National Review strikes back...?

Good for NR. We have to stand up to CAIR or they will be emboldened and sue anybody that says anything about muhammad that they don't like. Just quoting the holy books of islam would get us sued if this continues.

Good news: a UK study reports negative student attitudes to the mortal Muslim enemy.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/print_version.php?article=8973
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4339342

Bad news: negative feelings to the murder cult are not yet measured at 100%.

This is good news. If I recall correctly National Review Online
was sued a year or so ago regarding some type of Islamic "defamation"
issue. National Review won in court, but the case cost NR something like $60,000 in legal fees. I remember seeing a post on their website
about how the fees really hurt National Review Online, there was a form that you could donate money to help offset the costs for NR's legal defense. The impression I got from this online note was that
National Review Online wasn't rolling in money.
In regards to this current issue, perhaps National Review is more sensitive to the economic costs of defending its freedom of speech these days. When money is tight, perhaps its easier not to fight. Even if it's your right.

The idea of "reconciliation" is not a weakness of the Pope, nor of the Catholic Church.

The idea derives from the truth of Jesus' teachings concerning the reconciliation of mankind.

Is there somewhere a counterpart?

I would like to join the mix.

Regarding the statement:

"What right does the US have of forcing democracy upon other nations?"

Just like most of your postings, there are hidden and obvious implications or meanings in your questions. Just because the US had to go in by force, does not mean that democracy was forced on the people of Iraq. Let me put it in the form of an analogy to help you understand.

Let us say it is like a man struggling in the middle of the lake. He is struggling to keep his head above water (to swim). There are many people on the banks of the lake (the UN, etc) who are watching this and all acknowledge the man needs to be saved. They have the boats and life preservers to do it, but there is a problem.

Above the man, sitting in a royal row boat, is a brute of a man wacking the man in the water (with his fists and the oars). This brutal man is big and burly, and is not only refusing to save him he is also the cause of his struggle AND preventing him from being saved by others. Not only is the big bully intimidating the others on the shore from even trying to save the poor man from drowning, he is throwing money at them, saying go away and ignor this - "there will be even more money for you if would just shut up and mind your own business." And, one by one, they did.

Then one in the crowd yelled, "Hey nucklehead!, pick on someone your own size!"

Squinting the brave man recognized the brute on the water. "I have had problems with you before. In fact your that same jerk I had to pull off of that woman a few years back." He turns to the others and says, "This is that same sadistic piece of garbage that I had to rescue that neighborhood girl from. Not only did I catch this jerk-face rapping a young woman, he was also throwing bricks through the windows of several of his neighbor's houses!"

The others around the lake turned around, stopped counting their new fortune and stuffed the wad of cash into their pockets. Thinking about more cash to come they said, "Hey Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes, leave them alone. Let them work out there own problems by themselves - besides, who made you sherrif?

"Well," replied the tall handsom man, "in effect, you did."

"Remember when he terrorized this neighborhood last time? I was not the only one to save that young woman. We were all there. You all helped just being there and watching my back as I kicked his ass, remember?"

"Yes, we do. And we put him on probation when he promised he would never do it again," said the guy with the French accent as he peered down counting his wad secretly. "So leave him alone! You just want his cool boat and all his great fishing tackle. You don't want to save that victim! Besides, he's been keeping his promises - for the most part."

"Yes" replied 'El Guapo,' as he began to push his boat off the shore towards the bully, "if I hadn't been constantly patrolling this neighborhood for all this time since then, he would have broken ALL of his promises and done even more damage than he did the first time!"

"So what!," the other men shouted back at him. "Don't get in that boat and go after him, you'll need our permission and our help and we don't want to get involved. Why are you such a hard head!?!!"

"I'm fed up with this jerk. He's got to be stopped!" The tall man pushed off towards the very disturbing commotion in the middle of the lake. A few others on the shore said to the others, "You know what?, he's right. We're going to help again this time too.

Why? Did you say 'why?' You're slime.How can you live with yourself?"

They pushed off after the one called 'the handsom one." The tall man was polite and idealistic, but not one to mess with as he was curtious and respectful - but a real force, if pushed too far.

They soon caught up with him.

This was seen by the bully. "Hey guys (on the shore)", he yelled. "Remember, we have a deal! Tell these people to leave us alone. This is our business!""

The men on the shore began to throw rocks and limbs in the path of the small fleet of 'do-gooders.' Still they kept rowing to the scene of the crime. And when the bully saw that they were coming from afar (their advance on him was noticed for some time - [about 6 months!!!]), the savage bully decided he better get rid of incriminating evidence, but that's another story.

Finally, the group came upon the mean neighborhood bully. They jumped into his boat with tremendous force. They beat him and his gang up quickly, but a few got away. They found the bully in the bottom of the boat under some dirt. They bound him hand and foot and said, "Man, do you need a hair cut!" They all lauphed.

Then one of the rescuers said, "Hey fellas, what about the guy in the water?"

"Oh yea..."

[Now did they debate about wether this man needed rescuing or if he wanted to be rescued? I didn't think so either.]

Then the tall one spoke. He was called the 'good one' because he seemed to be the culmination of all the best of not only the neighbrhood, but of all in the city. (He was not perfect, but he was a product of the whole city's best intentions and dreams, even of those left on the shore.)

Satisfied with their accomplishment he began, "You're right, not only was it good to subdue this punk, but we need to rescue this victim. But not only did I bring this life-preserver," he said as he threw it to the victim, grasping for the line, "but I also brought him anotherl boat like ours. It will have to do for now. As he learns to operate the boat (democracy), he can paint it any color he likes, have a sail, a motor or whatever. I just think a boat is the best thing for getting around the lake. That's how I get around. If its good for me -and most of us here and on shore, why not? Right? OK."

And so on and so on. The idea is that the U.S. did what it thought was the best thing. It now is trying to get the Iraqi people on their feet and able to govern themselves in the best method that WE know how.

Is it wrong for wanting for others, what we have enjoyed for ourselves for these 200 plus years. It is not only a good idea (democracy), but it is one that has been honed and modified, bit by bit to be a wonderful system that we love and cherish, not do we think that, but most of the world does also. (The UN reluctantly helping with the democracy process.)

It is not forcing them to do anything. It is bestowing upon them what we feel is not really ours to give, but a previlage bestowed upon humanity from the good Lord above as fitting for all mankind. (Bush)

Thanks for your time. And thank you Robert and all for your great vigilance.

islam_nutz

Heh,

Nice post, islam_nutz. Interesting take.

Geoff

Skeet Street: While I'm all for reconciliation, the thing I note about Christianity's idea of reconciliation is this:

To deal with a fallen world lost in sin, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit decided that the Son would become man (specifically a Jew of the House of David) to actively fulfill all the righteousness of the divine law and give his own life as a ransom or atonement for many. Jesus Christ then rose on the third day in triumph over death. Thus, by believing in him, we may have life. That is how God is reconciled to sinners.

Yes, this implies (and there are very explicit passages in Scripture on this, too) that we need to be charitable towards all (we don't know the ones whose names God has written in the book of life; and perhaps the fierce sinner and blasphemer of today is destined for great sanctity tomorrow, as Manasseh of Judah, Saul of Tarsus, Augustine of Hippo, and numerous others testify). Our last word from God is not "wipe out the Canaanites" but "make disciples" and "come".

Hence, I am all for being neighborly and respectful towards Muslims--especially if they are doing no harm--an protest at all who would argue for assaults on mosques and willy-nilly deportations. Things simply haven't gotten that bad. However, I will not kiss a book that misrepresents my Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and God, Jesus, and Mary; or says that the Jews see Ezra as the son of God as I see Jesus Christ as son of God (I don't kiss the Bible, either. I read it humbly and prayerfully). I will certainly not whitewash Islamic history. I've also signed petitions on behalf of persecuted Christians in Islamic countries; and note the bad treatment of Jews and Zoroastrians as well. But I also think that when Muslims find themselves disgusted at their own religion, it is my God-given duty to see to it that my church is a place where they may comfortably join other recovering sinners rather than lead them to think that they'll be kicked when they're down.

Good to see. However will they resist the dark side for long? The power of the dark side (i.e. the threat of litigation) is powerful and giving in to it is the easy and seductive way out.

OT I just watched Walid Shoebat's interview with FNC, thought you might like the link.

http://www.shoebat.com/media/fox_news_2005_3_player.swf?PHPSESSID=39e09debea93a58ef4403732b4967cd2

Good morning to all. I just ordered a copy of "The sword of the Prophet" from National Review Book Service.

I'd also like CAIR to E-mail this site if they think they're a big enough bully to come and confiscate it.

Yeah, the litigation machine is a well-oiled one and a means of getting around the prohibition against censorship. Can't shut them up under the Constitution? Just sue them blind! Talk about a need for some sort of legal reform! Maybe some legal eagle who reads the site could suggest some way--maybe a process for screening out PC junk so it doesn't go to court--to eliminate this particular threat to those who would tell the truth.

OT--I may be the last person on the planet to know about it, but there is a site called http://www.ReligionofPeace.com that the host said was inspired by Robert. There is a link to an online book called "Islam Undressed" that is a very fine overview of the whole "Islamic Problem" and it has a supportive recommendation by Robert. It's the kind of "big picture" treatment of Islam that would make a superb read for teachers at all levels, your own children at home from high school on up, and any of your friends who remain unconvinced.

My cartridge died while downloading it, so I haven't read the last few pages yet, but I think they will be as good as the preceeding 160 or so pages.

BTW, if you can get a copy of Andre Servier's "Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman" often recommended by Hugh, is well worth the trouble. Our copy falls into the "adequate condition" category, so we had to glue some pages back in, but at least they're all there.

The book does not have an analytic Freudian interpretation of the Muslim mind, you may be pleased to know.

As a "teaser" for potential purchasers, the chapter outline for Chapter one ends with: "Islam, by its immutable dogmas, has paralysed the brain and killed all initiative..."

The author also shouts warnings about the apparent congeniality of the Turks. This is no secret to most of us, but it's really interesting to hear it from someone writing in the 20s and trying--unsuccessfuly, unfortunately--to warn France of the impending danger.

We still have time to learn from this man's insight.

cubed, the flashing peace signs on that site are strangely hypnotic, I feel like reading the qur'an now! LOL

Serge's Book Swort of the Prophet is indeed outstanding, but a reader of that must also read
Paul Fregosi's Jihad (in the west) it adds to that which Trifkovic lays down, and then to come current read Evan Kohlmann's, Al Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Bosnian Afghan Network (it will raise the hair on the back of the neck) then of course Paul Sperry's Inflitration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Inflitrated Washington.

Just because the US had to go in by force posted by Islam Nutz

Here is were I part company with most, we did not have to go into Iraq, in fact the whole thing is not only counterproductive (Iraq has proven to be, after the invasion, a recruiting and training ground for Jihadi's, just as Afghanistan was during the Afghan Soviet war, the blowback of which has been Osama, al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism and militancy.

The only real beneficiaries of invading Iraq has been the Saudi Royals, OPEC, Iran, the Muslims states of the Gulf.

Saddam had no WMD's, no real military force or threat,was considered an apostate and heretic by other Muslims including Osama. And the justification of killing his own people is farcial, if that is justification then we should be invading Sudan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistgan and hundreds of other countries (Muslim and non Muslim).

Big time winners, Haliburton and it's subsidaries and contractors like KBR, who received no bid contracts and then proceeded to rip off the tax payer (Cheney still receives money from Haliburton, and will probably return to Haliburton in 2009).

In a word big business, OPEC, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other neighboring Muslim countries benefited from the invasion of Iraq, but not the United States, not one bit, in fact the invasion has cost us our childrens blood, international opprobrium, and the posterity of our children, as funds which could be used for a social safety net are squandered in Iraq, and on weapons systems and muntions.

Glaour,

Thanks for the post game analysis.

Yes, the war has not gone as well as most wars go. WW2 is full of snafus and mistakes, as of coarse was Vietnam to name a couple. In the case of WW2, the Germans (Hitler) made serious mistakes in tactics - swithching the bombing of air fields to that of London and the other cities; and also in strategy - attacking Russia before the job was finnished in the West. Japan and Germany made a huge mistakes in not putting into production very advanced weapons (Jets, etc) untill it was too late.

So maybe what we learn is that victory not only goes to the strong, but maybe more importantly - to the side that makes the fewer or less costly mistakes. This was the case with Sadam.

But in the mean time, we have made some mistakes in Iraq.

What I was addressing, I guess, was our motivations that were slandered and mistaken by the ever peace loving "ia786."

As for the beatnick radio stuff about Haliburton and all - wow, that is a real stretch. Since we're in the realm far fetchness, Giaour, can you imagine the board of Haliburton sitting around scrating their heads on how to increase the bottom line (ala the Xerox commercial), and someone says, "What about Dick!"

"What?!!!"

"Yea, what about Dick Cheney!" "Someone get him on the phone and see if we can't get ourselves a big...no, a HUGE construcion project out of an invasion of some country...like..."

Everyone, "Iraq!"

"You betcha!, Johnson, your getting a raise!!"

Now I now that is kinda silly, but its just to project it to its most absurd possibility to perhaps suggest to you that your people's theory may be far fetched.

But I don't know. I hope you and your guys are wrong like heck. If not, I'm sure the press - and us bloggers!, will find them out and some people are going to do some serious time.

It was my understanding that there was only one company (in the US?) that was actually able to pull off such an undertaking so quickly (or at all).

Yes, I agree with you. We should be getting into Darfur to save those defenseless people. Even this rascist excuse that they don't want a white army on the continent of Africa, as if those poor folks would rather be saved by the African multi-national peace keepers, who haven't done much anyways. PCness is going to tear us all apart, if it breeches the bond of common sense, decency and practicality.

It was an ugly situation, and Sadam deserves 99.9% of the blame. He was obstinate, UNcooperative, and broke his agreement for the sesation of the '91 war. All over the span of 12 years. That is a lot of patience and benifit of the doubt.

By the way, correct me if I''m wrong, but that agreement was to stop an army(s) from turning north and taking Bagdad and his sovereinty as leader of his people.

Some have argued that THAT was a mistake. Mistakes happen.

islam_nutz