SHAMING THE MUSLIMS OUT OF ISLAM

A critical look at the REAL crisis of the 21st century, a crisis which those of us who acknowledge it are mocked and ridiculed by the appeasers for inventing, when the facts reveal that in actuality more and more alert citizens with the passage of time are coming to realize the honest observation that the rising Islamic threat presents a grave and penetrating danger to western civilization and the entire human race.

The moment of truth is now. We must prepare ourselves, tending to the spirit and the body with equal wind. Please read this article, and click the links at the bottom of the page, if you are one of the scoffers. Your own life, or the lives of your children may be saved as a result.

The following Q&A was sent from another concerned patriot on this early front. Please take these words seriously:

When I read MA Khan's new book, Islamic Jihad, I was struck by two things, the high quality of his scholarship and an emerging historical trend.

Khan is firmly in the Foundationalist School of scholarship. He does not indulge opinion, but bases his work on the Islamic doctrine of jihad and its historical effects on civilization, with a focus on the destruction of India. He investigates and documents two little known areas—the Sufis and the enslavement of the Hindus.

The excellence of his book is part of an historic pattern. When Islam attacked us on September 11, 2001 we were unprepared for war. Our intellectuals were spineless dhimmis who have been bought and paid for by the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, and as a result, were apologists and not able to defend our civilization.

However, in one of the more remarkable intellectual events in history, a new type of intellectual was drawn into the study of Islam. Trained critical and scientific thinkers who were amateurs in the field of Islam applied their critical reasoning to this subject and produced a wealth of excellent books and articles. The new Islamic scholarship was fact-driven and took up Islam's challenge of war.

Khan's Islamic Jihad is an excellent intellectual weapon.

BW: Welcome Mr. Khan. Tell us about your motivation behind writing this book.

Khan: Thank you Bill giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on the kind of danger the progressive world faces from an Islamic resurgence and how we deal with it.

What we are witnessing today in Muslim countries-namely in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan etc-is the Talibanization or Saudization of the society, i.e., the establishment of Sharia in all spheres of life and society. In other Muslim countries, the demand for the same is solidifying; in a few decades, the face of the entire Islamic world will dramatically change.

The Islamic world is heading toward that which it embraces: Islam as a complete code of life, as believed by every Muslim. This transformation seems inescapable at this moment. But our major concern now is the infidel world, particularly the West. The native population in Europe is declining from low birthrate, while Muslims are procreating at unbridled rates. In the UK, Muslim population is increasing 10 times faster than the rest; the trend should be similar in other Western European countries. And where does this lead? By the middle of this century, Muslims will become the largest religious group in Europe.

And what will happen under that circumstance? We can easily make a guess. Take the example of Pakistan: in elections, only 10% of Pakistanis support parties that seek to institute Sharia rule. Now look at Britain: some 40% of the Muslims support Sharia rule, with only 37% opposed. This figure, I believe, is skewed to a good extent as Muslims don't speak the truth. Nonetheless, what these figures mean is that a much greater proportion of Muslims living in the West are Sharia-loving or Taliban minded as compared to those living in Islamic countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. Therefore, unless the mentality of Western Muslims changes drastically in coming decades, which is unlikely, the Talibanization of Europe would become an inescapable reality by the middle of this century, undoubtedly spreading to North America, Australia, Russia and India.

We know what Sharia means to civilized humanity. We witness it in Saudi Arabia; we witness it in Afghanistan under the Taliban; we witness it in Talibanized areas of Pakistan. We clearly know that the plight of women-Muslim or not-would become worse. Treatment of non-Muslims is horrible and extremely degrading under Sharia rule: it is happening in Taliban-occupied regions in Pakistan. The Hindus and Sikhs are being subjected to humiliating jizya, which is an exorbitant discriminatory tax for the security of the life and property of non-Muslims in Islamic state (see Quran 9:29). The Taliban attacked the Sikh community in Orakzai for failing to pay the demanded jizya, slayed the men, took possession of their homes and properties, and enslaved the women and children, in accordance with the Quranic commands (33:26) and Muhammad's example of dealing with the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza [M.A. Khan, Islamic Jihad, p47-49]. Thousands of Hindus have already relocated to India in recent months in order to escape the Taliban oppression.

What is at stake today is obviously the Talibanization of globe—that is, the establishment of the governance of the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. Sharia) globally—which is a central demand of the Quran (2:193, 8:39), and the ultimate goal of Islam. And that will be the worst disaster ever to befall humankind. Therefore, averting this Talibanization of the world, which seems inescapable at this moment unless something drastic happens, should be the central concern for the civilized humanity as I see it. My book is an effort to make the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, understand what Jihad, the scourge of our time, truly means for our future and take real measures to defeat it.

BW: How do you think we must fight battle?

Khan: In recent years, many ingenious measures have been tried and are being tried: the global war on terror, regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq for spreading freedom, democracy and modernity, and efforts to engage and work with the so-called moderate Muslims for winning the hearts and minds of the wider Muslim community etc. But nothing is working; since the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., the number of Jihadis, in the form of numerous radical Islamic groups around the world, are increasing exponentially. The overall Muslim mindset is also becoming increasingly radicalized everywhere, including the West.

There are also many initiatives amongst the so-called moderate Muslims to reform Islam. Many of these Muslims are also making rewarding careers in the guise of their phony reform campaigns. But attempts at reformation as occurred in Christianity, which was basically going back to the root, the originality of the religion, makes things worse in the case of Islam. A genuine and successful effort by the brilliant Saudi scholar Abdul Wahhab (1703-91) to reform Islam, in the mold of reformation of Christianity by Martin Luther (1483-1546), gave birth to Wahhabism, the Islamic scourge that we are confronting today. Efforts to reform Islam away from orthodoxy, i.e., along a rational and humanistic line, have been tried by some powerful Islamic rulers, namely the Baghdad caliphs, al-Mamun, al-Mutassim and al-Wathik (813-847), as well as Akbar the Great in India. They were the greatest monarchs in the world of their time and ruthlessly dictatorial. While they effected some positive changes during their rule, soon after their departure, it was all overturned. Islamic orthodoxy struck back with greater brutality and horror in every instance.

Thus, efforts at reformation have worsened the situation or failed. Any new attempt at reforming Islam is meaningless today because Muslims are becoming well-educated and can read the Quran, which has been translated in all major languages, by themselves. They are no less intelligent than the "reformers" and can understand what the verses of the Quran truly mean. Reformation in the age of modern education is a meaningless exercise and is destined to failure.

What might work, something that has not been tried, is what I personally call 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam'. Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world. But most Muslims, who are average human beings, do not know what is actually in the Quran and Sunnah, or, they have never analyzed the contents of Islam's fundamental texts critically. They have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim and how shameful it is in the modern civilized conscience. If they are made aware of the true nature of Islam, they will leave this barbaric and dehumanizing cult in large numbers. Islam will be condemned to the dustbin of history where it always belonged.

This is the only measure that has not been tried. And I have been trying exactly that in my website, (founded November 2005): "Telling the Truth about Islam". And my book, Islamic Jihad, is also an extension of that effort. I have convincing evidence that it will work.

BW: Would you elaborate on the shaming of Muslims and how it would work?

Khan: If you look closely at the history of Islam, you would realize that Islamic orthodoxy, with its violent underpinnings of Jihad, has tremendous resilience. As elaborated already, every attempt to reform it from within was followed by its resurgence with greater ferocity. From the 19th century onward, the European colonial powers did effect significant changes in the Islamic world like the equality of religions, liberation of slaves, and the ideas of secularism, progressiveness and modernity. But after colonial withdrawal, these positive changes are all being over turned. Humanity is now being threatened by Islamic orthodoxy and its Jihadis, on a scale unprecedented in history.

What these factors tell us is that attempt to reform and secularize Islam is not only doomed to failure, but its survival in any form will turn calamitous to humanity. So those, who care for our progressive and modernist civilization, particularly those in position of power, must understand this critical factor while dealing with Islam. We probably have time, this time round, to save humanity from the ongoing scourge of Islam, albeit sustaining damages of whatsoever scale it may be, we will be left with no such option if Islam has another opportunity to strike.

So the need of the hour is to break the back of Islam once and for all. And here comes into play the idea of 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam'. What we need is to discredit Islam root and branch, to the level of cells and atoms. This is not difficult to achieve. Simply telling the truth about Islam will do.

I have already mentioned: 'Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world.' The thing is, most Muslims have little idea of what Islam truly is, what it means to be a true Muslim. Most of them, particularly outside the Arab world, are ignorant about Islam; very few of them read the basic texts of Islam with a proper understanding. They know about Islam mainly from hearsay as part of their growing up. And when it comes to living their life, they are under tremendous influence of the kafir world from their surrounding, through the media, through all the goodies the kafir world bring to them.

At the same time, they also remain indoctrinated rather subconsciously with the cardinal thoughts in Islam, namely:
1. Islam is a complete code of life,
2. Islam is the perfect religion and Muhammad was the ideal man for all time; therefore, both are beyond questioning or criticism,
3. Only Muslims are destined to receive God's succor, and
4. Islam will eventually dominate the world, i.e. all people will become Muslim some day.

This subconscious indoctrination of the so-called moderate or liberal majority of Muslims easily plays into the hands of the extremists. When the extremists make noise on the ground that the prophet has been defamed or blasphemed or that Islam has been insulted, both being perfect and beyond finger-pointing in their subconscious mind, they too join the orgasmic frenzy with the extremists. We have seen this in the controversy over Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and more recently, over the printing of Prophet Muhammad's cartoons in a Danish paper or Pope Benedict's comment on Muhammad.

I think that this so-called moderate variety of Muslims can easily be dissociated from Islam. What we need to do is to say the truth that Islam is not a "religion of peace" as goes the popular discourse, but a barbaric, inhuman and uncivilized cult; that Muhammad was not a noble, a perfect man for all time, but he was a brutal plunderer and mass-murderer lusting for power, wealth and sex; that he was a sex-maniac with a pedophilic urge for a kid as young as six when he was in his 50s and not far from death; that Islam, as initiated by Prophet Muhammad, is a barbaric institution of imperialism, forced conversion, and slavery and sex-concubinage. Islam, as depicted in its sacred texts, is more horrifying than this.

What we need is to hold the pages of the Quran, prophetic traditions and biographies, and Islamic history bare to Muslims and to the world. This will be enough to shame the Muslims out of Islam.

Why would this work? Let me start with my own example. I was one such liberal/moderate Muslim. When 9/11 occurred, I felt that the attack was rather justified because of the United States' unjust policies toward the Palestinians. I was lucky, I should say, that I was already involved in some internet groups that were critical of Islam. But after the 9/11 attacks, as critical analysis of Islam, the Quran and hadiths flourished dramatically, I became a defender of Islam for quite some time. I continued to resist looking into the basic texts of Islam, the Quran, Sunnah and Muhammad's biographies for 2-3 years. But I eventually read them, and I was shattered and frustrated with myself. I was ashamed because the Quran reads like a manual of unconditional war against non-Muslims, Muhammad was one of the most horrible, if not the worst, human being in the history of mankind. And I had believed that Islam was the most perfect and peaceful religion, a perfect code to human life, for 35+ years of my life.

For a Muslim, living Islam is the most difficult thing in the world, and this was the case with me. Only when I read the basic text of Islam and understood its truth was I able to leave Islam with ease. If I hadn't read these texts, I couldn't have mastered the courage to leave Islam despite the horrible things Muslim Jihadis continued to perpetrate, or howsoever hard the critics would criticize those fanatics.

Similarly, after reading my websites islam-watch.org and faithfreedom.org—websites that focus on the criticisms of Islam based on its foundations: the Quran, the Sunnah, and Prophet Muhammad—many Muslims are leaving Islam, even some potential suicide-bombers and mosque imams amongst them. I have testimonies from Muslims, who considered themselves "Muslims for life" just a couple of months ago, that they would never leave the most fulfilling creed of Islam. But after reading my book, which basically exposes the true nature of Jihad against the popular discourse that it is a peaceful struggle with the self, against vice, for eradication of poverty, for human rights and women's rights etc., they found their whole life based on a lie, and were shattered. Their faith in Islam was shattered.

So the challenge in front of us is to bare the foundation of the Islamic creed in front of these so-called moderate/liberal Muslims and to make them read the foundational texts of Islam. Once they do that, a majority of them will find their faith in Islam shattered. And there it begins: the collapse of Islam like a castle of sands. Humanity will be rescued from its lasting horrors once and for all.

BW: There has been a good deal of truth-telling about Islam since the 9/11. But it is not working so far; we are not winning the battle. What do you think is need to be done?

Khan: That's absolutely true. A lot of literature has been produced, particularly in the form of books, telling the truth about Islam. But you must also take into account that a much greater volume of literature has been produced, selling the lies of Islam. Let me emphasize that for 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam', we need books and literature focusing the Quran, Sunnah and Islamic history, books like Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not A Muslim, Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad, Dr. Ali Sina's Understanding Muhammad, and probably my Islamic Jihad. Very few penetrative books of this type, except those of Ibn Warraq and Bostom, have been successful. Most books of this type are not picked up by reputed publishers, fearing Muslim backlash; they are often being self-published published and receive little attention. Most important factor of all is that very few Muslims, who in general have a very poor book-buying and reading habit, buy books like these.

Therefore, those books, telling the truth about Islam, have very little impact on Muslims, our prime target. On the other hand, books telling the lies about Islam, which are produced in much larger volumes and the media is eager to promote, are the books that most Muslims and non-Muslims buy. So we have, on the whole, a nullification of the impact of truth-telling books by the lies-telling ones.

And when it comes to the news media, which Muslims read to a large extent: there the truth-telling is largely absent; lies-telling is overwhelmingly prevalent. Our mainstream media (MSM) is based on lies, on falsehood, when it comes to the coverage of Islam. And whatever little truth-telling is done, very little of it is focused on the foundational texts and doctrines of Islam.

The MSM is the biggest culprit, the biggest accomplice, in the success of radical Islam. They are most eager to circulate the messages-audio-tapes and videos et cetera, of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other top al-Qaeda and radical Islamic leaders and ideologues as such. And getting these messages to Muslim audience, harboring potential recruits, is crucial to the success, with which the radical Islamic agenda is progressing. At the same time, the MSM rigorously filter out the few voices that are trying to focus their criticism on the foundations of Islam, criticism that will matter in enlightening both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam and in shaming the Muslims out of it.

The same goes with the Internet. It has played tremendous role in the success of al-Qaeda and like-minded radical Islamic groups in spreading their messages, which is the linchpin of their tremendous success in popularizing their violent mission and recruiting cadres. While the truth-tellers have some success there, where they can spread their messages with relative freedom, but there are only few such websites with limited readership against a deluge of pro-Islam and militant Islamic websites. And most of all, the truth-telling websites are banned in most Islamic countries, and even in the West. For example, most educational institutions in Australia have banned all truth-telling websites, namely Faith Freedom, The Religion of Peace, Jihad Watch , Islam Watch and Islam Monitor amongst others categorizing them as hate-sites.

So, it will become clear why we are not making significant ground in our truth-telling efforts. The outcome of this battle, I think, will be determined by the media. We must recognize that the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars annually in strengthening intelligence apparatus, tightening security and the war of terror is going to waste. Some of these measures are also working counter to their intended objectives, by helping the radicalization of the Muslim mind on various grievances, howsoever unjustified they may be. And of course, it is causing loss of lives in large numbers on both sides.

In the media, we can kill this menace with a small fraction of the investment and with much less loss in life and properties. The battle can be won with ease. Muslims can ignore the noise made by truth-tellers, often discredited as fringe Muslim-hating Islamophobes, in a negligible few and little-known websites, but they cannot ignore the Mainstream Media. When the truth-tellers get the opportunity to bare the fundamental sacred texts of Islam in the pages of the MSM to show how horrible and barbaric the cult of Islam is, Muslims at all levels would be forced to defend their creed by looking into those texts. Every attempt to defend Islam would lead to their enlightenment about the filth and inhumanity that lies at its heart.

We have more than convincing evidence to affirm that the so-called peaceful majority of moderate/liberal Muslims, ashamed, frustrated, and angered of what they have unwittingly believed for their whole life, would start leaving Islam en masse. The West's problem would be solved in a decade or two with the collapse of Islam; I can challenge you on that. From there, the remedy to the Islamic problem in the rest of the world, including Muslim countries, would soon begin.

The fact is that the Islamists have tremendous advantage against the truth-tellers in every aspect of this battle. The truth-tellers are fighting this battle against mountainous odds: their opponents have annual investment of billions of dollars against zero on their own side; the Islamists have almost all the ground in the MSM, the decisive battleground of this struggle.

I realize that there is little chance of this changing at all. The future of this battle remains hugely tilted toward the Islamist side as of now. The Talibanization of the globe remain an inescapable possibility unless circumstances changes drastically, possibly horribly.

BW: Thank you for enlightening us, Mr. Khan.

Bill Warner
Political Islam

Personally, we at the Two-Fisted Quorum do not believe Mr. Khan's solution of shaming will work. There is an incredible swath of humanity's muster aiming for this fight, millions of indoctrinated assassins intoxicated with the pernicious urges of brutality and demonic rage, a disposition that will not take no for an answer. No amount of persuasion will still this Islamic beast as it prepares for war and total control. This particular fight will of necessity take place. There will be unfathomable casualties, but I believe that if Americans, particularly its cowed and dhimmified leadership finally wake up to this monster threat and throw off the chains placed around them by succumbing to the dual seductions of Islamic briberies and liberal progressive mythologies, the West can win this war, albeit at a formidable price of blood, treasure, and lifestyle for several generations.

ACT FOR AMERICA

Dear Gabriel,

When we speak to groups around the country, it's not uncommon for us to hear people say "surely the things you're warning us about couldn't happen here in America!"

For instance, surely in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," where our right to free speech is enshrined in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the successful muzzling of criticism of radical Islam in Europe and Great Britain couldn't happen here.

Surely an event in America that featured Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders would not be shut down, as was the case in Great Britain earlier this year.

The Newsmax.com article below should be one more nail in the coffin of "surely it can't happen here" wishful thinking. It IS happening.

This illustrates better than any alarm bell we can ring why the growth of ACT! for America into a formidable, organized grassroots voice of resistance to radical Islam is essential. No such force existed in Europe or Great Britain 25 years ago, and the result has been a highly successful advance of cultural jihad in those nations.

The clock is ticking and Islamists are advancing. You can help us continue to build our citizen action network and our organized resistance by forwarding this email to everyone you know and asking them to sign up for our emails at ACT FOR AMERICA.

You can also help us with your financial support by clicking here.

ACT! for America now has nearly 60,000 members and 300 local chapters. With your support we will continue to grow, organize, and successfully resist the rising threat of radical Islam to our security and our freedoms.

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.

We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

HONORING THOSE WHO HAVE DIED

The first thing to know about World War II is that it was a big war, a war that lasted 2,174 days and claimed an average of 27,600 lives every day, or 1,150 an hour, or 19 a minute, or one death every three seconds. One, two, three, snap. One, two, three, snap.

In an effort to get our arms around this greatest calamity in human history, let's examine 10 things every American ought to know about the role of the U.S. Army in WWII.

The U.S. Army was a weakling when the European war began in earnest on Sept. 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland. The U.S. Army ranked 17th among armies in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. It would grow to nearly 8.5 million by 1945.

When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. The Army's cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge and destroy an enemy machine-gun nest without sustaining a scratch.

The U.S. Army for a long time after we entered the war was not very good. Part of the WWII mythology is that all the brothers were valiant and all the sisters were virtuous. War is the most human of enterprises, and it reveals every human foible and frailty, as well as human virtues: cowardice and tomfoolery, as well as courage and sacrifice. The Greatest Generation appellation is nonsense.

In the first couple years of American involvement the Army was burdened with clearly inferior equipment and commanders. Those first couple years of war required a sifting out, an evaluation at all levels within the Army of the competent from the incompetent, the physically fit from the unfit.

It has sometimes been argued that in an even fight, when you matched one American battalion or regiment against a German battalion or regiment, the Germans tended to be superior, the better fighters. But who said anything about an even fight? Global war is a clash of systems. What matters is which system can generate the combat power needed to prevail, whether it's in the form of the 13,000 Allied warplanes available on D-day; the 10:1 American advantage in artillery ammunition often enjoyed against the Germans; or the ability to design, build and detonate an atomic bomb. What matters is which system can produce the men capable of organizing the shipping, the rail and truck transportation, the stupendous logistical demands of global war.

Germany could not cross the English Channel, which is only 21 miles wide, to invade Britain. The United States projected power across the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific and into Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Power-projection, adaptability, versatility, ingenuity, preponderance—these are salient characteristics of the U.S. Army in WWII.

Read it all.

This is an important essay penned by Rick Atkinson for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Every young American whose mind has been mismanaged with great liberal skill needs to understand a few facts about her own nation. Please take a few minutes of your post-modernist attention span, and give Atkinson's full essay a chance to sink into your slippery post-American sensibilities. Our brave young men and women who died in WWII as well as other conflicts in which the nation stood battle deserve your consideration. Let's not continue to confuse the cold harsh reality as demonstrated by Dick Cheney this week with the rose-colored wishful thinking of President Obama.

We are now engaged in another war with an enemy just as pernicious as Nazi Germany. We must again stand firm and undivided against our enemies and produce this victory over a totalitarian machine. But like in those early days of WWII, America begins from a weak position, a position that the Islamic enemy exploits with well-honed strategic genius.

America this time staggers from a system whose industrial base has been abandoned in favor of an argumentative human resource and legal infrastructure that has been allowed to deteriorate. This war is not about silly romantic notions of relative values or moral egotism. This is about defeating an enemy that that been quite outspoken on the one hand that it wants to conquer, enslave, or annihilate the sorry House of the West, while on the other hand sends in its oil-rich infiltrators with manipulating claims of being either stealth allies and trading partners of the West, as well as relentlessly demanding victims of Western hospitality at every twist and turn in playing the system of political correctness to its own dualistic endgame.

Stand up. Be counted. Liberty must be defended, or it WILL be lost.

FROM MOHAMMED TO AYN RAND

IN A SPLENDID FRONTPAGE.COM piece, David Swindle, free lance writer, film critic, and blogger, interviews the former Muslim cartoonist Bosch Fawstin, creator of the fascinating anti-jihadist superhero character Pigman. It's time for Americans to inform themselves, grow bold, and take a stand, each in his or her own way wherever one can against the stealth jihad creeping into every continent on the globe, bringing the promise of sharia law with it. Here's a taste of what Mr. Fawstin is doing in this direction:

DS: What prompted you to abandon Islam? Could you discuss the circumstances behind that decision?

BF: I didn't so much abandon Islam as fade away from it, and I didn't have much faith to lose to begin with. It's tough to say you've left something if you've never really embraced it. Hugh Fitzgerald is right in saying "the atmospherics of Islam" can affect even the least devout Muslim in a detrimental way. A strong thrust within Islam is to see any and all things outside of Islam as worthless, most particularly non-Muslims. When we did go to mosque there was never any real sense that something important was taking place. The majority of us who were involved in this pretense had no idea what to do, unless we followed the imam's prayer moves (and many in attendance were fooling around anyway). "Islam" was the name of the thing that was held as 'the good' in my household, and it was that vagueness which helped keep it at bay. It was only when I started taking morality seriously that I realized Islam had nothing to offer me.

DS: You say that Islam had nothing to offer you. What did you find that did? What are the schools of thought and who are the thinkers who have most influenced you and your work?

BF: I found Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, first by watching the film version of The Fountainhead, and then by reading her novels and nonfiction works. I felt at home reading her work. It was the first time in my life that I saw the concept of morality being taken seriously outside of religion. A morality that was based in reality and had more to say about life on earth, freedom and the individual than anything I had read before. It was only fitting that my favorite storyteller in comics, Frank Miller, was also influenced by her work, as was another favorite of mine, Steve Ditko, who has spent most of his career expressing Objectivist ideas through his work.

DS: Now that we know a bit more of the background behind your work lets discuss some of the specific pieces in ProPiganda and the ideas they depict. One of the most challenging, interesting illustrations in the book is the “They Say We Say” image on page 43. It's an illustration of a point you elaborate on in the book's essays: the enemy is Islam, the so-called moderate Islam of the West is not really true Islam at all. This strikes me as one of the most important ideas in the book. It's also one of the most controversial. Could you elaborate on this idea for those new to your work?

BF: They say Islam, we say anything but Islam, leaving the troubling impression that the enemy's religion is something other than Islam. There is no "Political Islam" or "Totalitarian Islam" that is distinguishable from Islam itself. Islam is normatively political and totalitarian. We have evaded the true meaning of Islam in the name of respect for religion. But we cannot avoid the consequences of doing so. Mohammed was a Muslim and his religion was Islam; he was not an Islamist practicing Islamism. He was a Muslim who practiced Islam and engaged in its violent Jihad, forcing Islam into a world it failed to get into on merit. And any Muslim who is peace-loving and tolerant is by implication condemning their violent, intolerant "prophet" and the means by which their religion was spread. How Islam spread tells us exactly what Islam means. When the moral standard for an entire culture is a bad guy who crossed the line as a way of life, it explains why his most devout followers are the most violent among Muslims. We can try our best to stay clear of Islam, but Muslims have proven that they will never keep Islam to themselves unless they are forced to. It is a faith that sanctions any evil against those who are not part of it. Our not calling this evil by its name, Islam, is sanctioning it and leaving ourselves at the mercy of those who will stop at nothing to bury all we hold dear.

DS: This understanding of Islam would represent a pretty fundamental shift in the American approach to the War on Terror. Currently US policy from the President down has held that Islam is not the enemy, that Islamic terrorists represent a perversion of Islam, and that the US is not engaged in a war with Islam. The ideas of ProPiganda turn that approach on its head, flipping each proposition 180 degrees: Islam is the enemy, Islamic terrorists are merely acting as Mohammad did, and that we actually are fighting a war against Islam. What implications would such a shift in ideas yield toward how the United States deals with this threat? In one of your essays you challenged President Bush for his "quarter-assed response to 9/11." Would it simply be a matter of getting more aggressive? Do we need to fight the War on Terror Pigman style?

BF: If 2,996 American politicians were murdered on 9/11, do you think Washington would have been interested in exonerating Islam and allowing this enemy to kill again? We all know the answer. Our politicians are so disconnected from the American people, that they now do everything but their job. If they can't defend us, they're good for nothing. They think that their job in this war is to win hearts and minds that already belong to Islam. And while they dispassionately wage a war on "terror", not jihad, they allow the two greatest state sponsors of jihad terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Iran, to remain in business. For now, our government goes big on us and small on jihad, while telling us that we are not fighting a war against Islam, even though Islam is fighting a war against us.

Ayn Rand said, "To fear to face an issue is to believe that the worst is true." And the worst is true about Islam, which is why no one in our government challenged Bush's famous anti-reality check, "Islam means peace." We have gone from the terribly named "War on Terror" to the now even more euphemistic "Overseas Contingency Operation," while the enemy has stuck with the same jihad for over a thousand years.

Those who've sworn to defend us have decided that there are more important things to them than defending us. As I wrote in my introduction to ProPiganda, "Our leaders have decided that, while the protection of America is optional, the defense of Islam is absolute." Our government has waged war the way the enemy wages peace and has never given the enemy a reason to end jihad. This enemy has been out for blood for over a thousand years. Obama, following in Bush's compassionate war mode, is hoping that the enemy tires in the face of our unused power. But they will never tire of spilling our blood; this is what they do, what they've always done, and they have always counted on their savagery to help them overcome all odds against those they conquered. So yes, we need to fight the War on Jihad, Pigman style. Above all, we need to follow the truth to wherever it may lead in order to show us what must be done. We need to terrify the enemy by saying and doing the once unthinkable against them and all they hold dear. You will see what I mean in The Infidel.

Read it all.

REFUSING TO LIVE WITH RADICAL ISLAM

From the Creeping Sharia front:

FAREED ZAKARIAH IS AT IT AGAIN. Remember him? The Muslim editor of Newsweek who wrote a book entitled the Post American World. The same book Barack Obama was reading during the U.S. presidential election, which has a chapter entitled “A Non-Western World”, and mentions Obama on page 255. The same Fareed Zakaria who declared the USA #2 in a separate Newsweek story.

We surmised Obama might be modeling some of his foreign policy strategies on Zakaria’s writings, particularly his approach to Iran—see our previous post Obama planning post American world to compare Zakaria’s words on Iran to Obama’s. With the closing of Gitmo, the failure to address the kidnapping of a U.S. U.N. worker in Pakistan, and the chumminess towards soon-to-be nuclear power Iran, and Hamas may bear that out.

In Fareed Zakaria’s latest, Learning to Live With Radical Islam, he subtitles his article: “We don’t have to accept the stoning of criminals. But it’s time to stop treating all Islamists as potential terrorists.”

If Zakaria means that all Muslims are Islamists, he should first prove that all Islamists (i.e., Muslims) are treated as potential terrorists, then we can talk. If he means that all “radical” Muslims are Islamists, then why wouldn’t “we” treat all “Islamists” as potential terrorists? Furthermore, if Zakaria could conclusively define radical Islam that would be extremely helpful. Is radical Islam based on a different version of the Quran or other Islamic texts? A different Mohammid? A different Allah? A different jihad than Mohammad waged?

Any article detailing how “we” should learn to live with radical Islam, rather than defeat it, that begins with an opening paragraph describing how a region of Pakistan is quiet once again because the Taliban took over and implemented sharia law simply doesn’t bode well for anyone. He fails to mention that the Taliban waged a war for the Swat valley and “beheaded opponents, torched girls schools and terrorized the police to gain control of much of the one-time tourist haven”.

Keep in mind however that Fareed Zakaria routinely minimizes the Islamic terrorism threat, al-Qaeda, the odds of being a victim of terrorism, and he does it here again claiming that the Taliban aren’t so bad after all because Fareed says most “Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.” Got that? “Not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world—in fact, most do not.” See world, nothing to worry about here, just a tiny minority of Islamists want to kill us.

Fareed overlooks many a significant point in his article. One, even if it is true that only a small group of Muslims have global jihadist ambitions like al Qaeda, that’s all it takes. Just one group. Just one nuke. Look what 19 Muslims did on 9/11. Maybe Muslims should learn to live with the fact that as long as ANY Islamists (defined any way you want) have global jihadist ambitions that there will be significant consequences. Two, Fareed, given the resources and the opportunity, how quickly would the local jihadis that behead folks, burn girls schools, and adhere to the strictest of sharia law, take their local jihad global? Three, wasn’t Muhammid’s ambition to create a global khillafah or caliphate? Isn’t that the ultimate goal of Islam? For all to submit to Allah’s will?

There are interesting points made in the article but most are glossy at best. He writes about Iraq and claims that General Petraeus’ squelching of a massive insurgency is an example of accepting Islamism. What he fails to mention is the presence, and increase in, U.S. troops that executed the counter-insurgency strategy and made it work.

Zakaria does state that “Recognizing the reality of radical Islam is entirely different from accepting its ideas.” If that’s all he meant, why the cover story in Arabic and the statement ‘how to live with it’? Later in the same paragraph Zakaria takes it on his own to wildly distort reality, reminiscent of Obama’s air raiding villages comment, he states dumping resources (i.e., cash) on the problem rather than, “simply bombing, killing and capturing—might change the atmosphere surrounding the U.S. involvement in this struggle.” He also fails to mention that it was Islamism that brought the struggle to the U.S., not the other way around.

He concludes:

We can better pursue our values if we recognize the local and cultural context, and appreciate that people want to find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried…people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That’s the most powerful weapon of all.

Fair enough. Yet once people are enslaved to sharia law, weary or not, they are not permitted to “find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license.” Hence, we should not be giving Islamists hope and proposing how we should learn to live with their “radical Islam”, rather we should be proposing how to end it and prevent it from infiltrating our institutions and way of life.

We did not choose to live with Nazism, communism, or fascism, nor should we surrender to and live with Islamism.

Read it all at Newsweek.

FIVE MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

THESE ARE DANGEROUS TIMES. The volume and ferocity of anti-American chatter across the Internet have reached a level we have not seen since the days leading up to 9/11. The radical Islamists, who would use violence against those who do not accept their view of life, have become arrogant enough to bring their savage methods to new depths of depravity.

To understand this bolder enemy, we must [fully] recognize what they are capable of.

Mumbai.

Last November, a handful of terrorists came into Mumbai by stealth, and within hours brought a city of 18 million to its knees. They attacked ten symbolic sites favored by tourists, murdered some 200 people, and left a wake of indescribable destruction, shattering thousands of lives in their wake.

They singled out American, British, and Jewish targets, and ordered the terrorists to "kill to their last breath". Many of their victims were savagely tortured before being murdered. So brutal was the torture that experienced doctors who later examined the bodies were in shock and could not find the words to even speak about it.

Gaza.

In Gaza, Hamas brought a different kind of terror into the news. Hamas fights her enemies with cowardice and unspeakable cruelty. While terrorists have been given free reign to shell civilians living in southern Israeli towns, they hide behind the women and children of Gaza, drawing Israeli fire to its rocket launchers which are placed deep in densely populated areas, putting their own people at mortal risk.

During the last two years, nearly 6,000 rockets were fired from Gaza, aimed at schools and homes, mostly in the little town of Sderot, which has taken the brunt of the ceaseless barrage. Israel finally responded with a mighty attack to silence the rockets that had plagued its citizens for the last eight years, and while the number of rockets has been reduced, they did not stop, continuing to terrorize the people of southern Israel.

The True Face of Hamas.

There is now a mountain of documentation demonstrating that over recent months, Hamas has acquired massive caches of weapons and explosives which they stored in mosques, schools, and throughout residential neighborhoods.

They have humiliated, brutalized, and murdered their Christian and Fatah 'enemies' in cold blood. And after Israel dropped leaflets in Gazan neighborhoods, urging civilians find shelter away from the aerial attack, Hamas forced them back into their homes, preventing them from finding safety from the bombs. No wonder the number of civilian casualties is so high.

On December 24, in a final blow to any semblance of civilized governance, Hamas passed a new penal code firmly rooted in Shari'a law. Among the punishments that this new code enables are forty lashes for drinking wine, cutting off hands for theft, and crucifixion for 'treason'.

Their reversion to a seventh century penal code underscores their intention to achieve ultimate power that will drive the lives of their people back into the dark ages. The current plight of the people of Gaza can be laid squarely at the feet of Hamas.

What This Means for the West.

Hamas supporters have used the current conflict as another excuse to stir the boiling cauldron of Islamist hatred against the West. Their mantra of "Death to Israel, Death to America" feeds their frenzy and has spawned demonstrations throughout the United States, demonstrations that are growing increasingly hysterical and out of control.

Last week in New York City, seven police officers were hurt—two with head wounds—when a pro-Hamas demonstration became violent.

In San Francisco, pro-Hamas demonstrators shouted, "I want you to watch as I kill your children, cover your children in their own blood! I want you to watch me blow your children's brains out".

In Florida, a demonstrator screamed, "Go back to the oven," referring to the murder of Jews in the Holocaust, "You need a big oven, that's what you need." Click here to see the video.

Here in America, we watch these events unfold as if we were viewing a new kind of reality show. But this is not theater and we, who watch passively, as we sit comfortably in front of the television, need to be alarmed. It is difficult for Westerners to comprehend the depth of hatred that radical Islamists feel against those who are unwilling to adopt their faith. For them, multi-culturalism is not an acceptable way of life, it is evil.

Their view of life demands that we either convert to their version of Islam, or die. They have made it plain that their goal is to globalize jihad, and turn the world into a global Islamist state ruled under shari'ah law. For them, negotiation is not an option, there is only one way, and there is nothing to negotiate.

A few years ago, Abdurahman Alamoudi presented himself as a so-called 'moderate' Muslim, and suggested that he had a large following. He was an open supporter of Hamas and Hezballah, yet so highly esteemed that he had access to the White House (before he went to federal prison for his role in an assassination plot against the Saudi Crown Prince).

Not surprisingly, few took note when he told a Muslim conference in Chicago, "Muslims sooner or later will be the moral leadership of America—either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country." It was one of many warnings that we ignored.

Yousef al-Khattab, a NYC taxi driver, enjoys the benefits of life in America, even as he runs a website called RevolutionMuslim.com. On his website, he wrote, "We pray that we may witness the dismantlement of western, secular dominance across the world as we hold it to be pagan and idolatrous in the majority of its presumptions.

We seek a resurrection of the just example set forth by centuries of Islamic rule throughout the ages and we hold it to be self evident for the objective soul and mind that Allah is One and that Muhammad ibn Abdullah is His Prophet and that the religion offers the solution to all of the world's ills and afflictions." Is anybody listening?

Radical Islam has taken a firm hold in our society. Hamas is only one of an undetermined number of radical Islamic groups that aim to do us harm. They have used the freedoms that they profess to hate to achieve access to our universities, our industries, our government, and our collective conscience.

They use our sense of fair play against us to impose their moral superiority, and demand our sensitivity to their rights, while simultaneously demanding that we forfeit our own.

So now, while Christian children can no longer pray in school, the same schools have adopted programs that teach our children what it is like to be Muslim, how they eat, and how they pray.

There are now terrorist cells in virtually every state in the union. Their aim is to globalize jihad, and replace our Constitution with the Koran, our penal code with shari'a law.

They range from the well known names such as al Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood (which masquerades under many other names), and includes lesser known groups like Jamaat al-Fuqra, Darul Uloom, and Islamic Jihad. Associated with these groups are not-for-profit front organizations through which these groups launder money to support terroist activities.

For example, Jamaat al-Fuqra compounds have sprung up all over the country to provide Muslim warriors with rural campuses for combat training. Security is high and outsiders are not welcome. Darul Uloom, the school of Islam embraced by the Taliban, have active centers in Florida, Maryland, Texas, Connecticut and New York.

And CAIR, which claims to be nothing more than "a Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group", was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the recent Holyland Foundation terrorist funding trial, Never-the-less, it provides sensitivity training to the FBI.

Today, in unassuming Muslim centers in Brooklyn, NY; Jersey City, NJ; Boston, MA; Fairfax, Virginia; and Dearborn, Michigan, jihad is being plotted, while we bend over backwards to ensure that they are not disturbed.

Today, we in America stand on the threshold of madness as we allow our nation to be undermined by those who would destroy all that generations of Americans have fought and died for.

The time is 1939 and we are Europe denying the growing threat of the Third Reich. Here in America, it is five minutes to midnight and it is time to wake up.

Ilana Freedman is the Editor of IntelAnalysis and is CEO of Gerard Group International, Inc.

DETECTING OPEC'S FINANCIAL JIHAD

CAPITALISM IS A GAME PLAYED BY MANY. It is the opinion of several folks, including Walid Phares that OPEC has manufactured this attack on the global markets. This idea was also discussed on Bill O'Reilly's broadcast tonight with Ben Stein and Fox Business analyst Elizabeth Macdonald, although earlier in the broadcast O'Reilly was adamant with Newt Gingrich that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Henry Paulson and others should be investigated and held accountable for their role in the meltdown of the mortgage market.

Was this financial crisis actually planned by the likes of George Soros, which then got out of hand? One thing is certain—Soros made a billion pounds out of the sterling crash of ‘93. That's on the record, and he seems proud of it. He is sometimes referred to as the man who broke the Bank of England.

But, based on what I have been monitoring with concern to both the stealth and the unmasked jihadist movements the past two years or so, I tend to agree that key pressures exerted by an aggressive OPEC is the trigger that began the domino effect around the global financial markets, an effect that still has a way to go. Read what Phares has to say....

Who manufactured the financial meltdown? It wasn’t only Wall Street: OPEC’s heavy hand is felt but unseen by the media and our politicians.

In bypassing a narrow economic analysis of the ongoing crisis, we can detect clearly the connection between the dizzying ups in petrol pricing and the slowing of American buying capacity. Though we have to conclude that while it is due largely to both Wall Street’s corruption and politicians’ abuse of the system handed the tools of doom to the middle class, Main Street’s rapid disenfranchisement was manufactured overseas, thousands of miles away, at the hands of many of the members of OPEC, the oil-producing Cartel.

Indeed, as economic commentators tell us (including a strong accusation leveled by real estate tycoon Donald Trump on Fox News against OPEC), the oil powers are behind the instability that crumbled the will of millions of middle class Americans over the past three years.

If we go back in time, we can see that oil pricing by OPEC’s hard core shows clearly that US leadership wasn’t able to convince the top producers from the Gulf to give American oil consumers a chance. Most producing regimes replied that demand—mostly from China and India—was putting pressure on production. Pressed by Washington to produce more, the “regimes” alleged it would affect the selling price and thus minimize their profits, but promised they would try to “be understanding” of US needs in energy.

This attitude gave the producers discretion over price, while Jihadi propagandists roamed the media accusing Washington of putting unbearable pressure “on the region” to follow American injunctions in setting petrol’s prices. Was there a direct connection between the oil regimes and the Jihadi propagandist machine? We have no answer to that now, but clearly an oil strategy was in the works with a calculated impact on the US economy. This charge is still in its early stages, it will be challenged ferociously, but it will stand as long as convincing answers are not provided.

What adds to the inquiry into the OPEC destabilization factor are the many indicators that strategic political motives have appeared to be behind the pricing maneuvers. Over a period of half a decade, many voices heard on the region’s airwaves have intimated that the US economy will be made to pay for what America’s leadership is doing. Commentators, some funded by oil producers on several outlets including on al Jazeera, underlined that as long as average citizens in the United States (and eventually in the West) don’t feel financial pain, the war on terror and spreading of Democracy won’t be stopped.

Sheikh Yussuf al Qaradawi, Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and mentor of the Qatari-funded channel, spoke openly of Silah al Naft, i.e, “the weapon of oil.” Indeed, it was called a weapon—as in a warfare situation—and most likely it was used as such. Of course, the producing “regimes” will deny the existence of a real strategy to bring the US to its knees by striking at its pumps. They will dismiss statements made by emirs and commentators in this regard. The “field Jihadists”, however, won’t deny the existence of such a battlefield.

For years now, Salafist web sites and al Qaeda spokespersons have loudly called for an “oil Jihad against infidel America and its lackeys.” Online material is still circulating. But more revealing are the official speeches by Osama Bin Laden and his deputy on the “absolute necessity to use that weapon.”

Ayman Zawahiri called expressly and repetitively on the public to sell their US dollars and buy gold instead (Be’u al dullar washtaru al zahab). These were stunning statements ignored by most analysts at the time but that are making sense today. He predicted a collapse in the infidels’ economy, starting from American markets. Was he a part of the lobbying effort in the OPEC game? Most likely not, but he seems to have been privy to the game, having insiders in the Wahhabi radical circles in the Peninsula: in the end there are too many political signs to dismiss and the analysis of price warfare is too evident to ignore.

OPEC’s manipulation of the markets did hit Americans hard in their pockets. Hundreds of millions of John and Jane Does were intimidated, terrorized really, into abandoning their lifelong dreams of owning properties because of the aggressive stance of petro-regimes towards the US and its campaign to spread democracy in the Greater Middle East. In historical terms, America was punished for daring to change the status quo in the Arab and Muslim world to the advantage of the weakest and the suppressed: Shia and Kurds in Iraq, Syrian reformers, Lebanese civil society, Africans in Darfur, Iranian women and students, artists and liberals across the Arabian Peninsula. In return, the U.S was submitted to economic destabilization, steady, gradual and by small doses.

Let’s not underestimate the power of the Jihadi-oil lobby in America: it has decades of influence and it has long arms into the system, and it has powerful political allies. It knows when Americans are messing up their own system, and it knows very well how to push them over the cliff, into the abyss of economic calamity.

A counterpoint to this thesis would vigorously argue that the alleged OPEC destabilization over the US economy is illogical, as many countries in the Gulf are experiencing a recession as a result of Wall Street’s crunch. In other words, they wouldn’t do it to themselves. Yet the ideological forces manning the oil weapon aren’t particularly concerned about economic stability. Their driving factor is Jihadism. We’ve heard their ideologues stating that even if they were to incur losses among their own societies in order to defeat the infidel powers, then let it be.

Read it all.

Dr. Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America, of The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and of the forthcoming book, The Confrontation. He is also the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

DISTURBING ARABIC FLASH CARDS

FLASH CARDS DESIGNED TO TEACH ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of Arabic have a curious way of doing it. We've all seen flash cards used to teach math functions and simple words. But we're sure you haven't seen flash cards like these! One of our chapter leaders happened to be in a Barnes & Noble bookstore in Minnesota, and saw a package of flash cards apparently intended to help someone translate Arabic words and phrases into English.

What he saw when he bought the cards was, to say the least, far different than what he expected. Here is a sample of some of the English words and phrases translated from the Arabic in this flash card set.

"assassination attempt"
"counter strike"
"attack"
"air strike"
"enemy"
"The army seized power"
"We buried the dead man yesterday"
"to seize power"
"martyr"
"to die in a battle"

To see a PDF image of the actual flashcards, designed by Fethi Mansouri, please click HERE. You will need Adobe Reader or similar software to view the image.

I guess we're pretty straight-laced here in America. Our flashcards designed to teach English have such controversial words and phrases such as "thank you," "could you please help me?", and "what time is it?" I don't think you'll find an English translation flashcard set with words like "assassination attempt."

One has to wonder who would need an Arabic flash card set that translates "assassination attempt" into English. Then again, maybe we shouldn't have to wonder at all.

Guy Rodgers
Executive Director
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.

THE QUESTION OF MUSLIM EXPULSION

Treason seems to be a forgotten crime these days, a mere remnant leftover from bygone years of high espionage when enemies were declared by name, rather than coddled when masquerading as our allies. While pink teary-eyed leftists whine about Guantanamo Bay war camp protocols, resolutely dismissing the culture of death plotted against the US, Canada, Chetznya, SW China, Serbia, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, and a host of soft European targets as mere residuals of our own ugly existence, others more robust in our outlook on reality search for more strident and historically compelling solutions to the problems the Camp of Islam is causing.

An eloquent solution just as punishing, but perhaps more apropos for our times than the one the current administration has advanced, leaving many of us chafing with regret, is the idea of an immigration freeze and annulment, an idea not at all new but historically grounded, an idea that actually seems fitting for the times as the creeping totalitarianism of democracy seems to some far worse than the blatant totalitarianism of the political bullies on the darling Left, in addition to the call from Muslims to incite terror and violence against us with the aim of abolishing our own constitutional form of government and replacing it with the theological totalitarianism of strict Islamic law, known as sharia.

Of course this solution is not without its pitfalls. At first glance, native tribes would be calling for the expulsion of whites, but that call simply distorts the nature of the current situation. What about those tribes? What about the crimes committed by those tribes against each other before the European arrived? And let's recall plainly that conquering Spain was a European power, not a native American tribe. and that its land grab was and is no more or less sanctified than the English, French, Portuguese or Dutch (and now Mexican or Islamic).

No, this issue must be addressed in terms of the current war, the current enemy, the current problem of an unidentified number of Muslims who refuse to integrate into the American way of life as an opportunity to escape the troubles in their own homelands, who refuse to become Americans, but only see themselves as slaves of Allah's massive war machine. An ungodly number of these immigrants are people who love death more than they love life, and are hell-bent on sharing that love with us. They are not fleeing jihad, they are exporting jihad. And our leadership simply imports it into our neighborhoods, believing that if we treat these immigrants nicely, they will respond in kind. Unfortunately, the anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly contradicts this delusion. Here is one:

I have had Somali co-workers and as fellow students at community college, and have been a fellow patient with them at the county hospital and they, save for a few individuals, do hate us, and they constantly threaten lawsuits (how is that for integration) and generally avoid being friendly with non-Muslims.

For some examples, I include the following—my brother went to a heavily Somalian high-school (Minneapolis Roosevelt) and the school decided to make two Somalians, homecoming king and queen, disqualifying the other people on the slate, even though two non-Somalis had won. At the homecoming dance, in broad public the homecoming king punched the queen in the face at the dance. At the same highschool the Somalis harrassed Ethiopians, called the American blacks pig-eaters, sons of slaves and infidels, and openly expressed virulent racist hatred towards whites, including teachers.

In a fight the night before September 11, several Somalians attacked African American members of the football team and ended up stabbing a football coach who attempted to break up the fight. At Washburn highschool here in Minneapolis in the last couple of years there has been serious violence between Somali and African American or black gangs. At one of my jobs, they are openly rude to non-Muslims and a Somali woman I worked with was being stalked by these guys, who would come to threaten her at work. She was scared, and she finally quit the job.

There, where two Bosnians also work, two cousins, and one was friendly, and his cousin yelled at him for making friends with the Americans, and would just coldly glare at people who were friendly with them. He would never shake hands. I could go on about my Egyptian Muslim friend in high school, who eventually turned on his American friends over Islam, and got religious after being a pot-smoking boozer. His friendship quickly turned to hatred.

At community college, MCTC, the Somalis' clearly took over parts of the school. And felt no need to behave, and in class, were rude to both students and faculty. And then there are those "domestic violence" episodes in which a Somali or Ethiopian Muslim kills a woman from their community. My point is Muslim and Somali immigrants are not nice people and the US imported a real bunch of winners. Muslim immigration is bad, bad news. And the authorities here, have a hear no evil, see no evil policy. It is going to get worse.

In response to the call for expelling thousands if not millions of unrepentant Muslims—First Amendment flaunting saboteurs and stealth jihadists all—from these United States of America, a concerned citizen named Susan has eloquently written:

Don't you think that "expelling" our sworn enemies would be preferable to locking them up in isolated compounds to prevent them from fully practicing their religion by engaging in violent jihad? Apparently you consider the idea of "expulsion" akin to "illegal" wiretapping and intercepting communications between domestic and overseas terrorists; abhorrent violations of the Constitutional rights of islamic terrorists who happen to be American citizens. And of course we all know that if the federal government is permitted to trample all over the constitutional rights of treasonous, terrorist muslims, martial law and tyranny are imminent. No problem; we don't mind getting blown to bits so muslims can perfidiously exploit the First Amendment, which guarantees rights that are anathematized by islam.

Nothing like islam has ever threatened America before; the closest comparison might be Japanese Americans during WWII. The threat posed by islam and muslims is unique, unprecedented, and grossly understated. But don't despair; we both know that the expulsion of jihadist Muslims is a very remote, albeit tantalizing, prospect. It is quite obvious that the mendacious, malevolent, perfidious imams and apologist, pseudo-scholars of Islam have our government's ear and the American people are being fed to the wolves so Muslims can feel good about themselves, not that they have ever had any low self-esteem issues. Problem is, they don't just want to feel good about themselves; instead they intend to dictate how non-Muslims will perceive islam and if that ploy fails, they will manipulate and exploit the same First Amendment that allows them to practice their vile religion to dictate what we can say about it. And you're worried about Big Brother taking away your rights?

Not only would I applaud the expulsion of every muslim with questionable loyalty to America or with overt jihadist ambitions, nothing would thrill me more than to see bulldozers razing mosques across America as their sullen, evil Wahabbi imams were being escorted to airports with one-way tickets to the dysfunctional kingdom of sadistic savages, aka Saudi Arabia. This scenario is one of my favorite daydreams but I have no illusions that a rational and salutary approach to our deadly dilemma will ever occur, at least not until they succeed in annihilating millions of us. In the interim, the stealth jihad marches on and scores a new victory every day.

I loathe islam with all my heart and soul, and I could never trust a Muslim but I wish Muslims no harm; I just wish they would go away. They are not worth the anxiety, fear, and unrelenting threat they pose by virtue of their malevolent, insidious religion. Who needs it?

—Susan P

Postscript (from Max Publius): The Navajo Reservation in Arizona has about 200,000 residents and is half the size of England, which has 50 million. That's quite a disparate land distribution. Yet England, under a pact with dhimmi traitors like Blair and the Islamist-loving United Nations, accepts hundreds of thousands of Islamonazis each year. Other immigrants just invade illegally. Number of immigrants taken in by the Navajo? None, unless you show you have Navajo ancestry. Ditto for most non-Western countries.

Can you imagine a group invading the Navajo Reservation, demanding welfare, calling Navajo "kaffir" with a bullhorn, attacking Navajo religious figures and buildings, raping and stealing from Navajo, and calling themselves "Navajo" while disparaging everything about the Navajo, and on and on.

That is exactly what is happening in little England. Just replace the above with English.

And now Lebanon falls. The government has capitulated to Hezbollah. The tumbling of a house of cards has begun. Were the only victims in Lebanon other Muslims, one might not mind, as the Camp of Islam grows in ferocity, it doesn't matter whose bodies pile high from the carnage. But Lebanon has been somewhat of a haven for Christians in the Middle East as they are driven from their ancestral homes in surrounding dar al-Islam, and that makeshift haven is now threatened. And none of the ruling elites in the Western world has given a thought to providing a permanent place of refuge in the Middle East itself to the more than a million Christians who have left, or will have to leave, Iraq.

They could do this, for example, by relocating many of them to Lebanon, and forcing the Shi'a out, by popular demand, so that they go to Iraq, among other Shi'ite Arabs. Or they could move them to the "West Bank," and force out the Muslim Arabs who represent a permanent threat to Israel. They can't be allowed into Western countries, having been raised on a steady diet of hysteria and hate, but they could be given space in Iraq, replacing those lost Assyrians and Chaldeans.

Those Assyrians and Chaldeans, if they wish to remain in the Middle East, should find their natural homes in Lebanon, or the "West Bank" within permanent Israeli protection, or possibly in Syria. But Syria could only be a haven for them if one assumes that the Alawites will begin to see the light and stop doing Iranian bidding in order to prove that they are bona fide Shi'ite Muslims, and continue to keep their own local Muslims in check—which is the only protection the Syrian Christians now possess.

But who in the Western world now thinks of saving the Christians through such intelligent, and in another day, obvious population transfer?

It isn't done. We prefer to stay pure, by never mentioning such things. Thus, we allow millions of people to be booted out, with nowhere to go, because we simply can't begin to think in realistic terms about such transfers, which were the norm, not the exception, throughout human history—including the history of the last century.

AN ETHICAL BASIS FOR WAR

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam: Part 4

This newsletter is one of a series on the subject...

Jihad
The dualistic ethical system of the Islamic Trilogy prepares the foundation of jihad with one set of ethics for Muslims and another set of ethics for the kafirs. So, there are two ways to deal with the kafirs. One is to think of them as inferiors but act in a kindly way. The other is jihad.

Jihad is a unique word. Its actual meaning is struggle or effort. Islam speaks of two types-the lesser jihad and the greater jihad. The greater jihad is spiritual effort or internal struggle, to stop smoking, for example, or control one's greed. Only 3% of the Hadith Bukhari recorded about jihad refer to the greater jihad. The rest, 97%, of the Hadith about jihad are about war.

The Fundamentals of Jihad
The following hadith summarizes all the key elements of jihad. (Notice that only the fourth item, the Day of Resurrection, is purely religious in nature). It tells us that the whole world must submit to Islam; kafirs are the enemy simply by not being Muslims. To achieve this dominance, Islam may use terror and violence. It may use psychological warfare, fear, and theft. It may take the spoils of war from kafirs. Violence and terror are made sacred by the Koran. Peace comes only with submission to Islam.

Bukhari 1,7,331 Mohammed: "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me:
Allah made me victorious by awe, by His frightening my enemies for a distance of one month's journey.
The earth has been made for me and for my followers a place for praying and a place to perform rituals; therefore, anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
The spoils of war has been made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
I have been given the right of intercession on the Day of Resurrection.
Every prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind."

The story of the Trilogy culminates in the dominance of political Islam. The Trilogy teaches that Islam is the perfect political system and is destined to rule the entire world. The governments and constitutions of the world must all submit to political Islam. If the political systems of the kafirs do not submit, then force, jihad, may be used. All jihad is defensive, since refusing to submit to Islam is an offense against Allah. All Muslims must support the political action of jihad. This may take several forms-fighting, proselytizing or contributing money.

The Trilogy lays out the complete strategy, tactics, and vision of political Islam and jihad. Much of the Trilogy is about how Mohammed dealt with those people who disagreed with him. Violent political action with a religious motivation was taken against kafirs. Under Islam, their only political freedom was to submit. This legal inferiority is sacred, eternal and universal.

Duality of ethics was the basis for Mohammed's greatest single innovation-jihad. Jihad is dual ethics with sacred violence. The key religious element of the dual ethics is that Allah sanctifies violence for complete domination. The kafirs must submit to Islam.

In Mecca, Mohammed demonstrated the initial practice of jihad when Islam was weak: persuasion and conversion. When he moved to Medina, he demonstrated how jihad worked when Islam was strong: using immigration against inhabitants, creating political power by struggling against the host, dominating other religions, using violence, sowing division among the tribes, and establishing a government.

Jihad is civilizational war for two reasons. First, jihad uses every aspect of civilization as an element of war. Violence, education, fear, psychology, sociology, sex, population, immigration, public relations, corruption and religion are all used in jihad. Military force and terror are the smallest aspects of jihad. The second reason that jihad is civilizational war is that the purpose of jihad is to annihilate every aspect of the non-Islamic civilization. Art, history, law, dress, manners, names, education, customs, government, foreign policy, economics, and every other detail must become Islamic.

The greatest error in understanding jihad is to think of military force and terror. Jihad does not have to fit the Geneva Convention's rules. A jihadist is a civilian in the army of Allah and can move back and forth from soldier to citizen. Giving money to an Islamic "charity" is jihad. Writing a letter to the editor about how well Islam treats women is jihad. Having eight children is jihad.

The Koran could not be more clear-every Muslim is to be a jihadist. Jihad is laid out in all three of the Trilogy texts. There is no Islam without jihad.

Islam has been waging civilizational war for centuries. Before the Muslims arrived, Egypt and North Africa and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia-now Iran-was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now. Languages disappeared to be replace by Arabic.

When Napoleon invaded Egypt, he discovered that the Muslim population knew nothing about the pyramids or temples. The 5,000 year old culture of the Pharaohs had been annihilated. There is no longer a population of Buddhists in Afghanistan. Baghdad was once home to the oldest community of Jews in the world, brought there as Babylonian captives, today it is estimated that there are no more than a few dozen old, sick and infirm Jews left in Iraq. All cultures living within the borders of Islam are annihilated. [Whole] Peoples either leave, convert or die out. There are no exceptions.

Once jihad has conquered a civilization, there is never another revolution. Even if the form of government changes, it remains Muslim. The only time Islam has left an occupied territory has been because it was forced out by military might.

Rape as Warfare
Mohammed encouraged the rape of female captives after battles. This is reported in the Sira and Hadith and approved in the Koran. In jihad it is not considered rape to have forced sex with a woman as long as she is a kafir captive or slave. This is true even if she is married. In the Muslim world, the act is only rape when committed against a Muslim. Again, the dual ethics of Islam prevail.

Bukhari 3,34,431 One of the captives was a beautiful Jewess, Safiya. Dihya had her first, but she was given to Mohammed next.

4:24 Also forbidden to you are married women unless they are your slaves or captives.

Rape was one of Mohammed's tactics of conquest because it worked. Forced sex with women whose protectors had been killed was considered supreme domination. It was also a humiliation to the women's male relatives and husbands who had not been killed. If a woman is captured, raped and absorbed into the captor's environment, her helplessness renders her totally compliant and her submission is complete. To protect her children from slavery, many widows and rape victims readily agreed to conversion and their children were raised as Muslims.

Forced sex is far more than rape in political Islam. It is a method of war, a tactical strike which is not a crime because it is jihad. It is not a sin. It is practiced against the kafir and is sanctioned in the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith.

Bill Warner

MITT ROMNEY SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN

Why did this man wait so long to give THIS speech, And I'm not talking about the "suspension" or "concession" clause at the end of the speech, announcing his withdrawal from the active campaign. I'm talking about his strong point by point delivery of conservative values and conservative issues, a clear vision riveting with details that make sense to those of us unafraid to acknowledge those principles. Mitt Romney was the only candidate (other than the more intellectually diminutive Tom Tancredo) who really gets it. His speech at CPAC yesterday nailed the Islamofascist enemy in our midst and abroad...

"...And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America – and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy. To them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad."

He knows the enemy, is not afraid to name them, and has obviously spent a bit of time developing a cogent plan to deal with it...

"To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn't get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might – raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve..."

Let's face it. McCain talks big, but is a lightweight when it comes to marshalling details. He thinks he's Ronald Reagan. Come to tghink of it, his voice does waver a bit like Reagan's did in the latter years of his tour of duty. But is that enough. Aren't we looking for a real communicator once again. And McCain is no communicator. That much is clear with all his "my friends" and other talking point repetitions. And even in his early primary victory speeches he literally had to look down and read his enthusiam off the page.

Today was sad day for America. Hopefully we can hold our borders together and not limp our way to becoming another France or Great Britain in four years.

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

Fast jihad is jihad by the bomb, by military means, aggressive and deliberate. Slow jihad is the active business of immigration, insinuation, agitation, and ultimate takeover of foreign lands by demographic means. This is no accident. War is deceit. By any means necessary. Qu'ranic tactics all. And most effective against nations who practice an open arms policy. History, unfortunately, is littered with the bloody extinctions of non-Islamic peoples exterminated by Islam hordes in its quest to fulfill the Qu'ranic dictates of Islamic world domination. And this is not the time to fall prey to the false analogies of cultural relativity. This slow jihad combined with al-Qaeda's fast jihad is a war strategy executed in real time in our time.

Simply put, Islam is the political engine for Arab imperialism cloaked in religious language. Ask the Buddhists and Hindus in south Asia. Ask the Christians and Jews in the Middle East. Ask the Armenians and Albanians in southern Europe. Ask the Christian and tribes in Africa and Indonesia and the Philippines. Ask the British and the French. Ask the Danes and the Dutch. Ask the Swedes. Ask the Germans.

Here is an article from Germany, a nation now only just beginning to wake from its slumber concerning its heavy increasingly problematic immigrant population, formerly embraced in the spirit of multiculturalism, but now feared as Islam begins its ascendency in a Europe betrayed by its own policy miscues. This is not fresh news to those who have been following the rise of Islam in Europe and elsewhere around the globe, and have studied its 1400 year history without the smoke and mirrors of political correctness obstructing this analysis, but it bears repeating.

‘Bezness’- a word derived from the English ‘business’, is used in many Islamic countries to describe the love affairs between naive Western women and Arab men, who made it their business to target Western, infidel women, merely to suck them dry.

The Muslim pretends to be in love until he has fleeced his victim of her money and/or made her pregnant, which helps him to become a permanent resident or citizen in Europe. Then begins the brutality in the marriage, but the women remain silent because of shame. These ‘Bezness-men’ usually lose all interest in wife and kids once they have become citizens and treat their wife and family like garbage.

Germany has a help line and an organization to help women who have been damaged by these very professional ‘bezness-men’. Those who seek help should contact: Homepage der Bezness-geschädigten Evelyne Kern

Women who have been cheated out of their savings and betrayed by Arab-fairytale merchants, ‘bezness-men’, should contact the above organization. The politicians and the media largely ignore these very serious crimes on these women constituents, who are deliberately and with malicious intend cheated out of everything they own and are traumatized, physically and psychologically damaged.

Political correctness is equally damaging and prevents the media from waging a campaign to further awareness. The victims are left to themselves. WDR and ZDF have managed to get the word out thanks to the organization of Evelyne Kern.

In the meantime there is also a data bank available where interested women can check if their lover is already blacklisted for his record of bezness-activities …

DESTROYING THE NATION STATE

By Alan W. Dowd published by FrontPageMagazine.com

Buried deep in a recent Washington Post piece deriding former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s penchant for firing off memos, we find this morsel:
“In one of his longer ruminations, in May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the terrorism fight as a ‘worldwide insurgency.’ The goal of the enemy, he wrote, is to ‘end the state system, using terrorism, to drive the non-radicals from the world.’” Love him or hate him, Rumsfeld was right about this. He was also consistent, recognizing that the jihadists’ worldwide insurgency—or global guerilla war, if you prefer—is not the only challenge to the nation-state system. In fact, Rumsfeld also spoke at length about international institutions that undermine the nation-state system.

“We see respect for states’ sovereignty eroding,” he said during a 2003 conference in Germany. “We see it, in my view, in the International Criminal Court’s claim of authority to try the citizens of countries that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction…We see it in the new Belgian law purporting to give Belgian courts ‘universal jurisdiction’ over alleged war crimes anywhere in the world.”

Rumsfeld understood that the erosion of sovereignty “absolves states of their responsibilities to deal with problems within their borders.” Or within their neighborhood: As historian William Pfaff wrote of Europe’s Balkan debacle in the 1990s, international organizations such as the United Nations and European Community (forerunner to the European Union) “proved an obstacle to action, by inhibiting individual national action and rationalizing the refusal to act nationally.”

Of course, some governments prove by their actions that they are simply not capable of governing—or not worthy of governing. “We need to be able to hold states accountable for their performance,” Rumsfeld explained. In other words, states either have to police what happens inside their borders or open themselves to outside intervention.

States like Lebanon and Iraq and the Philippines that strive to control what happens inside their borders but are too weak to overcome our common enemies deserve our help. States like Pakistan that play games with sovereignty—claiming they are too weak to control their territories in one breath but then invoking their sovereign and inviolable borders the next—don’t. States like Syria and Iran that refuse to respect international borders or international norms—and terrorist groups like the PKK, al Qaeda and their kind that thrive on anarchy and partner with rogue regimes—must be treated as enemies, no matter how risky. And states like Somalia and too many of her neighbors in Africa are so broken that they need not just external intervention, but international administration.

In short, Rumsfeld understood that the nation-state system is under assault from two unrelated sources—international, supra-state organizations and transnational, terrorist organizations. Both seek a stateless world, although their visions for what such a world would look like are dramatically different. After all, one is utopian, the other dystopian.

Read it all.

STATISTICS BY THE BOOK

Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?

This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.

Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.

(...)

All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%...

—Traeh

EX-MUSLIM CARTOONIST STRIKES BACK

Speaking of Cartoon Rage, there's a new provacateur on the block. The spot-on main character in The Infidel, the upcoming graphic novel by the ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin, is also an ex-Muslim cartoonist. This character creates "Pigman," a ruthless counter-jihad superhero, as a response to 9/11. His creating the Pigman comic book brings him face to face with the enemy: his born-again Muslim brother, who has become a jihadist.

Fawstin writes:

Once you allow the murder of human beings as an intrinsic part of spreading your belief system, and as a literal part of your 'holy book', NO irrelevant, out of context good can be claimed. No redemption is possible. Now, from my experience, most Muslims are simply better than Islam, and I attribute that to their humanity, to their ability to ignore Islam and its constant pull to influence the worst part of our natures.

The moment Mohammad crossed the line and used his sword to spread Islam was the moment Islam was revealed as an even more impotent belief system than originally thought. Mohammad understood that without force, Islam would have died with him, and that tells you a lot about his ‘faith’ in his own religion.

It all begins with Mohammad, it all begins with the nature of the man. He is considered the perfect man in Islam. So morality, when it came to Islam, was equated with ‘Mohammed’ and whatever he said and did. It’s no mystery that where Islam dominates, there’s hell on earth.

We’re still looking for ‘the good’ in something bad because that’s our nature. We’re so healthy a culture, relatively speaking, that we're still confounded by what’s going on around us. We need to look to the good for the good and judge evil belief systems as just that. Jihad, holy war against all non-Muslims, [no matter WHAT Muslims would tell you about it being a ‘spiritual journey’,] is the heart of Islam, and without it, Islam’s dead. One Cannot moderate evil. It’s no longer up to Muslims to ‘reform’ Islam, we’ve seen that they’re not morally up to even considering the prospect of it. There’s only the possibility of absolute moral transformation, of a moral revolution of Islam by Muslims. But I don’t think they will do so without the entire world Forcing them to do so. Again, there is NO mass movement of Muslims who are looking to morally transform Islam, the very notion of it offends them.

For our own good, the end game of this jihad, the time when we are forced to choose between us or them, [a day which Will come] is massive destruction of terrorist countries to the point where the Muslim world has NO choice but to join civilization once and for all. To the point where they stop looking at the world as the enemy and see that it’s been Islam all along that’s made their lives hell.

I can go on here, may have went on some tangents, but we are in such deep shit with our sheer gutlessness as a culture in simply seeing the truth about the enemy that I fear it will take another devastating attack for us to see the truth and act on it, even if the actors are wretched politicians. But they will have no choice.