Well….. let’s be careful not to offend anyone....:rolleyes:

U.S. Web Host Pulls Dutch Lawmaker's Site Promoting Anti-Islam Film

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340771,00.html

Speech row rocks multi-ethnic Canada
By Henri Astier
BBC News

Canada is often thought of as a land of bland consensus and multicultural harmony - the last place where you would expect to see a religious minority up in arms, and journalists accusing the state of gagging freedom of speech.
Yet in recent months, these have become fixtures of the country's public debate.

The Canadian equivalent of Denmark's cartoonists, or the Netherlands' Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is the outspoken conservative columnist Mark Steyn.

In a 2006 article he used demographics to suggest that the West would succumb to Muslim domination.

The piece, entitled "The future belongs to Islam" and published by the Toronto magazine Maclean's, argued that Europe was "too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia".

Mr Steyn summarised the presumed global advantage of militant Islam with a stark equation: "Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way."

To some, he had crossed the line between vigorous polemic and Islamophia.

The notion that Muslims should be feared by virtue of their numbers and purported militancy is "quite inflammatory", says Toronto law student Khurrum Awan.

Short shrift

Mr Awan and fellow students marched on Maclean's a year ago to demand a chance to issue a full-length rebuttal in Canada's only nationwide news magazine.

"What we said is that we want an opportunity to participate in the debate when you are talking about the issues that relate directly to us," Mr Awan told the BBC News website.
Maclean's editor gave the students short shrift. He said he had published 27 letters in response to the Steyn article, and would "rather go bankrupt" than let outsiders dictate the content of his magazine.

Late last year the students, supported by the Canadian Islamic Congress, took their demand to the federal Human Rights Commission and similar bodies in British Columbia and Ontario.

The move both publicised the dispute and highlighted a previously little-known aspect of the commissions' remit - the possibility of suppressing speech.

Defiance

The human rights commissions were set up in the 1960s and early 1970s to investigate claims of discrimination in housing and employment.

But section 13 of the 1977 Human Rights Act authorised them to hear complaints about material "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" by reason of race, age, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

To some groups, this provides a useful remedy. "When people feel insulted they should have recourse," says Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, who argues that the Maclean's article promoted hate against Muslims.
But others are alarmed.

Leading the charge against the commissions is Ezra Levant, an Alberta-based publisher who was targeted by a complaint after reprinting the Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in his (now-defunct) newspaper in early 2006.

His accuser, a Calgary Muslim leader who cited the Koran in his complaint, said the publisher had spread hatred.

In January Mr Levant appeared before an Alberta Human Rights official charged with deciding whether to refer the matter to a special tribunal.

In a videotaped statement later posted on his website, Mr Levant called the commission a "sick joke" and defiantly pleaded guilty.

"I'm not going to try to minimise what I've done and beg for mercy," he told the BBC News website. "I have the right to violate all those Koranic precepts because we follow Queen Elizabeth's law, not Muhammad's law."

Rights, old and new

But by focusing on the legal process, Mr Levant and others added an important new dimension to the dispute. It no longer centred on the familiar "Islam v West" question.

Canada's Human Rights Act is not an Islamic creation; Jewish and other groups have supported complaints under its speech provisions.


The human rights statutes were designed to deal with discriminatory acts, not discriminatory words
Alan Borovoy, Human Rights lawyer

And the complainants against both Maclean's and Mr Levant, in BBC interviews, professed their attachment to free speech and abhorrence of radical Islam.
The core of the dispute is best understood not as a clash of civilisations, but as a conflict within the West itself.

It pits old liberal values that sanctify individuals against a new emphasis on the rights of groups.

Mr Levant regards commission officers as "new-fangled, political crusaders" bent on overturning centuries-old Common Law.

Canada's Human Rights Tribunals, he points out, are quasi-judicial bodies, not regular courts bound by strict standards of procedure to protect defendants.

Every single "section 13" complaint referred to the federal Human Rights Tribunal has been upheld.

And those targeted often incur heavy costs even if a complaint is dropped - as was the case for Mr Levant, who says his legal bills amount to C$100,000 (£49,000).

'Flawed approach'

The commission officials who vet complaints deny acting like rogue inquisitors, and insist they strictly follow the law.

"We have a legal obligation to consider every complaint we receive if it fits one of the grounds for which discrimination cases can be heard," says Carmen Gregoire, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

But according to critics, the fact that commissions are acting within the law offers little comfort.

Alan Borovoy, a veteran lawyer who campaigned to set up the commissions, says their willingness to hear complaints about speech rests on flawed legislation.

He regards the provisions on "hatred or contempt" as departures from the original purpose of the Human Rights Act, and wants them scrapped.

"The human rights statutes were designed to deal with discriminatory acts, not discriminatory words," he says.

Mr Borovoy believes that minorities' push for equality, which he supports, has led to a neglect of traditional freedoms.

"Other interests have for the time being trumped the free-speech values and I'm hoping that with some of these cases we might be able to turn the tide," he says.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/7273870.stm

I guess if something is true, but inflammatory it's a bad thing.

Additonally, to be phobic about anything is also apparently wrong.

When did the Koran become the arbiter of what is right?

This is the point exactly, and it's a scary and sad commentary on our times when the legal system in Canada censors it's own citizens for what is effectively free speech. Can the Islamic situation be addressed without imflamantory comments? Probably not.

The main issue of this thread is "are we at war with Islam" and the question can be expanded to ask,"can a free society provide a haven to a religion which by it's own tenents would call for the society to become dramatically altered or changed".

Here in lies the resistance to any move which would give the Islamic movement any leeway in form or substance to changing our way of life, culture or government. If other religions use this arbritration process, then to prevent Islamic abritration, we should prevent all religions from using it.

Finally, if Islamic groups cannot coexist in America without trying to change the very fabric of our culture, then we are indeed are at war with Islam.

I guess the question then becomes, if a religion or popular segments of a religion calls for the dramatic change in our form of government, should it be tolerated. Is it legal or is it by it's nature seditious?

Yes, we are.

We are actually in a global war with Islam - America is, the West is, the World is. It is a war in many dimensions. It's a physical war like World War II; it's a cold war like Vietnam and the many proxy wars around the world from 1950 to 1990.

And, finally, it's a psychological war and even a spiritual war - The world and especially the West has been at war with Islam for 1400 years. We're entering a phase that might be considered the final battle. Like a virus it has infected the West.

Sometimes hatred gets a bum rap. Hating evil is good.

I'm against Islam. I'll fight it.

I love good. I hate evil. I hate Islam.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

I've read every last one of these books on my shelf yet; I'm still confused about religion especially Islam....

Stay safe.

The books are all good. It's when nutjobs start interpreting them to meet their own political ends that things get screwy...

LOL...ROGER!
 

Someone would quote something and I'll go look it up...

"HEY! I got same damn book...WTF am I reading wrong?"

This I don't agree with. Are there some who use the Quran cynically to bolster their own desires for power? Sure. But I think there are a lot of jihadists who don't have a political agenda, but sincerely believe that God is real, He is watching them, He is going to judge them one day, and He demands that they enforce Sharia at all costs, including violence. There are such things as true believers. Men who would have been perfectly happy to stay at home and live a normal life except they are compelled by their faith.

Theologically speaking, I think the "religion masking a political agenda" thing is kind of a cop out. You can say that about Christian extremism because the Bible makes no statements about government. The Bible addresses personal morality and implicitly assumes that a government of good men will be a good government. This is not the case in Islam. On the contrary, there is no "render unto Caesar" in the Quran. The Quran is, in a lot of ways, an explicitly political blueprint for organizing and operating a community. So there's always going to be a political agenda. The question is what the nature of that agenda is going to be.

Furthermore, the jihadist interpretation of Islam is a perfectly valid and well-reasoned reading of the Quran. Its not the only such interpretation (as I said earlier in the thread, it depends on what verses you believe take priority in what situation), but its not a "perversion" in the sense that its making up something thats not there. The dispute between moderate Islam and jihadist Islam is an honest dispute, thats what makes it so dangerous.

X-Factor,

I admire the fact that you are standing up for the rights of innocent people who are doing no harm. Of course there are Muslims out there who mean no harm. I don't think anyone would agree with a course of action that would purposely hurt innocent people. But to answer the post's question, "Are we at war with Islam?" or maybe "(Should) we be at war with Islam?" I believe the answer is yes (we should).

Religions or beliefs systems of any kind are difficult to judge on the scale of "good" or "bad." Ex. "Christianity is good (or better)" and "Islam is bad (or worse than x/a/b religion)" But I think the question we should ask ourselves when deciding a religions worth in a free society is, "Has belief system
X historically lined up with the basic tenets of our society." I think it's important to note that we should not ask "Can it line up?" Any terrible belief system can be skewed into lining up if you twist it enough. But I think one can make the argument that though belief systems evolve, many stay true to their basic foundational beliefs. We all know what these are in the Quran.

Any belief system historically not lining up with a free society, as in Islam, should definitely be discouraged (at least). Since it's creation, Islam has had little period in history that was peaceful at all. Even taking modern examples. When has there been a time when Islamic societies, or Islamic States, more specifically, been a haven for freedom of speech, individual rights, etc.?

History has taught us that letting small, "unimportant" and "innocent" actions in the name of being "nice and inclusive because many of them are nice people" can lead to extremely dangerous consequences.

I don't disagree with your original statement in its entirety.
That being said, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this.
I would tend to disagree with this one part of your statement.


-Concerning the Good Book and government, here's a few places to start:
Romans 13:1-7
Proverbs 8:15-16
Matthew 22:15-22
Judges 17:6; 21:25
Psalm 72
I Peter 2:13-16
I Timothy 2:1-2
Titus 3:1

-For the dispensation-minded, let's not forget the beginning of human government:
Genesis 9:5-6

-Much of English Common Law (and, by extension, law in this nation) is based upon Mosaic Law.
(Bad credit only held against you for 7 years, testimony of two witnesses required for treason conviction, etc.)

The men who forged the laws governing this nation apparently inferred that the Bible said something about government.
This particular tangent has been well explored and discussed in this nation for a few centuries (the revisionist history of the public school and university system notwithstanding).


This does again highlight the core issue:
Several nations (the US among them) have governments rooted in English Common Law (rooted in the Bible).
Many groups/nations have their roots in Sharia Law (the Koran).
Due to inherent incompatibilities, and finite space here on the third rock, conflict seems inevitable.

I guess I'm missing the relevance of this statement. I don't believe it's a question of their sincerity or the honest measure of their belief. Whether or not they are politicians in religious clothing or sincere, it makes no difference as to their motivation. The tenants and doctrines of Wahabism are incompatibilty with our value system. Our values are mutually exclusive. That's the danger. How can we be tolerant of something that at it's face value endangers our way of life?

It makes little sense to fight the Wahabi jihadist in Afghanistan and Iraq and at the same time let the same sect flourish or gain a foothold here. I guess we are at war with intolerance which would also extend to any other religion that seeks to usurp the individual freedom and volition of Americans.
I believe this is an important point. Additonally, there's no door keeping folks here. If they desire to be governed by Sharia law, there's a ton of places where they can go. Why would anyone who wants to live under Sharia law want to live in the U.S.? Unless, their purpose is to change our way of life and neutralize us from within.

If that's true, then we truly are at war with Islam, but we just have not as yet defined the rules of engagement.

Normally I would sort of ignore stuff like this...big whoop. But seriously, if the movie created had been critical, lampooning, obscene, defamatory, libellous, unlawful, harassing, abusive...etc...of Christians do you think the plug would have been pulled on the website?

The Dutch probably don't want to deal with another round of violence from the peace-loving folks of the Ummah....


Dutch Islam film website 'shut'

A website that a Dutch right-wing politician was planning to use to release a film expected to be fiercely critical of Islam has been suspended.
The US hosting service, Network Solutions, said it was investigating complaints that it may have breached guidelines on hate language.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders says the 15-minute film describes Islam as "the enemy of freedom".

The planned release has sparked angry protests in many Muslim countries.

The Dutch government has disassociated itself from Mr Wilders' views, but there are fears the film will spark protests similar to those that followed the publication in Denmark two years ago of cartoons seen as offensive to Muslims.

The film has already been condemned by several Muslim countries, including Iran and Pakistan.

Hate messages

Mr Wilders' film is entitled Fitna, an Arabic word used to describe strife or discord, usually religious.

Mr Wilders wrote a commentary in a Dutch newspaper on Saturday.

"The film is not so much about Muslims as about the Koran and Islam. The Islamic ideology has as its utmost goal the destruction of what is most dear to us, our freedom," he wrote in De Volkskrant.


"Fitna is the last warning for the West. The fight for freedom has only just begun," he said.

He had been using Network Solutions to promote the film.

But on Sunday, Network Solutions said it had received a number of complaints that were under investigation.

It said the site was suspended until it was established whether the content of the site violated Network Solutions' terms of acceptable use.

They include "material that is obscene, defamatory, libellous, unlawful, harassing, abusive... hate propaganda" and "profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature".

Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/7310439.stm

Were we at war with the German people in 1941-45?

Most of them were not Nazis.

Did the country still present a threat?

How can we justify the bombing of civilian targets and the death of hundreds of thousands of German civilians to remove the bad ones?

TR

It was a bit of a tangent in response to JustinW20's post, which I took to be promoting the idea that jihadists are really just authoritarian ideologues cynically dressed up in religious terminology. I agree with you that their motivation, religious versus political, is irrelevant if they are committing a crime or an act of war.

First, historically speaking I don't think this argument flies. We bombed factory towns producing war material and we bombed them in the daylight at added risk to ourselves in an effort to get the max possible accuracy out of some very limited technology. We never bombed civilian populations without at least some military rationale, even if that rationale was as broad as displacing the labor population away from key production centers. If we'd had laser-guided bombs, etc. in 1941-1945 the strategic bombing campaign would have been far less bloody for Germany. The obvious point of comparison for that is the air wars in Iraq, both in 1991 and 2003, where civilian casualties were tiny compared to the amount of missions flown, targets hit, ordinance dropped, and damage done.

That said, I agree with your general sentiment that in the GWOT we've been a little overly squeamish. There are things we could do, that I believe we should do. But I don't think less discriminate use of fires is on that list. Or more plainly, I don't think carpet-bombing the Hindu Kush into dust amounts to a military necessity for victory and therefore would not consider those civilian casualties acceptable.

If you're making the analogy that its ok to hold law-abiding American Muslims responsible, to some degree, for the threats and actions of jihadists and to injure (legally, physically, or otherwise) them accordingly, because thats the only way to win the war, then I reluctantly have to agree. American Muslims are going to have to put up with a certain amount of suspicion and with a certain amount of wariness (for example, federal surveillance of certain mosques, international money transactions, etc).

Muslim-Americans need to accept this because there's only so much of a balance that can be realistically struck between liberty and security. In the same way white people who shave their heads, live on ranches, and have large gun collections might need to accept that they're going to get an extra long look from the ATFE or whomever because they share certain identifying attributes with neo-fascist militias.

That said, its incumbent on the government to constantly reassess if what its doing is necessary for the common defense or merely easier for the majority defense.

I agree that was unclear. My point is that the Bible is generally concerned about individual morality, not the practicalities of organizing a government.

Lets look at your passages:
Romans 13:1-7 - This basically just says that government is good and necessary. It doesn't prescribe anything specifically.

Proverbs 8:15-16 - Again, this just says that God is not anti-government. It does not say anything about a specific law code or method of governance.

Matthew 22:15-22 - "Render unto Caesar." This supports a separation of Church and State affairs. Again, you find no passage like this in the Quran.

Judges 17:6, 21:25- This just says "anarchy is bad."

Psalm 72 - This one makes my earlier point beautifully. The Psalm simply asks the Lord to support the government in very general terms. It asks that the Lord make him righteous, merciful, etc. It doesn't say "God says that the King should undertake X, Y, and Z" policies.

I Peter 2:13-16 - Again, this just supports the notion of government in general, not in terms of a specific policy. It also adds a bit about ultimate personal morality in at the end, which goes to my point about the Bible being more a religion of individuals.

I Timothy 2:1-2 - Pray that the government is "good", not "pray that the government does X, Y, Z."

Titus 3:1 - One more time, government is good and necessary.

Genesis 9:5-6 - Ok, finally a specific policy. Capital punishment for murder. The fact that its arguably overturned by Jesus in the New Testament, we won't get into.

These verses all make my point. The Bible, more specifically the New Testament, deals with issues of government at a distance and through the lens of personal morality. Even the Ten Commandments (which Christ boiled down to two), are all about person-to-person relations and even then they leave a lot of room for variation in an individual's life.

The Quran is different. Its a full-fledged blueprint for a community. It talks about methods of property division, of divorce, of criminal prosecution, of treaty-making, etc. It goes into legal and policy specifics that you don't see anywhere in Christ's teachings.

I don't dispute this, but Mosaic Law is the practice of the Hebrews, not the Word of God. That the English adopted it was a matter of philosophy and respect for tradition. Thats why we still eat delicious BBQ ribs and don't stone people to death for planting two kinds of crops side-by-side. We saw no sense in those parts of Mosaic law and since they were ancillary to the faith, we just dropped them.

Thats the point I was making to Justin. You can't say "oh, jihadists are using religion to mask a political agenda." The jihadists don't see any difference between the two. To a jihadist there is nothing in the Quran that is "just tradition" or "ancillary to the faith."

(Also much of English Common Law was also based on Roman Law and on pagan tribal law, so its not exactly a direct descendant anyway.)

No, they inferred that the Bible said something about personal character and they established a democratic system where the laws of the nation should and will reflect the character of its people. Therefore, the Christian nature of the nation would come through even without being explicitly established in legal codes and governmental structures. In other words, they inferred that the government didn't need to be Christian because when the people are Christian, they elect Christian lawmakers and those Christian men write Christian laws.

Actually (I may not have been clear), I meant that the Quaran, the Bible, the Torah, etc. were all noble books, but all had had been perverted throughout history to justify bloody actions against other "non-believers".

It can be argued, and I may be opening myself up here, that all religious books are, in essence political books. But that's a bit far off the topic of the thread...

Today's case in point.....

"Jihad USA: Confronting the Threat of Homegrown Terror:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342248,00.html

I would agree with this, with one caveat: the Bible seems to say that some form of government is better than anarchy.


Can you cite where the Savior rescinded capital punishment for murder?


I would argue that both the Ten Commandments and Christ's summation advocate separation of church and state.

The first 4 commandments have to do with man's duty to God. (church)
The last 6 commandments have to do with man's duty to one another. (state)

Christ parallels this in His Commandments.

This division of the Ten Commandments is still displayed on the insignia of Jewish chaplains.
The Roman numerals 1-4 show on the right tablet, and 5-10 show on the left. (Hebrew is read right-to-left).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
The Torah is normally considered to be canon.

Seems like they made a good choice.
I wonder what it is about the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that makes them so attractive to immigrants.

There is probably a great deal of tribal law mixed in where Sharia Law is practiced.

Furthermore, systems rooted in English Common Law are quite distinct from those rooted in Roman Law.
Compare the USA and Canada to our various neighbors to the south.

I would argue that the founding fathers inferred from the Bible that humans will tend toward corruption, selfishness, and oppression.

Therefore, they instituted a system of checks and balances to counter that tendency.

Romans 12:19-21 "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord..."

The Catholic Church and others use this verse, among others, as an argument against capital punishment.

I'd agree, among other verses.

The Torah is both a history book and a sacred text. Mosaic Law is part of the former, the Ten Commandments are part of the latter.

For example, the prohibition against murder in the Ten Commandments is a sacred thing because life is God's creation and to destroy it wantonly is to spit in His face. This is a fundamental fact of existence, a self-evident truth to borrow the phrase.

On the other hand, the prohibition against eating pork in Mosaic law is a secular thing specific to that group of people at that point in time. God does not hate pigs and not eating them has no metaphysical basis. The Hebrews of Moses' time were prohibited from eating pigs for public health purposes in order to preserve the well-being of the Chosen people in a very harsh and dangerous period. Thats why the New Testament lets Gentiles off the hook on Mosaic law. It was an ancillary tradition, not a God-ordained truth.

There is. And one of the many reasons I did not convert to Islam while studying it is that I believe much of what Mohammed calls the Word of God was simply him codifying and tweaking the petty tribal practices of 6th century Arabia. This included him borrowing and adapting a fair bit of Judaism, including Mosaic law, which he must have learned about during his merchant voyages and interactions with the Jews of Arabia.

Spanish law and Roman law are too entirely different things. When I say Roman Law, I'm talking about pre-Christian civilization.

The corruptible nature of man is not unique to Biblical philosophy. Far from it. The founding fathers drew inspiration from all sorts of traditions.

Lets keep it on topic unless you are trying to make a specific point guys. Its drifting off on a tangent a bit. If you wish to discuss Christianity, Mosaic Law, and how they relate one of us can split this off into another thread so you can continue.

Crip

True enough. Sorry for getting too far afield.

Fitna
 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61399959&hl=en

The sound of one hand clapping is a severed head hitting the floor. Islam is at war with us. Aggression only requires one participant. The UN, Europe, political correctness, tollerance, and multi-culturalism guarantee the eventual ascendance of Islam over every society that fails to resist. X-factor - if you want to live on your knees in an Islamic society (because that's all you will be allowed to do), I suggest you emmigrate. As long as I live and breathe it won't happen here.

I'm trying not to take that as an insult.

As for me ever living on my knees, I'll thank you to remember that not everyone fighting this war wears a tab on their shoulder and make no mistake about what side I'm on.

If you think my refusal to paint the little Afghan girl who runs the flower shop down the street or the guys who make my kabobs with the same brush I paint the perpetrators of the acts in that video with is some kind of moral cowardice then you need to take a hard look at yourself.

Peregrino's point, I believe, is that the little girl's faith has followers that are determined to come get us and the kabob merchant's religion is forming-up in such a manner that it is intent on destroying us. It won't take a billion Muslims to turn the globe into a pool of blood.... 1% of the Muslims intent on practicing their faith is enough to take us all back to the 7th century. Islam is not a peaceful religion when it is practiced.

The concern folks have is that in places of power the West is full of many terrorist enablers.

Freedom can not be given to people or groups who are intent on destroying our communities and freedoms.

Islam is not a peaceful religion when it is practiced. It is not a peaceful religion. This was a Bush error. This was a Blair error - they misspoke.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck.


.

Does it realy matter
 

Does it really matter if the 99 clap, or cheer, or just stand there, or just go about their business as the one saws your head off?

Islam will not be ready for prime time until it reforms itself.

Since any who try and talk some sense into the religion are declaired apostate and subject to being murdered it don't look like reform is coming anytime soon.

It was intended to be a wake-up call. I've taken that "hard look at yourself" you speak of and personally I'm still trying to reconcile the necessities for survival with the ideals I've dedicated my life to defending. I've studied conflict long enough to accept that this is probably an "eggs to omelet" situation. It doesn't mean I'm happy about it, just that I think I'm being a little more realistic than you in my assessments. When my enemies tell me their plans, I give them due credence. If Islam ever gains the upper hand in America you will be a Moslem, living on your knees, or dead. The idealism you so passionately espouse will also be dead; along with all vestiges of the society that fostered it. The Koran demands it. The Islamists have been telling us what they intend for 1400 YEARS. They've come pretty close to making it stick a couple of times. Unfortunately that happened so long ago that Western Civilization has forgotten it. (Who remembers Tours or the Gates of Vienna - or what losing either one of those battles would have meant for the West?)

Flower girls and kabob sellers are almost completely irrelevant. In terms of the "human terrain" of this conflict my principle interest in them is to co-opt them into assimilating into mainstream America - it's the only way to keep them out of the fight. It might even get them to help against the radicals that rule Islam. You're the analyst - have you forgotten why the phrase "if you're not for us, you're against us" has always applied in culture wars? Or are you denying that this is a war of cultures?

I'm well aware of who is fighting this war. "Tabbers" make up a very small percentage of the combatants. Personally I think moderate Muslims fighting to take control of their religion from the radicals is an even smaller percentage.

I really believe that the "Radical Muslims" are the ones that wish to live peacefully amongst/with US!!! They are fewer than the True Mainstream Variety!!!

Vatican: Islam Surpasses Roman Catholicism as World's Largest Religion
 

Give it a few more decades and it may not matter anymore. I doubt there will be any reforms.... if it is the peoples desire to be treated as cattle so be it.

TS

Vatican: Islam Surpasses Roman Catholicism as World's Largest Religion
Sunday, March 30, 2008

VATICAN CITY — Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.

"For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.

He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population -- a stable percentage -- while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.

"It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343336,00.html

It is a war of cultures, but its not a bilateral war. There's a whole spectrum of religious and political cultures at play. "With us or against us" is simplistic rhetoric that in almost every case is at best useless and at worst counterproductive, not a reasoned assessment of the situation.

Its perfectly possible for a Muslim to be both anti-US and anti-Islamist. In fact, studies suggest that is the majority opinion.

We need to relax and see the problem for what it is. The occasional inflammatory story not withstanding, we're along way from the fall of Western civilization and if we panic at the prospect we hasten the crisis and confuse our own efforts.

Sure seems that way.

The scary thing to me is that you don't know which are the "True" radicals from those that are simply using the freedoms that are grated by our society to quietly expand their influence until they can reshape society into one dominated by Islam. That is what made the recent vid by that Dutch filmmaker so disturbing. The Netherlands, ultra liberal and off the scale with respect to individual social freedoms, is acting like a canary in a coal mine. Watch it to see the impact of Islam on that country because the same process is happening elsewhere... even here. It's just a lot slower pace.

X,
I would agree if it were not for the current U.S. - Political Correctness attitude and the level of governmental support that it has.

Long way from a fall, but are we not being an enabler?

R10

Urban Yute?
 

Urban yute letting of some steam?

http://jp.dk/uknews/article1307044.ece

Ot maybe, just maybe someone from the Religion of Peace is a little POed at DK.

a look into the enemy's mind
 

To Geert,

Verily, our religion will stay the same till the Day of Judgment. We are happy that there are people like you to expose themselves to the wrath of Allah. We are also happy because it makes us comfortable knowing that there are true enemies of Islaam as Allah has mentioned in the Qur’aan.

We are not interested in condemning this or condemning that, but we are interested in letting you know that Islaam will dominate all of Europe, including your hometown, and the Jizyah will be established upon your Country, leaving all of the disbelievers in humiliation until they come to Islaam. Let us remind that there are thousands of Muslims living near you; so always expect the unexpected.

Near the end of your film, you wrote,

For it is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses in the Qur’an.

This statement of yours proves a verse in the Qur’aan:


And never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow their Millah (way of life/form of religion). (2:120)


So by Allah’s grace, He has shown us another practical example of a Kaafir (i.e., that would be you Geert) who will never be pleased with the Muslims until we follow their form of religion.


By Allah, the only thing that we will tear is your heart, the heart of democracy, and the heart of those who fight the Muslims. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) promises dominance, and so we too promise dominance. And how will you be O Geert, when Prophet Jesus returns to earth from the heavens and destroys Christianity and wages Jihaad against the world successfully?


That time is coming very soon.


You also said,


The Government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you.

One can write volumes on this, but in short: Islaam doesn’t respect the disbelieving Governments.


You said,


Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our western civilization.

Correct.


Just as your civilization seeks to destroy ours, our civilization seeks to devastate yours. Take a guess as to when we’ll stop.


You wrote,


Now the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.

As long as this world exists, you can never destroy the Islaamic ideology; and our ideology is meant for expansion.


You wrote,


Stop Islamisization, Defend our Freedom.

We say: stop democracy, and defend your basic human rights.


But we don’t hate you for your freedoms as we don’t consider those freedoms. We hate you for your disbelief and defiance.


So keep warning, and we too will keep warning. Islaam denounces Democracy, Islaam denounces Christians and Jews, Islaam denounces the corruption of the disbelievers upon the earth, and Islaam is coming to crush the armies of disbelief and smash the false governments and religions of the world to bring humanity from darkness into light.


Although we hate you for the sake of Allah and pray for your destruction, we are happy that you made this film because no matter how negative the disbelievers try to portray Islaam, in the end, it is Islaam that spreads far and wide. The media in America did its best to portray Islaam as an evil religion after the 9/11 attacks, but just look to how many thousands of people accepted Islaam after the invasion. So Islaam will spread all over Europe, and we will win in the end and we will humiliate you in the end.


Congratulations Geert. Your movie has created more Mujaahideen amongst the Muslims.

(copy and paste, replace dot with ., admin please remove if this is not 'safe' enough) anonymousedotorg/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://revolution.muslimpad.com/2008/03/27/congratulations-geert-your-%e2%80%9cfitna%e2%80%9d-movie-has-created-more-mujaahideen-amongst-the-muslims/

I guess they really hate us :rolleyes:

Call a spade a spade...
 

What they don't understand is that a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons won't ever go away quietly. Their dream of a world-wide caliphate is so illusory that it is both humorous and pathetic. America has taken down two nations and we were barely angry and hardly threatened. If Islam were to genuinely rise up against the West, I can imagine entire culpable Moslem cities disappearing. Islam has no civilians.

What strikes me most in the "Moslem" letter cited above is the cold resolve and callous intent to fulfill and accomplish Islam's malicious ends.

Thank you for posting this letter - It does strengthen my resolve and enmity toward this vile faith of hatred; against this global pathogen.

They love death and so they shall have it.

Indeed, they shall bruise our heal, but we shall crush their head.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

Report: Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344409,00.html

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.

Click here to watch the interview with Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary.

"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."

I believe we have the beginnings of the Rules of Engagement and the first one seems very reasonable and prudent. Any extra degree of suspicion or scrutiny will no doubt incur the wrath of the ACLU and other likeminded groups, but there seems no other way to approach the gathering storm. Activities like the one undertaken by the Trainer and constant vigilance appear to be the order of the day.

The current situation reminds me of a quote from one of the Marines in Generation Kill, "Never pet a burning dog." How can we coexist in any reasonable manner with someone who must have hatred for everything that is not Muslim? Are we trying to safely pet the perverbial burning dog?

HEAR HEAR!

Whew....glad to know this:rolleyes:

"Al Qaeda's Zawahiri: Militant Organization Doesn't Kill Innocents; Threatens Egypt "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345370,00.html

Europe begins to resist
 

A movie and a conversion: Europe begins to resist?

By DANIEL PIPES

Some analysts of Islam in Western Europe argue that the continent cannot escape its Eurabian fate; that the trend lines of the past half-century will continue until Muslims become a majority population and Islamic law reigns.
I disagree, arguing that there is another route the continent might take, one of resistance to Islamification and a reassertion of traditional ways.
Indigenous Europeans - who make up 95 percent of the population - can insist on their historic customs and mores. Were they to do so, nothing would be in their way and no one could stop them.

Indeed, Europeans are visibly showing signs of impatience with creeping Shari'a. The legislation in France that prohibits hijabs from public school classrooms signals the reluctance to accept Islamic ways, as are related efforts to ban burkas, mosques and minarets. Throughout Western Europe, anti-immigrant parties are generally increasing in popularity.

That resistance took a new turn last week, with two dramatic events. First, on March 22, Pope Benedict XVI himself baptized, confirmed, and gave the Eucharist to Magdi Allam, 56, a prominent Egyptian-born Muslim long living in Italy, where he is a top editor at the Corriere della Sera newspaper and a well-known author. Allam took the middle name Cristiano. The ceremony converting him to the Catholic religion could not have been higher profile, occurring at a nighttime service at St. Peter's Basilica on the eve of Easter Sunday, with exhaustive coverage from the Vatican and many other TV stations.

Allam followed up his conversion with a stinging statement in which he argued that beyond "the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive."

In other words, the problem is not just Islamism but Islam itself. One commentator, "Spengler" of Asia Times, goes so far as to say that Allam "presents an existential threat to Muslim life" because he "agrees with his former co-religionists in repudiating the degraded culture of the modern West, and offers them something quite different: a religion founded upon love."
Second, on March 27, Geert Wilders, 44, released his long-awaited, 15-minute film, Fitna, which consists of some of the most bellicose verses of the Koran, followed by actions in accord with those verses carried out by Islamists in recent years.

The obvious implication is that Islamists are simply acting in accord with their scriptures. In Allam's words, Wilders also argues that "the root of evil is inherent" in Islam.

UNLIKE ALLAM and Wilders, I do distinguish between Islam and Islamism, but I believe it imperative that their ideas get a fair hearing, without vituperation or punishment. An honest debate over Islam must take place. If Allam's conversion was a surprise and Wilders' film had a three-month run-up, in both cases, the aggressive, violent reactions that met prior criticisms of Islam did not take place.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Dutch police contacted imams to gauge reactions at the city's mosques and found, according to police spokesman Arnold Aben, "it's quieter than usual here today. Sort of like a holiday." In Pakistan, a rally against the film attracted only some dozens of protesters.

This relatively constrained reaction points to the fact that Muslim threats sufficed to enforce censorship. Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende denounced Fitna and, after 3.6 million visitors had viewed it on the British website LiveLeak.com, the company announced that "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature... Liveleak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers." (Two days later, however, LiveLeak again posted the film.) Three similarities bear noting: both Allam (author of a book titled Viva Israele) and Wilders (whose film emphasizes Muslim violence against Jews) stand up for Israel and the Jews; Muslim threats against their lives have forced both for years to live under state-provided round-the-clock police protection; and, more profoundly, the two share a passion for European civilization.

Indeed, Allam and Wilders may represent the vanguard of a Christian/liberal reassertion of European values. It is too soon to predict, but these staunch individuals could provide a crucial boost for those intent on maintaining the continent's historic identity.


Posted by Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

Guys,

Very good 6m35s video report on Battle For Hearts and Minds in today's New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/

Go to the front page, scroll down to videos and it is a featured video report of a former CIA officer now teaching at the USMA.

Richard :munchin