Someone who rejects the link between Islam and the brand of radicalism and violence espoused by al Qaeda and like-minded groups should be wary of helping to further, even inadvertently, the rhetoric and propaganda of those groups. Indeed, we believe that such a person should take an active role in opposing any measure or message that might be seized upon by those whom he considers to be the blasphemers of his own faith.
via Dan Senor: An Open Letter on the Ground Zero Mosque – WSJ.com.
CBS, meanwhile, reported: “The Obama administration is giving different explanations of its July 2011 deadline for the start of an Afghanistan troop withdrawal, assuring foreign officials that it applies only to the 30,000 to 35,000 additional U.S. troops that President Barack Obama is sending next year (2010), but suggesting to Congress that it covers all U.S. forces.
“The conflicting versions suggest that the administration is trying to reassure U.S. allies in the region and elsewhere that the U.S. won’t cut and run, while telling a concerned American public, Congress and Democratic Party that it has an exit strategy.”
That last CBS observation gets us to the essence of the White House’s strategic communications blunder. The president and his men have confused the effect of “political spin” — when heard as such — on domestic public opinion with its effect when heard as formal pronouncements of state by enemies, allies and institutional forces such as the Pentagon.
The American public has become accustomed to discounting the spin of politicians — even of presidents. The public views political spin the way it does professional wrestling: It’s fun to cheer or boo, but don’t take it seriously.
Unfortunately, what the president and his political operatives meant as a little useful spin for their domestic base was taken as formal policy by foreign players — and they have acted accordingly. Our two allies in the Afghan War — Pakistan and Afghanistan — having heard the “spin” as policy have irrevocably taken the strategic action of discounting America as a reliable force in theater. And, as the president’s strategy relied on gaining and keeping their trust and loyalty, his strategy has necessarily collapsed. In the coming months, we should expect many more words of explanation in Washington and many more failures in Afghanistan. Alea iacta est (the die is cast).
Even the greatest chef cannot unscramble an egg. Even the president of the United States cannot unspin his words.
Most significantly, the movement that started as a protest against the alleged rigging of the election that gave a second term to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been evolving. The crowds’ initial slogan was “Where Is My Vote?” and the movement’s accidental leaders, including former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, tried hard to keep the protest confined to demands such as a recount of the votes and, ultimately, a runoff in accordance with the law.The slogans of the protestors are no longer about election fraud. Today they include “Death to the Dictator,” “Freedom Now,” and “Iranian Republic, Not Islamic Republic!” One slogan is a direct message to President Barack Obama: “Obama, Are You With Us or With Them?” In short, the protestors no longer regard the present regime as the legitimate government of the country.
read the rest here… Amir Taheri: Iran’s Democratic Moment – WSJ.com.
“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in faith) hath God promised good, but those who strive and fight hath he distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward – ranks specially bestowed by Him and forgiveness and mercy. For God is oft forgiving, most merciful.”
– Koran, Sura 4:95,96
“Only those are believers who have believed in God and His Apostle [Mohammad], and have never since doubted, but have striven [jihad] with their belongings and their persons in the cause of God.”
– Koran, Sura 49:15 (True believers spend all in God’s cause.)
“Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in God and the last day, and strive [jihad] with might and main in the cause of God? They are not comparable in the sight of God, and God guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive [jihad] with might and main in God’s cause with their goods and their persons have the highest rank in the sight of God. They are the people who will achieve (salvation). Their Lord doth give them glad tidings of a mercy from Himself, of His good pleasure, and of gardens for them, wherein are delights that endure. They will dwell therein for ever. Verily in God’s presence is a reward, the greatest (of all).”
– Koran, Sura 9:19-22 (Jihad is greater than other service, and of the highest rank in the sight of God)
“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.” [In the early days in Mecca the enemies were the pagan Quraish while Jews and Christians were respected. In Medina, after the Jews rejected Mohammad’s claim of prophet-hood, the enemies of Islam grew to include the Jews and Christians.]
– Koran, Sura 5:54
THE LAW OF ABROGATION: [According to the Quran itself (Sura 2:106, 13:39 and 16:103) God sometimes substitutes a “better” verse or passage for one previously given, thus superceding the first one. Sura 2:106: “None of our revelations (verses) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar. Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?”; Sura 13:39: “God doth blot out or confirm what he pleaseth. With Him is the Mother of the Book.”; Sura 16:101: “When we substitute one revelation for another, – and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), – they say, ‘Thou are but a forger’ but most of them understand not.” Although all Muslim scholars believe that God replaced some earlier verses by substituting later verses, there is a great difference of opinion among them as to which verses supercede which verses. Nevertheless, most are agreed that Sura 9:5, (called “the verse of the sword”) supercedes most of the previous verses regarding jihad. Some believe it supercedes as many as 111 previous verses. In spite of this general agreement, many today quote the previous replaced verses in order to validate their perception of Islam being a peaceful religion. Thus modern, liberal Muslim leaders, especially here in the west, are teaching what could be called “the Islam of Mecca” with its emphasis on non violence and tolerance. At the same time, “the Islam of Medina,” with its more aggressive, totalitarian nature is what is being practiced and taught by orthodox, fundamentalist Muslims in most parts of the Muslim world.]
This is not an inspired religion. By it’s own book, it is a religion of cultural unification in violence against those who rejected them. That is not what God wants.
See all of the jihad verses in a through study by Rev. Richard P. Bailey here…
Let at-all-costs academic pacifists loose on the world and you get a elected official (doesn’t quite sound right to say “president”) with his tail between his legs. That’s the farthest things from American ideals.
There’s an email going around that, while anonymous, has some really good points. Nothing we haven’t heard necessarily, but something we should hear on a regular basis. Well put.
A German’s View on Islam by Paul E. Marek
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates.. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
“Very few people were true Nazis, ‘ he said, ‘ but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen.
Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come .My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories”.
We are told again and again by ‘ experts ‘ and ‘ talking heads ‘ that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘ silent majority, ‘ is cowed and extraneous…
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don ‘ t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on before it ‘ s too late.
The first thing the fanatics will do to the silent majority is to disarm them.
Here’s an article in David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine about a disturbing thing going on in the UK right now. Read the full article here… excerpts below…
British Parliament Surrenders
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 06, 2009The place where Winston Churchill once so eloquently and forcefully rallied the British people to defeat the Nazi threat is now under siege from a new tyranny.
Islamic intimidation achieved a new high last week when it forced the British Parliament, one of Western civilization’s most venerable institutions, to quietly surrender its most basic of freedoms.
Almost unreported in the Western media, including Britain’s, a Muslim member of the House of Lords, Nazir Ahmed, showed the advanced state of Britain’s dhimmitude [the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars] when he threatened to mobilize 10,000 fellow Muslims to block Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders, from entering Westminster. Wilders had been invited by another House of Lords member to show his controversial film, Fitna, last Thursday in a Westminster conference room. Invitations had been sent to all House members to attend the screening that was to be followed “by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion.”
But Baron Ahmed, who was born in Pakistan and raised in Britain, forgetting he is part of a liberal democratic system that cherishes freedom of expression and association, reacted with familiar jihadi-style tactics to Wilders’ announced appearance. Along with his threat to mobilize 10,000 demonstrators to block Wilders’ path, it was reported Ahmed also intended to sue the House of Lords member who had invited the Dutch politician.
However, that all proved unnecessary.
After Ahmed and representatives of several British Muslim organizations met with the leader of the House of Lords and its chief whip, the Wilders visit was cancelled and British democracy suffered a crushing defeat. And while the British elites and media may have wanted to keep the British people in the dark regarding the scale of this debacle, Ahmed had no qualms about publicising it. Labelling it what it truly is, Ahmed told Pakistani media outlets that the British parliament’s retreat was “a victory for the Muslim community.”
…Regarded as a “moderate” Muslim, Ahmed led the first British government-sponsored delegation on a Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. He has opposed international terrorism, women wearing the veil and forced marriages in Britain. Risking his personal safety, Ahmed has also supported the expulsion of violent Islamic radicals from Great Britain.
But there is another, more disturbing side to Ahmed’s political character. He opposed Salman Rushdie’s receiving a knighthood, because Rushdie had “blood on his hands.” In 2005, Ahmed also hosted a book launch of a Swedish anti-Semite, Joeran Jermas, in the House of Lords. Jermas’s speech, titled ‘The Jews and Empire’, as reported in The Times, contained such niceties as “Your newspapers belong to the Zionists…”; “The Jews like an empire…”; and “This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance…”
And while Jermas said the “Jewish supremacy drive” is the only reason for “wars, terror and trouble” in the Middle East, his next statement probably accounts for Ahmed’s inviting this extreme racist to use the House of Lords to spread his repulsive message of hate.
“Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England…they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important to turn the tide.”
Well, there you have it. While Wilders, a democrat who wanted to warn Britain about the anti-civilizational hatred spreading within its borders and across Europe, was denied access to the House of Lords, the doors were opened wide to a neo-Nazi ally of that hatred.
Disgracefully, the representatives of the democracy that gave the world “the most powerful pro-liberty culture within the Western tradition” did nothing. As one observer commented: “There were no meetings with whips or leaders. There were no demonstrations. The meeting was not cancelled.”
Contrast this with the Labour government’s energetic reaction in the Damian Green case that has been described as authoritarian. Green, a Conservative Member of Parliament, was arrested by anti-terror police last month for leaking information to the press that, according to one report, “exposed government incompetence.” He was held nine hours while his home and office were searched, the latter without a warrant. As it turns out, Green will not face an anti-terror charge, but rather a more ambiguous one concerning his having conspired “to commit misconduct in a public office.”
It is obvious that Ahmed intends to set himself up as the arbiter of all things Islamic regarding the British parliament. His control of free speech, stifling of debate and threatening of parliament if one does not conform to his views is the antithesis of the British democratic tradition. It makes one fear for its future if more Muslim politicians of Ahmed’s ilk are elected or appointed to Westminster.
Just as worrying is the fact that the government did not disown Ahmed and let him get away with his intimidation tactics. Even worse, it may have set a precedent for submissiveness that will leave it open to future, Islamic blackmail attempts.
Ahmed’s fellow politicians also did not express any outrage or mount a counter-offensive to protect their ancient rights and privileges. Which, in the end, is the saddest statement regarding the state of Churchill’s cherished British democracy today.
By way of continuation, read this subsequent article on how they sent Wilders back to Holland. Unbelieveable.