I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Your Vote Could Narrow My Choices

 When South Carolina and Florida go to the polls, it is likely that candidates who trail in the polls will drop out of the race.  The Iowa Caucuses already eliminated two of my choices. 

    If Rick Santorum is eliminated, I will have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for Gingrich Feb. 28.  If Gingrich and Santorum are both eliminated, I may as well stay home because I absolutely will not vote for Huntsman, Perry or Romney.

    In my opinion, the time has come to consider standardizing the Primaries, on a common day, giving citizens of every state equal opportunity to participate in the candidate selection process.  It is time to put an end to the petty fussing over who votes first the rules are arcane and idiotic.

   lets switch to a two stage ballot: let every voter make a first, second and third choice.  If no candidate obtains a majority of the first choice ballots, add in the second, and if necessary, third choice votes until a majority is obtained.  If there is no majority using all three ballots, let the convention system make the final choice the old fashioned way. 

    While we are at it, lets close the primaries, there is justification for allowing Democrats and Morons to interfere in the selection of the Republican nominee. 


Your Vote Could Narrow My Choices

 When South Carolina and Florida go to the polls, it is likely that candidates who trail in the polls will drop out of the race.  The Iowa Caucuses already eliminated two of my choices. 

    If Rick Santorum is eliminated, I will have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for Gingrich Feb. 28.  If Gingrich and Santorum are both eliminated, I may as well stay home because I absolutely will not vote for Huntsman, Perry or Romney.

    In my opinion, the time has come to consider standardizing the Primaries, on a common day, giving citizens of every state equal opportunity to participate in the candidate selection process.  It is time to put an end to the petty fussing over who votes first the rules are arcane and idiotic.

   lets switch to a two stage ballot: let every voter make a first, second and third choice.  If no candidate obtains a majority of the first choice ballots, add in the second, and if necessary, third choice votes until a majority is obtained.  If there is no majority using all three ballots, let the convention system make the final choice the old fashioned way. 

    While we are at it, lets close the primaries, there is justification for allowing Democrats and Morons to interfere in the selection of the Republican nominee. 


Urinating Marines: No Harm Done

 While urinating on the corpses of enemy combatants may technically violate the Geneva Accords, the enemy is not a signatory.  The act also violated the letter and spirit of Marine Core regulations.  The men involved should have been smart enough not to allow the act to be photographed.   Maintenance of discipline may require punishment, but I agree with Rep. West; their punishment should be minimal.

    Urinating on dead Taliban has no effect on 'peace talks' . Anyone who believes that talking with Muslims can result in peace needs to take care in passing gas & wiping to avoid brain damage.  Nothing can make Muslims hate us more than they already do, either. Muslims hate us because we are not Muslims, no provocation is required.

    The conflict with Islam is existential: it can only end in the extinction of one side or the other. Either Islam goes to Hell or Western Civilization goes, no other outcome is possible. Both the electorate and our Congressmen & President need to know the  fatal facts of Islam. 

    Allah commands Muslims to wage war against disbelievers.  The jihad imperatives are expressed as fight ... until loops.

  • 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

  • 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." 
    • 33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. 
  • Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526


        Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

        The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

    Is there some part of 'fight them until', 'fight those who until', 'ordered to fight' and 'performed continuously' that they do not comprehend?  The j8ihad imperatives are codified in Shari'ah, best exemplified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O9.8: "The caliph makes war" & "The caliph fights".  From Hedaya, we learn that "War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims." and is undertaken offensively, on Islam's initiative, not defensively: "The destruction of the sword  is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are generally received this effect."

    From the Islamic perspective, peace is the result of conquest. There can be no peace until the entire world is conquered.  Islam does not negotiate peace, it negotiates hudna, for a maximum term of ten years or until it is able to resume attacks, whichever comes first.  Why did we fight two Barbary Wars?

  • 47:35. So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islâm), while you are having the upper hand. Allâh is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds. 

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Human Rights First: Wrong about Abigail Esman's Assessment of HRC 16/18

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/01/10/abigail-esman-gets-it-wrong-on-free-speech/

    Having presented a link to the article, I will post only a few paragraphs that bear directly on the issue. Links in the quotes are original, the highlighting is mine.

In the first paragraph, the author suggests that “incitement to imminent violence” – an act that the resolution recommends be criminalized – could mean anything. This is a harmful misconception that serves as a crux of the opposition to this resolution.

    The author doesn’t directly dispute a quote from a recent Human Rights First blog on Myth vs. Reality on US Engagement with Islamic States that “the only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to ‘imminent violence,’ which is in accordance with US law.” Yet at the same time the author states that opponents of the resolution “rightly find [this measure] distressing.” How could one be distressed by a provision that recommends the criminalization of only those instances of incitement that are considered criminal under the U.S. Constitution, the highest standard of free speech in the world?


    As the UN documents are fond of saying, read "inter alia". HRC RES 16/18 is based on UN standards, not Constitutional standards.  "Incitement to imminent violence" means what they want it to mean, not what we want it to mean. Islam practices Orwellian double speak

Through her examples, the author seems to indicate that speech could be considered “incitement to imminent violence” simply because an individual or group of individuals react violently to it. This is an incorrect understanding of the legal concept of “incitement” as it is used in U.S. law, the standard on which this part of the resolution was based.

    Where in the resolution does it explicitly define the meaning of incitement?  Nowhere!!  The definition is found elsewhere, in the expressions of the Secretary General of the OIC and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G11/127/27/PDF/G1112727.pdf?OpenElement

2. Expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination
and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of
religion or belief, continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any
advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth
in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights
law, to address and combat such incidents;

3. Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or
electronic media or any other means;

5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his
call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic environment of religious
tolerance, peace and respect, by:

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief; [http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/8864sggenevaoic.pdf#page=3]

    In the first page of Ishanoglu's address to the HRC, we discover something important: his definition of incitement to violence includes announcing intent to burn the Koran. 

     The new session of Council is also coincident with regrettable events that are deliberately meant to defame religions as well incite hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and violence against religions, in particular, Islam.  The increasing incidents of violence and discrimination on the basis of religion must not be ignored.  We hope  that this and other related issues remain an important priority in the work of  the Council. 

    The most recent and unfortunate in the series of  such events was the announcement pertaining to Burn a Koran Day


   
    On the next page, Ishanoglu lists campaigns that incite hatred,  including Burn a Koran Day, and informs us that they threaten global peace & security.  In the short form:  they incite violence

In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures - both in policy md practice - which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the construction of minarets, organization of events that incite hatred
like Burn a Koran Day, and other discriminatory measures must be strongly condemned by
the international community. A recurrence of such events substantiate OIC's call for a
normative approach to deal with this menace that continues to pose a clear 'and present danger
to peace, security 'and stability in the regional as well as the global context.

    Lets clarify the issue of "clear and present danger to peace"; in essence: violence, by breaking down the conjunctive clause.
  • Incitement to violence:
    • fear mongering
    • discriminatory
    • ban minarets
    • incite hatred
    • Burn a koran Day
  • other discriminatory measures
 Now that it is clear that discrimination is equated with incitement, lets zero in on that last clause: other discriminatory measures: what, exactly, does this category include?  To find out, we turn to the most recent annual Islamophobia Report.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=6

Other instances of Islamophobia in the US recorded in the report include the agenda of the Tea
Party Movement, which openly advocated hatred against Muslims, the proposed “ban on Sharia”
which succeeded within the State of Oklahoma, and the congressional hearings on the
“radicalization of the American Muslim Community” initiated by Rep. Peter King, Chairman of
the US House Committee on Homeland Security. The hearings launched a debate built on
prejudiced and biased premises that Muslims were potential terrorists who, in his opinion,
ostensibly refused to cooperate with the Nation’s “war on terror”. Such a debate, regardless of
the outcome, would contribute to a climate of fear and distrust towards the Muslim community.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=10
The United States of America – a country long admired for its embracement of diversity –
recorded the highest intensity of hostility and prejudice towards Muslims during the period
under review. The infamous “Burn A Quran Day” by a hitherto non-entity Florida Pastor Terry
Jones and his subsequent actions at hate mongering, the Congressional hearings by the
Chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security on the
“radicalization of American Muslims” in Washington DC on March 11, 2011 and his statement
that “We (the US) are under siege by Muslim terrorists”1 along with other anti Muslim events,
were ominous signs of Islamophobia taking roots in the USA. The fact that such incidents cast a
shadow on the US image of tolerance frustrating the optimism generated, throughout the Muslim
world, by President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, may not be discounted.
  • Tea Party Platform
  • Qur'an burning
  • Radicalization Hearings
    Lets gild the lilly by bringing in two more important sources which confirm the obvious, from the initial meeting of the Istanbul Process .

OIC Journal June-August '11
http://issuu.com/oic-journal/docs/journal_issue18_english?mode=window&pageNumber=7
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, US Representative to the Human Rights Council,

In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

    In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative
of Pakistan on behalf of the OIC at the HRC, told the OIC
Journal that both sides – the OIC countries and the western
countries – made important concessions to each other to
reach a compromise on the resolution. What is important for
the OIC point of view is that it would not compromise on
three things: anything against the Quran, anything against the
Prophet (PBUH), and anything against Muslim community
in terms of discrimination.

    According to our HRC Ambassador, Burn the Qur'an Day was abominable intolerance.   According to Pakistan's Ambassador, the OIC will not compromise on anything against the Qur'an or Moe. 

    Now it is time to go right to the top, to obtain the working definition of incitement to violence from  the Secretary General of the United Nations. 

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

    According to Ban, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, combining verses from the Qur'an & hadith with sermons from Friday prayers and images of the ensuing violence, is incitement to violence.  In reality, Fitna exposes incitement, it does not constitute incitement.  Having examined the operative definition of incitement, lets take a look at the Islamic law behind the whole operation. 

    What Moe preached is law, what he practiced is exemplary, together, his preaching and practice form the basis of Islamic law.  Moe had critics murdered.  Because of that exemplary conduct, the penalty for criticizing Islam is death. 

  • 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
    and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
    deserves to be killed.
  • 08.7 (0: Among the things that entail apostasy
    from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:
    • (4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah
      bless him and give him peace);
    • (5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless
      eternality, His endless eternaIity, or to
      deny any of His attributes which the consensus of
      Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: vI);
    • (6) to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His
      command, His interdiction, His promise, or His
      threat;
    • (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything
      which by scholarly consensus (def: b7)
      belong 
    • (15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers
      or prophets are liars, or to deny their bcing sent;
      (n: 'Ala' ai-Din 'Abidin adds the following:
    • (16) to revile the religion of Islam;
      (17) to believe that things in themselves or
      by their own nature have any causal influence
      independent of the will of Allah;
    • (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn
      (def: w22), or the heavens;
    • (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the
      Sacred Law;
      (20) or to deny that Allah intended the
      Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him
      peace) to be the religion followed by the entire
      world (dis: w4.3--4) (al-Hadiyya al-'Ala'iyya (y4),
      423-24).)
  • 011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with
    respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated
    that any of the following things break it, and
    one of the suhjects does so anyway. though if the
    state has not stipulated that these break the agreement,
    then they do not; namely, if one of the subject
    people:
    • (5) or mentions something impermissible
      about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
      give him peace), or Islam.
  • 011.11 When a subject's agreement with the state
    has been viOlated, the caliph chooses between the
    four alternatives mentioned above in connection
    with prisoners of war (09.14).
  • O9.14  When an adult male is taken captive, the
    caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of
    Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the
    prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying
    anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for
    money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
    If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before
    the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives)
    then he may not be killed, and one of the other
    three alternatives is chosen.
    The OIC seeks to prevent & punish every negative utterance about Islam. Their current tactic is to conflate criticism with incitement, proscribing the latter.
The fourth Islamophobia Report hints at the next step. 

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=16

The restraint was short lived and on 20 March 2011 the controversial Florida Pastor Terry
Jones oversaw24 the burning of a copy of the Koran, carried out by Pastor Wayne Sapp, in his
small church. The incident was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found
“guilty” and “executed”. The event was open to the public. Fewer than 30 people attended but
widespread media coverage attracted by the event somewhat served the nefarious designs and
the extremist philosophy behind the outrageous act.

    After the unfortunate incident, the OIC Secretary General issued a statement expressing his deep
disappointment, and warned against unforeseen and volatile consequences of such outrageous
and irresponsible acts that could hurt the deep seated religious sentiments of over 1.5 billion
Muslims around the world. He characterized the unfortunate incident as “the worst example of
extremism” that the international community had been consistent in condemning.


http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=36

Approaches like applying the ‘test of consequences’ were useful and would have to be
explored/refined further in an objective fashion towards evolving a consensus with
regard to effectively addressing the matter; and

 As regards the issue of freedom of opinion and expression, the OIC could with the views
of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and expression with regard to making “very
few exceptions” but the contours of such exceptions would have to be identified. OIC
believed that unfortunate and outrageous episodes like the caricatures and the burning of
holy Quran merited the grant of such exceptions;


    For those too stupid or indolent to connect the dots: if the resolution had been implemented a year ago, Pastors Jones & Sapp would be  persecuted criminally & sued civil court for the "consequences" of their trial and execution of the Qur'an.  Holding them responsible for the acts of a Muslim rabble roused by kutbah at Jumah Salat is not just, nor is it rational.  Jones & Sapp did not incite anyone to violence. Asian Imams did. 

    It becomes obvious that the plan is to compel self-censorship through legal intimidation.  It is equally obvious that Human Rights first is so heavily invested in the Istanbul Process that they are blinded to objective factual reality.   

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Open Letter To Rick Santorum

Open Letter To Rick Santorum Dear Mr. Santorum,

Your answer to a question about national security issues involving Afghanistan  exposes a vital element of truth on the surface, while an unpleasant stream of hypocrisy flows beneath the surface.  

    Thanks and a tip of the hat to Paul Hoffman, whose Facebook post brought to my attention Robert Spencer's post, where I found this video clip. 

How long do you want to wait?  Until the security of our country is ensured, that's what the job of the commander of chief is and you make that decision, not the generals--you make that decision based on an analysis of how virulent the threat of radical Islam is and you confront that threat not just militarily, and importantly, not just militarily, you confront it first by being honest with the American public about what this threat is. 

    This President has sanitized every defense document, everything, the word radical Islam does not appear anywhere , why? because we are fighting political correct -- we are trying to fight this politically correct war and not being honest with the American public as to who the enemy is, how virulently they are and why they hate us and what we must do to stop...

 

how long ?

    The question of the duration of our occupation of Afghanistan can not be answered with a clock, calendar or time table. 

strategic objectives

national security

    If the strategic objective is to permanently end  Afghanistan's membership in the set of state sponsors of terrorism and prevent Afghanistan from being used as a training ground and staging area for terrorists, then the eradication of Islam from Afghanistan is the criteria for ending the occupation. We bring the troops home when the population of Afghanistan and their government are totally free from the influence of the damnable doctrines of Islam which inculcate hatred and enjoin genocidal conquest which is won by casting terror. 

    In that case, you remove our troops from Afghanistan when its population is either apostatized or converted and its government is able and willing to secure its borders against infiltration from neighboring countries infested with Muslims. 

free, democratic & secure

    If the strategic objective is, as Shrub stated, a free, democratic, secure & prosperous Afghanistan with a stable government which respects human equality, dignity & rights,  then cleansing Afghanistan from the infestation of Islam  is insufficient.  In this case, Afghanistan must be cleansed from its long tradition of tribalism and its honor/shame culture as well.  Good luck with that; measure the occupation in millenia, not centuries. 

how virulent

how infectious

    Islam spread from Mecca & Medina to infect all of Arabia, North Africa, the Levant, nearly half of Asia and South East Europe in a few centuries. Infected persons now infest Western Europe and America and are spreading the infection through our prisons and inner cities. 

how malignant

    It is impossible to count with accuracy, the many innocent victims of Islam, but the best estimate runs to 270 million

radical Islam

radical Englishmen

    Were the founders fighting 'radical' Englishmen in the Revolution against King George or were they fighting his army?

radical Nazis

    Was the greatest generation in combat against 'radical' Nazis ?  Were those 'radicals' a tiny minority of Nazis? Was there a peaceful majority of Nazis who did not want to participate in world conquest?

radical Communism

    Did millions die of starvation at the hands of Stalin, Mao & Pot because of an extraordinary, 'radical' variant of International Communism?  Was the Cold War fought against 'radcal' Communism or the real thing? 

radical Muslims

    Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it. I quote from Wikipedia's entry on the First Barbary War:  "On October 11, 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.[2] " ...  "Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on July 25, 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria and the Dauphin a week later.[5]"

    Where the Barbary Pirates 'radicals', 'perverting', 'distorting' and 'twisting' normative Islamic doctrine into a perverted form, or were they acting in obedience to Allah; emulating their Prophet?  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams put the question to Tripoli's Ambassador in 1785. His reply is a clue for you.

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [12]

Koran

    Is that true? Is it really written in their Koran that they have a right and duty to plunder and enslave? 

right & duty

2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.   

   
    Ordained means it is Allah's law. "fight ... until" makes the statements imperative.  The Koran commands Muslims to wage perpetual war against disbelievers. 

plunder

8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad ) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), if you are believers.

8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad )], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad ) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.


    Isn't that special: the Koran has rules for distribution of spoils, in anticipation of offensive warfare.  Moe got the top 205, first pick of the spoils.  And as a Prophet, Moe was not allowed to ransom prisoners until he had made great slaughter. We learned that Moe's motivation was mercenary and Allah's is blood lust.

    Moe besieged a local Jewish settlement, overcame them with terrorism and seized their property, enslaving their widows & orphans.  Allah promised the Muslims "abundant spoils".

Paradise

9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.

48:17. No blame or sin is there upon the blind, nor is there blame or sin upon the lame, nor is there blame or sin upon the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whosoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), He will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow (Paradise); and whosoever turns back, He will punish him with a painful torment.

61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.

61:11.  That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!

61:12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn ­ Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.  


    If Muslims do  not join the jihad, they will go to Hell; if the fight, they will go to  There is a long and esoteric hadith about Umar's sending the army to fight the great nations, in which a Muslim General is quoted as explaining things to a Persian General in similar terms.   Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

.

"Its Islam, stupid!"

    What Allah commanded and Moe exemplified is  Islam, the real thing, not a distortion, twisting or perversion of Islam. There is no such thing as radical Islam.  Islam is what Moe preached & practiced, not the anodyne, passive & benevolent religion you wish it would be. 

not just militarily

    Islam can not be defeated militarily short of wholesale extermination.  If you are unable or unwilling to kill every Muslim on the face of the earth, then you must break their faith, you must induce mass apostasy. 

expose Allah

    Effectively combating Islam requires inducing mass apostasy by introducing the Ummah to the reality of Allah and his Messenger, their true character and works.  You must effectively discredit Moe, and thereby descredit Allah. You must expose the fallacy of Allah's promises. 

war of ideas

    If you would win this war, list the ideas of Islam and the ideas of Western Civilization and prove our ideas to be superior to theirs, in intrinsic merit as well as empirical results.

honest about the threat

    When you add adjectives or modifiers to the name of the enemy, you are not being honest.  The enemy is Islam, not 'radical Islam'. In the long run, the threat is existential; Islam is Hellbent on global conquest.  In the short run, the threat is continued and escalating attacks, large and small, against civilian targets.  Once Iran obtains a nuke and couples it with a delivery system, our cities will be in grave danger. 

politically correct

    President Bush called Islam a "great religion of peace" because he knew that, if the public knew the truth, there would be a massive popular demand for the eradication of the enemy.   President Obama repeats the same lie and declares that we are not at war against Islam because he is a traitor, one of them, not one of us.

sanitized

    President Obama has removed all reference to the false meme which has been substituted for the name of the enemy because he is politically correct, not factually correct. 

    In order to win, we need to identify and truthfully describe the enemy, its intentions and capacity. The traitor in the White House has no desire to defeat the enemy because he is one of them, at the head of the enemy's fifth column.    Removing all acknowledgment of the nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism is in compliance with the demands of Islam and the United Nations.

the enemy

    Islam, as revealed & exemplified by Moe.

virulence

    Islam demands that only Allah be worshiped, "alltogether and everywhere". Allah demands "great slaughter". The gates of Paradise will not swing open to Muslims until they exterminate the Jews

why they hate us

    Because we are not Muslims. Disbelief is a status offense, called Kufr: rebellion against Allah, the punishment for which is described in 5:33 and the definition of which is found in Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

what we must do

    Either cause Muslims to quit believing in Allah, his threat & promise, breaking his yoke of slavery or cause them to quit living.  That should be an easy choice.

I want you to:

    Take your own advice, be honest about the identity of the enemy, its character, ability & intentions and what we must do to win this war and restore peace 7 security. First and foremost: quit adding adjectives to the name of the enemy.