My premise is that we will all end up banding together as the situation develops. In general, we'll probably go with what we're used to, have grown up with, or associate with. In addition, perilous times seem to advance religious activity. So adherence to particular religions will probably increase.

However, I would say that whatever the reasons, ultimately one side or the other must win - so one must lose and be destroyed. It could be that both will be destroyed in the process.

Will we have become what we loathe? Respectfully, I don't think so. History has lots of examples of fights to annihilation - Rome destroyed the Iceans, and there was the church campaign against the Cathars, from which came the phrase "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" – "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his". In more modern times, the U.S forcibly reformed both Germany and Japan after the a war. In a religious sense, the Emperor of Japan was required to renounce his supposed divinity. And, of course, the native American population faced substantial modifications to their culture as well.

It's just that we've had the luxury of being more forbearant. We could afford to be generous. My view is that the situation will change - although it won't be comfortable. That means doing all the nasty things that people have done through the ages, and which we prefer not to do - but will when we must.

Not only was Mohammed "perfect," but the Koran is the word of Allah.

It's a shame that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser doesn't have islamic jurisprudence on his side.

We haven't become anything. The mantras of "CO-EXIST" and "TOLERANCE" are utopian ideals to strive for - if only EVERYONE were willing to follow those values.

We didn't start this fight. How many times do we turn the other cheek?

How many 9/11s are you willing to endure?

Which freedoms are you willing to sacrifice?

Let's start with Freedom of speech...it's already under fire...what does it matter if you can say what you want?
"Just keep it to yourself, OK?"
Freedom to worship (or not) as you like?

The list goes on...at what point do we say ENOUGH?

There's a speech making the rounds by the Australian Prime Minister...
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/costello.htm

If you'd like to live by Sharia - go to Saudi Arabia...or any other country that follows sharia.

As ugly as our Democracy can be, despite all it's foibles, it's the best we've got and I love it and have sworn an oath to defend it.

I don't think your assumption or conclusion is correct. One aspect is that Islam is a idea. How does one go to war with a idea? The people are a different issue. Look at Germany in the 1930's/1940's. One might say a lot of Germans where infected with the idea of nazism.

We would not become what we loathe. I am still wondering about what that actually mean. If this is a just a attack on someone who is just different, maybe that is what you mean. We have a right to act preemptively from a biblical perspective. We also have a biblical right to self defense.


The Qur'an is not consistent and one can interpret it in many different ways. The Qur'an, while being the first book in Arabic, was not originally written in Arabic (Linguistic issues, if you need the research site, I may be able to find it). Among the other 'sins' of Muhammad, one can accuse him of plagiarism.

The Qur'an is not written for everyone, it is written for men only, see the sura Al Nesa. There is much more but, the point is the Qur'an is not well thought out or consistent in what it wants the believer to do. The re-interpretation of the Qur'an by Islamic cleric may be a answer. They are currently reviewing Bakari and the Hadeths. Making Islam a more tolerant of others religion.

The next view of Islam is something you may want to take head too. While religious Jews are somewhat tolerated, Christians are cast in the light of polytheist. That is a major curse in Islam. They have a cure in mind that religiously they are to carry out. You can choose to ignore that, but they will not.

Also the copy of the Qur'an, that I have, has a sub-title, "The Final Testament". I am not sure if you if you know what that means. In their teaching and according to the Qur'an everything in the Christianity and Judaism has been superseded and replaced by Islam. This is also a religious reason by Israel is such a hot subject. In 1948 Jews and Christian celebrated a fulfillment in prophecy. For the Muslim is created a conflict, "How can this be, if we are the final testament of Allah?" Israel was a contradiction to what they believe.

While we can say we are not at all out war with Islam or even a little tiny war with Islam, we can conclude that Islam is in a all out war with the non-believer, pagans, polytheists, heretics, etc. You are one of those people. It is not our hypocrisy, it is how shall we defend ourselves?

This is a complex issue for us to find a way to deal with Islam. There is possible change within Islam as I mentioned. I would suggest that you read and study the Qur'an, the Hadeths, understand Shariah law and then ask yourself, 1) How do I fit in, or what does Islam have in store for me?" 2) How can we help Islam change or deal with Islam and defend who and what we are?"


I see a combination of cures. One is the metamorphosis of Islam to a more tolerant 21st century religion, if possible. Like fighting any idea, it is not going to go away.

As have alot of others on this website. Just because I don't agree with all of your points on the subject does not mean we are not fighting for the same things. Due to ur different experieinces in life, we just see different ways to go about trying to achieve the same goal.

Interesting article on change in Islam in Egypt.

W-M,

Well said,I can't help but agree 110%...........:lifter:lifter:lifter

Big Teddy :munchin

You’ve mis-taken my words. I say again - they are ideals to strive for.
My point was that Islamists are NOT playing by the same rules, or striving for the same goal of play nice, co-exist and tolerate others as they are.

I agree. Just as it wasn't every German in Nazi Germany.

I do. You say you are not willing to accept another 9/11. But your next sentence seems to challenge that by questioning the Patriot Act.

Am I misunderstanding your remarks?

Ben Franklin is credited with saying "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

The postulate becomes “Never sacrifice liberty.”

That can be taken to one of two extremes. Delete the Patriot Act. Pretend like there’s no threat. Let them set off bombs in our street and kill our children at will. At least we have our “freedom.”

Or – take every necessary precaution to protect liberty by waging all out war against the threat to ensure our freedoms are protected.

Neither is an ideal answer to a national security challenge.

I believe that Freedom and Security are a balancing act.

Given our current environment, the Patriot Act is an acceptable compromise. I’m not worried about the FBI, CIA, DIA or any other agency listening to my phone calls. They’d be bored and wasting their time.

The Zazi case shows the effectiveness of allowing our national security apparatus to using telephonic surveillance.


I agree. There are a number of problems we need to overcome. First, what about those who do not wish to integrate? There’s no established duties and responsibilities of a citizen. Where is the legal requirement to integrate? And who enforces it?

It would be great if everyone would learn English. Are you willing to make that a law? Again, who enforces it? Do we eliminate public-school programs that have Spanish speaking teaches to help those communities where English is predominantly a second language?

Agree with the photo ID. You want to drive? You need a photo ID. You want to fly? You need a photo ID.

That’s one of the many recommendations of Moorthy Muthuswamy in his book “Defeating Political Islam.”

Sorry. That was a rhetorical “you,” not a personal one.
Let me rephrase as “If someone wants to live under sharia…”



Didn't mean to insinute that - just passionate about the issue.
Sorry if you took it that way.

Agree. Did we become what we loath when we beat the Nazis? The Japanese?

Or did we show our true strength, determination and willingness to fight and die for what we love and know is right?

Sunni Islamic law prevents the change you suggest. I don’t have much hope for the Shias either.
Enclosed is the section on Scholarly Consensus and a couple highlighted areas for your consideration.
You’ll find that once a ruling becomes consensus, it cannot be changed later on by a succeeding era.

See Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law - B7.2; and B7.4(1); and B7.5

READ IT HERE:

I am passionate about the issue as well, and I understand that sometimes sentiment gets misunderstood over the internet. I will grow some thicker skin:)

In question to the Patriot Act. Do I believe that it is important in this fight against terrorism, yes I do, but not all of it. I go back to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our Personal Freedoms guaranteed therewithin and do not agree with some of the precepts of the Patriot Act because of the infingment on personal liberties guaranteed within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

For example, I do not agree with warrentless wiretaps. There was a process in place to get the necessary warrants signed by an on-call Federal Judge. There has never been a case, from what I understand, in which a warrant was ever denied, or not issued in a timley enough fashion to meet the needs of the requestor. Until that happens I don't believe in warrentless wiretaps.

Some say that if I haven't done anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about and shouldn't worry about someone eavesdropping on my conversation. To that I say I am guaranteed the right against unlawful search and siezure, and it doesn't matter that I am not doing anything wrong, I don't think the federal government should be listening to my conversations just because a predetermined word is uttered.

I agree there is a fine line that needs to be forged between safety and security. I also believe in a world of grey, and there is never one right answer for every problem. I believe in the "Lesser Evil" that sometimes good men/women must do evil things in order to prevent an even greater evil from taking place. But we all must acknowledge that the act is a Lesser Evil, and open ourselves up to the scrutiny that will ensue because of it. That scrutiny does not mean it is done in public in front of the MSM. But it needs to be done notheless. If a decision is made to do the Lesser Evil, those making the decision need to acknowledge it as such, and realize there may be future consequences that result; ie you may not get re-elected President, or as SecDef you may be called to task over a memo you published. But if you are going to make the command decsion, you don't throw others under the bus to save yourself and your career.

If we don't do these things, how do we ensure the Lesser Evil does not become the new status quo?

I am not being flip, I really am not, but isn't this what the enemy is seeking as well? Surely we feel justified in our means of fighting this war, but so do they. We say our way is right, and theirs is wrong, and they say the exact opposite.

How do we go about getting the rest of the world to see that and not look like hypocrits doing it.

I guess why I keep harping in this "hypocrit" thing is I feel we would be better off if we just go about our business of seeking to win this fight, and preserve our way of life, without trying to be PC about it.

We are continually trying to get others to think we are "above" it all, and will always take the high road. But our actions speak louder than words, and we will all probably say that we need to stop fighting this enemy with one hand tied behind our back. We need to stop trying to "pretty it up" because our words do not match our actions. And if our actions are right and justified, then we need to change our words, IMHO.

Hang Up
 

So - Military intelligence is listening in on a terrorist phone number in Parkistan. So the terrorist dials a number in the states, Omar picks up and the terrorist says "Omar, is the bomb ready to go?" "Yes, Mahmoud, I have it placed.." Click.

Intelligence agent to the other "Man, that was close. We didn't have a warrant for the US dude. Good thing we hung up quick."

I find myself wondering about the provisions of the Patriot act, including the issue of warrantless wiretaps and other, similar capabilities. I guess I'm in the camp that really doesn't know which way is best.

On the one hand, Pete brings up a good point. In a fast-developing situation, don't impede the good guys. But on the downside, it's easy to imagine an innocent person falling into a great deal of trouble.

One example I used in class was the so-called CIA letter opener - a plastic knife. I would point out that such knives could be abused and would not show up on metal detectors. Then I would do a Google search and project the picture and ordering information to a couple hundred bored undergraduates. That generally got them (well, most of them) awake. ;)

I would pose the question - should people who brought such things up on a classroom screen and told others about it be put on a watch list? Were they dangerous? Should they be monitored? That was generally good for 45 minutes of discussion. :cool:

I still don't know the answer.

I don't know if the answers to the questions are mutually exclusive. While thinking each through, additional questions came to mind. Here are some of those questions.

• Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?
• Did we not target with increasing abandon population centers in Japan and Germany? (When assessing the firebombing and the eventual use of atomic weapons, the late Stephen Ambrose summed it up succinctly, "Life was cheap.")
• While the Allied forces most certainly saved the world from utter darkness, after casting down enemies who subscribed to political ideologies that centered around notions of racial superiority, did not some of those Allies return home to countries with similar views of racial difference?
• Did the war not reconfigure permanently the relationship between the American state and its citizens? (Is today's statist government an outgrowth of the New Deal alone?)
• (Did we beat the Nazis or was it the Soviets?)

While the relocation of Japanese Americans is a dark spot in American History, those camps where nothing like the concentration camps in Europe. Not even in the same category. That is almost like a complete naive assertion.


BTW the weapons of the time were nothing like to day. Your whole list of questions baffles me. I am not sure what you are driving at. Maybe because I knew many people who served in WWII as a kid. I spent the early parts of my life as military brat living on military bases. I remember many conversations from men who fought that war.


Like today, there are claims that life, especially the citizens in combat zones are meaningless to us. Yet we spend billions to build more surgical weapons to save those civilians lives our enemies do not. Our ROE are set up to help non combatants to survive war in their A/O our enemies ROE is the opposite.

Sir,

This is the worst fear Pete, right here, what you typed, for myself and my family.

For if "they" cannot fight these barbarians, what the F**k are we civilians supposed to do to fight it? I mean these people have jobs with titles for a reason, right? It is their job, let's let them do it, and stop whining and crying about what kind of harm it might do to the perception of Islamic followers, IMVHO!:mad: (ANd will appologize to anyone who takes offense on here...but YOU try moving a totally disabled person from one location to another for safety reasons...)

Holly