode our world status); "rubber-stamped" every action asked for by GWB leading to the most gross and unconstitutional abuse of Presidential power in the history of this country (which not only produced a climate of fear throughout the nation, obliterated many of our constitutional freedoms and rights, but reduced the confidence in our nation's leadership and produced "laws" which led to the decimation of our banking/marketing system--which led to our housing crisis [with the help from Congress' complete lack of "Inspector-General" supervision]);
Q: I would like you to define "right wing" in the context you used it.
A: Do you not think this is a lead into blaspheming democrats up and down the pike: 'Those in the know are quite aware that our political and military leaders either refuse to understand or don't understand and the true nature of our enemy and the many different tactics they employ." That kind of talk certainly doesn't sound like left-wing rhetoric to me with a Democratic administration in office. Also, does the statement, "Obama Busily Appeasing Jihadists." sound like President Obama is being lauded?
Q: I have difficulty understanding how someone expressing concerns about what he describes "Islamist enemies" as anti-American.
A: First, I did not say he (or anyone) was anti-American for being concerned about our "Islamist enemies." I said there was a "slightly anti-American flavor" in his writing. I probably should have said "un-American," as I felt he was advocating our own "holy war," jihad, against Muslims in general since he, inclusively, equated or related the various nomenclatures of "Islamist enemies" (Islamists, Jihadists, Islamist enemies, militant jihad) to be Muslims without qualification. How about the Nation of Islam?
Muslims, people of the Islam faith, believers in one God, Allah, believe in and follow the Five Pillars of Islam, the Islamic way of life, which does not advocate general militant jihad (the extension of Islamic domination over the world) but employ jihad only in a protective manner. Also, Islamic law directs a communality with People of the Book, revealed religions such as Jews and Christians. One particular obligation of the Islamic faith is to "commend good and reprimand evil."
The people of the Islamic faith, Muslims, nor the Islamic faith itself, are not our enemies; I don't believe we have over 1,200,000,000 (1 billion 200 million!)--at least--Muslim enemies facing us down. Woe unto us it that were true! Let us be specific in who we attribute to be our enemies. Can we say terrorists are Jihadists? Probably so, since the present-day vernacular of Jihad ("holy war" for God; Jihad being a term that both prescribes and directs how a devout Muslim focuses his daily life to do all things necessary to live his life in a manner commiserate with the "Islamic way of Life" as prescribed by the Quran) has been corrupted into "Jihadist," meaning specifically one who militarily conducts war against non-Muslims perportedly in the name of Allah in an effort to kill or subjugate non-Muslims and spread "Islamic' dominition, the "Islamic" faith, both politically and culturally, around the globe. These militarist Islamics, Jihadists, are fanatics who in no way represent the real, the true Islam. It is the Jihadists, and only the Jihadists, whether they be Al Queda, Taliban, or whatever fanatic, extremist, Muslim splinter group, who are the terrorists not Muslims.
Another friend, I guess, asked me how I could compare the spread of Islam to the spread of Democracy and Christianity.
A: First, I did not outright "compare" the spread of Democracy and Christianity to the spread of Isam. That being said, the Islam faith encompasses both a political and religious precept and the Quran dogma calls for the spread of Islam--but does not call for it to be in a militaristic manner, a military jihad. I understand the body of the Christian faith also calls for the spread of "The Word," the word of God. And, can anyone not challenge that GWB called for the spread of Democracy around the world?
This may not satisfy everyone, and it most likely will not, but hopefully most will at least understand where I'm coming from--I believe in the constitution of our United States of America, the right to freedom of speech and all of the other rights embodied in our constitution; I believe in fair play and justice for all; I believe in the Golden Rule and God; I believe passionately that our government should first do no harm--and then to never do any harm; I like to believe we have honest and honorable politicians; I believe that no one is guilty until proven guilty; and I believe that no matter how bad things get, whether nationally or personally, that the sun will rise tomorrow on a new day that may just be the beginning of the resolution the many challenges that face each of us and those that face our country.
Getting a Handle on the Terror War
Getting a Handle on the Terror War
Those in the know are quite aware that our political and military leaders either refuse to understand or don't understand and the true nature of our enemy and the many different tactics they employ. Every once and while a light bulb goes off in some corner of the political-military-think-tank universe and they flirt with a way to go about confronting our Islamist enemy.
Such was the case of a Georgetown University professor.
Defeating terrorism - or at least battling it back to pre-9/11 levels - takes both brawn and brains, a Georgetown University professor said Friday. Yet so far, the United States has only used half that equation - the brawn of military muscle - in its war on terror, leaving the country just as vulnerable to attack as it was when al-Qaida blindsided the United States 5½ years ago, said Bruce Hoffman, keynote speaker Friday at a daylong seminar on religion, violence and terrorism at Case Western Reserve University.
So far so good. The professor understands militant jihad in the form of terrorism and on the battlefield is only a part of the overall strategy of multiple types of jihad that the Islamists are using against us.
He said the United States must pause now and thoroughly study the enemy - its motivation, its strategy, its culture, its strengths and weaknesses - to battle it on fronts that extend beyond a battlefield.
Ah! He understands. It's not just the acts of terrorism that need to be defeated but the ideology that drives it as well.
Now, ever y time the U.S. kills part of al-Qaida, it simply regrows, Hoffman said.
Every time a terrorist plot is broken up, new al-Qaida operatives tinker with the plan to make it stronger so they can attack again, he said. Just as the United States knows it can't kill every terrorist, terrorists know they can't kill every Westerner. Instead, Hoffman said, terrorists are trying to use fear to undermine the pact between governments and their people, all the while planning to launch bigger and more sensational attacks.
Exactly! You don't achieve victory by defeating the enemy on the battlefield. Those are just battles won. You achieve victory buy destroying their ideology at its roots and prevent it from re-surfacing again.
Unfortunately, the professor did not follow through on his argument by identifying the "motivation, its strategy, its culture" of our Islamic enemies. He failed to list actual examples of the tactics used by the Islamists everyday in the non-Muslim world like:
ØTerminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.
ØNominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.
ØYell ''foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran'' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.
ØEncourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.
ØReading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia's Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America's high schools - free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.
ØNullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.
I await the day when one of our leaders stands up and identifies the multiple types of jihads that the Islamists are using against the non-Muslim and moderate Muslim world.
Litigation Jihad
Education Jihad
Cultural Jihad
Demographic Jihad,
=2 0 Economic jihad
Institutional Jihad
Media jihad
Financial jihad
Criminal jihad
Thuggery Jihad.
Hopefully, the event that will bring such leaders forward will not be the result of 100,000 innocent Americans dead.
April 30, 2009
Spencer: Obama Busily Appeasing Jihadists
In Human Events today, I discuss the momentous first hundred days. And I expect that we ain't seen nothin' yet.
"To the Muslim world," said Barack Obama in his Inaugural Address, "we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." After 100 days, how’s that going?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad summed it up best, responding contemptuously to Obama’s offer to sit down to talk without preconditions and taunting Obama for his impotence: "We say to you that you yourselves know that you are today in a position of weakness. Your hands are empty, and you can no longer promote your affairs from a position of strength."
Ahmadinejad is also turning Obama’s campaign promise against him. When Obama indicated that he wouldn’t impose preconditions on negotiations with Iran, the Iranian saw an opening. Now, he’s apparently demanding preconditions for the talks by pressuring Obama for concessions on20the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Iran’s Thug-In-Chief spoke like an aggressor who has spotted an appeaser, and is determined to wring from him as many concessions as possible.
How has it come to this so quickly? Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seem to have made it a top priority of their administration’s opening act to weaken our position with the Islamic jihadists:
• They quietly dropped the term "war on terror." Napolitano even went so far as to say that she preferred to refer not to acts of "terrorism" but to "man-caused disasters" (NOW had no recorded comment about her sexist language). Meanwhile, a DHS report on "right-wing extremists" had no trouble referring to veterans and conservatives of all kinds as potential "terrorists." This suggested a disquieting will to silence and demonize the political opposition, all the while regarding the real terror threat with extraordinary myopi a.
• Obama named Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy. Brooks is venomously anti-Israel and once wrote that al Qaeda was "little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs," and that the Bush Administration had only imagined that it was a "vast global threat."
• He has tapped Harold Koh to become the legal adviser for the State Department. Koh has said that he had no objection to Sharia’s being applied to "an appropriate case" in the United States.
• In a startling breach of protocol, Obama bowed deeply to the King of Saudi Arabia, implying an obeisance that isn’t going to free us from our dependence upon the oil sheikhs any time soon.
• While on a trip to Europe, he refused to visit the American Cemetery at Normandy, but made a point of visiting a mosque in Istanbul. He expressed, in an address to the Turkish Parliament, his "deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world—including in my own country." It’s unclear ho w he thinks Islam has shaped the U.S., other than to lead to innovations in airport security. His statement did nothing but embolden the jihadists who have dedicated their efforts to bringing Islamic law to the West.
• Obama said also that "the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam" -- indicating that he had no intention of addressing the ideological challenge that Islamic jihadists present to the West, or of acknowledging the fact that although the U.S. is not at war with Islam, many Muslims consider Islam to be at war with the U.S.
• Obama invited to the White House the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a 56-nation body that has declared its intention to compel the United Nations to criminalize all criticism of Islam.
• He has declared his determination to open negotiations with "moderate elements" of the Taliban, despite the fact that no such people have ever been found.
• He has declared his determination to close Guantanamo, despite the fact that over 60 former Gitmo detainees have returned to the jihad.
All t his and more in just 100 days.
The Obama Administration apparently doesn’t know the difference between appeasement and diplomacy. A diplomat will sell you and your nation for a price. An appeaser will give it away without getting anything in return.
"...nations can't be...punished in the next world, ....Providence punishes national sin, by calamities."
George Mason, constitutional convention, 1787
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)