Dedicated to the men and women of the United States Military and dedicated to the Conservative Cause betrayed by the elitists of the now positively defunct Grand Old Party. We will seek to either rebuild or replace said same political party.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 brigantineBetsey.[2] "... "Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on July 25, 1785 with the capture of the schoonerMariaand theDauphina 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.
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.
