'5,000 suicide bombers in Germany'

Dieses ist gute Nachrichten! (good news!)

Maybe this will wake up the slumbering socialists and communists in Europe. (Socialism is the opiate of the masses --in Europe anyway...) Even if a massive terror campaign only serves to shut their pie holes regarding their inflammatory hatred of America it will be a huge step in the right direction. Europeans aren't our allies until they begin fighting for the same things we fight for --

The sad part is -- who do you think they'll come running to hat in hand when the bombs start going off? Uncle Sam, AGAIN... It's disgusting when you think that if they had joined hands with us after 9/11, this whole Islamic mess may now have been be a lot closer to being resolved -- instead their treachery and intransigence has simply translated into more bloodshed and helped to fuel the very jihad which is coming for their heads! Cosmic justice?

Well, it won't make a difference if (what I now believe) the socialists / greens win the general election in Germany. There aren't many reasons to vote for CDU /CSU but Beckstein is one reason - he is known to be a hardliner and very wary of the dangers presented by islamofascists. We'll see what's going to happen.

Here is an important article:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1126491575491&p=1006953079865

Blinded by ideology

The sheer numbers involved here is an indication that at some point this whole thing is going to become impossible and far too expensive to police. Then, the only answer will be mass deportations! I wonder how many politicians will have the stomach for that?!

I was just reading R. Massie's book Castles of Steel, about the naval battles during the First World War.

At one point Massie is describing confrontation between Germany and the US in the lead up to the US declaration of war. A German government minister was trying to threaten the American ambassador by reminding him that there were over 500,000 ethnic Germans living in the US who would never stand for war against their home country. In effect, he was saying that they would be a 5th column in the US.

The US ambassador responded by saying that the US had 500,001 lampposts and if those German emigrants tried anything that is where they would shortly end up.

I don't think we think in those terms anymore.

The same thing is happening in France, Great Britain, Spain, and all over Europe. It's like a gathering of troops as they prepare to strike.

Imagine a scenario of 100 years ago: there is an army on the battlefield, thousands of enemy troops start to gather right in the midst of this army, but anyone who points out this obvious fact is criticized as "a bigot, hateful, racist..." We laugh at the absurdity of this happening on a battlefield 100 years ago, but this scenario is playing itself out right in front of the world today.

The human cost of this political correctness will be counted in the millions as we, the world, does nothing while the enemy gathers. This will be so clear, as our children reflect with hindsight and say "why didn't you do anything while it was happening?"

My only comfort is that I know how the story ends.

The Second Ammendment rules -- I take comfort in the notion that it won't just be the lamp posts utilized to shed light on our enemy if/when they begin suicide operations in the USA... The 1st Ammendment is being abused by our enemy as a weapon against us -- but the 2nd guarantees they will profit little from their abuse of the 1st...

Dosage

Mark has offered us his solution, but is there a chance in hell it will ever be implimented? Capitulation is a much more likely outcome to Europe's Muslim problem than mass deportation.

Why is this? In a word, the malleability of European public opinion. You see, dosage is an important component in the strategic value of terrorist violence.

Iraq is a hot war. The Islamist strategy is to maintain the pressure on an increasingly wary US public by engaging in daily attacks. This dovetails with the dynamic inside Iraq where the absence of daily security is meant to induce public fatigue and ultimately disillusionment with the Democratic process which is by nature gradualist and cumbersome.

Al Qaeda's global campaign has been employed much more circumspectly. Spectacular attacks are followed by months and sometimes years of quiet. The African embassy bombings were in 1998; the Cole attack in 2000; 9-11 a year after that; Bali and Tunisia in 2002; Madrid and Baslan in 2004; London, this year.

The point is, Al Qaeda is constrained not only by the complexities of operational planning for terror spectaculars, but also by a deliberate strategy to utilize the proper dosage of terrorism to maximize its impact while not simultaneously jeopardizing the existential well-being of Muslim communities living inside of Dar ul Harb.

Let us assume Backstien is right...that there are thousands of Muslims in Germany ready for "martyrdom"...and let's assume that there are similar numbers in France, the UK, Italy and elsewhere in Europe. The question then becomes, with the backround of this vast pool of recruits, why haven't there been more terror attacks in Europe? Why haven't there been scores of smaller terror attacks such as mall, cafe and church bombings that don't require the time and effort involved in planning the spectaculars?

The answer is dosage. The beneficial repercussions of multiculturalist policies notwithstanding, Europe's Muslim communities are still marginal enough that their existential well-being remains dependent upon the good-will of their hosts. Bin Ladin himself is not impervious to the public pressures of the global ummah.

As the demographics change and Muslims in Europe grow increasingly empowered by their numbers, they can be expected to exhibit a new assertiveness inside and outside the political arena. There will come a day that each Muslim defeat in the political arena, be it an electoral repudiation or a court ruling against certain tenets of Sharia, will be answered by a wave of Islamist terror attacks. The public discourse will be correspondingly altered and native capitulation will not be far behind. Muslim violence will become accepted as normative (much as it already has been by the liberal/left)...as a force of nature to be avoided at all costs.

Dosage is subject to revision commensurate with changes in objective conditions. It is a valuable tool when properly employed.

No Mark, there will be no mass expulsion of Muslims from Europe...the proper dosage of terror will preclude such an outcome. And come that day when Muslims have finally achieved their goal of political pre-eminence...when Europe has joined the Realm of Islam and native Europeans are full-fledged dhimmis, the coercive violence of the terrorist bombing will be replaced with the coercion of the angry mob.

Cornelius: Well said! The Europeans, and that includes the British, will never have the stomach for such an action! I know that; you know that.

Cornelius

Your thesis is spot on. 9/11 and others subsequent attacks were carefully calibrated to increase the visibility of islam in the West. They were acts of chastisement to make the Western dhimmi ass move in the right direction. 9/11 and all other such outrages have been successfful beyond all expectations because of the ignorance of our leaders and the MSM. Using a nuke in a Wersern city would annull all that has been achieved. It is for this reason that I do not think there is going to be nuke attack on the West.

I have said so for sometime now that Jihadis and the moderates operate in concert, each to advance islam in a manner that is best suited. No formal understanding is required - it is understood, that as the Jihadis have made the ultimate sacrifice, the living moderates must make full use of that sacrifice. It is also this that sustains the Jihadis, as they go out in their final journey to harvest Infidel lives, that their sacrifice will not have been in vain. It for this reason, that we see the moderates making demands for this and that Islamic privilege, immediately after a terrorist outrage. One would have thought that they would have kept their heads down given the circumstances.

Mark

I have been thinking of the appeasing policies of the Bush, Blair and other Western governments. On first thought, it certainly appears the wrong thing to do.

However let us consider the matter a little further, particularly Blair's policy of appeaseemnt.

One thing one must firmly hold in mind is that the real threat comes from the rapidly expanding muslim population in Britain, and the West in general. So the quicker one acts to reduce and eliminate this threat, the better.

One then asks, how does one arrive at a stage that one is able to take the action that is required?

Many have taken the view that only a major attack on a Western city, maybe a nuclear event, will finally wake the West. But that means that one is "hoping and praying" for a major catastrophic attack to occur fairly soon, or it will be too late, as the demographic conquest will already be near completion.

The other approach is to give in to muslim demands, and even make concessions that were never asked for. This creates even more demands, and more acts of terror, and then more demands. One thus rapidly reaches the point, at which even the most supine government and people will say, "Enough is enough".

The Blair government, knowingly or unwittingly, is adopting the second approach. I know there is simmering anger in the UK, though softly uttered, with Blair's response to the terrorist massacre of 7/7. This anger is growing with each act of appeasement by New Labour. I sometimes wonder if this is a pre-meditaded policy.

DP111: "No formal understanding is required - it is understood, that as the Jihadis have made the ultimate sacrifice, the living moderates must make full use of that sacrifice."

There is a dynamic going on here that is indeed sublime, even within the ummah. The moderate-radical divide is nebulous; sometimes wide, sometimes barely existent.

The immediate aftermath of these Al Qaeda spectaculars are certainly problematic for the Muslims residing inside of Dar ul Harb. But after the shock has warn off, the threat of further attacks does indeed serve as a chilling and sobering form of coercive pressure on the Western policymakers and public alike.

Law enforcement becomes more aggressive against extremists at the same time that the public space given so-called moderate Islam expands.

It's an early form of dhimmitude. Like its counterpart within Dar ul Islam, the threat of violence is what gives it legs.

DP111:

I can well understand your line of reasoning. I think, however, that Blair has one goal in mind: staying in high office, and ensuring that a future Labour government is in a good position to retain power. Blair is not doing what is right for the country; on the contrary, he is merely doing what is right for his own survival. That's my take on it, and I don't think I'm far wrong.

Never in my lifetime have I witnessed a PM so blatanly self-absorbed, self-promoting, self-obsessed!

Bravo! to Cornelius, and all the other posters, Your analysis is spot on and very interesting.

If it is true them how do we fight it? If this is a one two punch scenario, Jihadists terror from one hand and demands from the Muslim ummah from the other then what do we do.

It occurs to me that our focus should be on the restriction and political assault and wearing down of Muslim groups and PC falsehoods about Islam.

This can best be done by speaking the truth.

I wonder how much a fine line exist between Jihadist and Sharia/Muslim rights advocate and how easily the later can be provoked into the former.

My personal experience has shown, that the calmest Muslim rights advocate can explode and transform into raving Jihadist when exposed to the slightest truth or question about Mohammed's life or what the Koran truly say about peace with non Muslims.

Maybe the answer is to speak the truth as loud as we can and with whatever means we can. Posters, billboards, movies,books, protests and in political campaigns with political parties.

Be in their face 24/7 in the countries affected by Muslim immigration.

Perhaps we can short circuit there plans by verbally exposing Islam's short comings.

I believe that the Ummah and the Jihadist have an aquiles heal and that is the pathological and violent response to any shadow of light on the darker aspects of the Islam.

Theo Van Gogh braved threats to tell the truth about the abuse of women in Islamic societies. Who would have thought that this bit of the truth would have have provoked such a violent and murderous response. This crime against Van Gogh and Dutch society did more to expose muticuti madness perhaps has forced the Dutch to look more carefully at the enemy within.

Telling the truth is dangerous, but it might be what is needed to set them off edge and expose their true nature,

Let the truth set us free but be ready for a tough fight.

Thecid an others. I think you are onto something with your counter intuitive thinking. You said: "Maybe the answer is to speak the truth as loud as we can and with whatever means we can. Posters, billboards, movies,books, protests and in political campaigns with political parties."

I have been thinking the same thing. We all need to be more proactive, not shrink back from the challenge.

Thecid,

You are exactly right in your assessment. Speaking the truth will not necessarily guarantee civilizational survival, but it is an indispensible component in a broader strategy.

Both the doctrinal intolerance and the pronounced moral failings of the prophet Muhammad that are so readliy apparent in Islam's core texts must be aggressively disseminated to Muslim and non-Muslim alike the world over. The short-term goal is to encourage introspection and moderation among Muslims and cognizance of the Islamic threat among us infidels.

The long-term goal - and we shouldn't be squemish about stating this - is to encourage mass apostasy among Muslims. This may sound far-fetched to some, but I believe it's very evident that the information-age has accelerated historical processes...and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that as the world becomes more educated, siesmic shifts in social, political and cultural evolution will occur in much shorter periods of time than was once possible. For example, look how the Pacific Rim countries were transformed from agrarian to industrialized societies in the span of two decades...something that took Western countries two centuries.

But everything is dependent upon an honest exposition of Islam in our political and cultural discourse. This is why the work of Robert Spencer is so important.

Thank you Cornelius, although I am new to this site, in the short time I have been hear my admiration to MR Spencer and all the other posters grows.

We act out of a search for truth and do not promote a homicidal response, but speak of an effort to protect our western (Judeo/Christian) values from an implacable enemy and at the same time like we dealt with the Nazi's before us or Imperial Japan, have it in our hearts to save our enemy as well.

We fight for ourselves, as well as to free our enemy.

Exposing the dark side of Islam achieves both goals/

Right now I'm focused on giving away as many of PIG as possible, some to people that I know that may have some influence or are in the position to set the agenda for discourse in government.

In my informal observation of all the many websites and with the many conversations I have with people around the world, I see a global Anti Jihadi and anti Dihimmi movement fast maturing. We can thank the shock of 911.

We are all the victims of Islam, Indian, Thai, Philippino, or Western we are united as a common front to save ourselves.

To save the Muslim world from itself is so far in the future and is predicated on saving the West first.

Why has this menace appeared now? I can only say that we have degraded and weakened our selves for over three decades, this must be addressed if we are to draw the strength to fight.

sparrow,

"not shrink back from the challenge"
I'd like to think of this in another way.
Let's not shrink back from our responsibilities.

We owe it to ourselves, our family, those who fought and died to ensure our freedoms, and especially our future generation who would never forgive us for appeasing the incoming tide of Islamofacism when we had the chance to do it.

Mark posted: Blair is not doing what is right for the country; on the contrary, he is merely doing what is right for his own survival. That's my take on it, and I don't think I'm far wrong

Agreed. That is why he has filled the country with asylum seekers, majority of them being muslims. These people are all on benefits, housing allowance, and fiddling the benefit system as well. They can be expected to vote for Labour. Besides, being muslim, they will vote as their local mosque leader advices them. No surprise then that Blair is appeasing not muslims or islam but muslim leaders.

In Britain, like other two party political systems, the democratic state functions to an extent, that the parties are more or less evenly matched. This ensures that the givernment stays honest, as the threat of being booted out is quite real. What Labour has done, is skewed the
electoral system in its favour by bringing in people who have no understanding, appreciation or liking of the West, and who vote according to the dictat of the imam. This gives the imams and mullahs the same power as minority partys in a hung parliament or PR electoral systems. A power that is now becoming manifest.

Unfortunately, Blair has no understanding of what he is doing, and as you rightly point out, he is consumed with his own image - a veritable modern day Narcissus. Nemesis though awaits - unfortunately it is Britain that will bear the brunt of Blair's love of his own image.

Mark posted: Blair is not doing what is right for the country; on the contrary, he is merely doing what is right for his own survival. That's my take on it, and I don't think I'm far wrong

Agreed. That is why he has filled the country with asylum seekers, majority of them being muslims. These people are all on benefits, housing allowance, and fiddling the benefit system as well. They can be expected to vote for Labour. Besides, being muslim, they will vote as their local mosque leader advices them. No surprise then that Blair is appeasing not muslims or islam but muslim leaders.

In Britain, like other two party political systems, the democratic state functions to an extent, that the parties are more or less evenly matched. This ensures that the givernment stays honest, as the threat of being booted out is quite real. What Labour has done, is skewed the
electoral system in its favour by bringing in people who have no understanding, appreciation or liking of the West, and who vote according to the dictat of the imam. This gives the imams and mullahs the same power as minority partys in a hung parliament or PR electoral systems. A power that is now becoming manifest.

Unfortunately, Blair has no understanding of what he is doing, and as you rightly point out, he is consumed with his own image - a veritable modern day Narcissus. Nemesis though awaits - unfortunately it is Britain that will bear the brunt of Blair's love of his own image.

Sorry for the double posting. Internet or my Browser is slow.
--------------------------------

Mark etal:

Has anyone noticed that PM Blair, with appeasement very much in mind, gathered the great and the good of the muslim world - the moderates of the RoP. And the first outing they had, they shot themselves in the foot. The tabloids in Britain are burning the moderates of islam, and the truth is coming out - not from us, but from the mouths of the moderates of islam.

What we see here is an example of the law of unintended consequences in action. This what I was thinking about in my previous posts.

Cornelius posted:The long-term goal - and we shouldn't be squemish about stating this - is to encourage mass apostasy among Muslims.

Apoastasy in the widest sense - that is, muslims either leave islam or leave infidel lands.

The question is how do we arrive at this point rapidly enough and before the demographic imperative leaves no choice for either us, or for potential apostate muslims.

In the first instance, deporting illegal aliens, particularly muslims, then following it by deporting those who advocate terrorism, will deplete the islamic base in the West to a sufficient degree, that it is unable to facillitate jihadism in the West as easily.

As Islam is mainly a profit motive political ideology, masquerading as a religion, the pressures on muslims to change their ideology must also be based on a profit-cum-political basis. Islam has no real philosophical base, and as such, is immune to arguements based on morality or ethics. Thus deportation of the advocates of islamisation , terror etc will start to demoralise the islamic base. continues the islamic base. A number of muslims will leave of their own accord, or will leave islam, as they see no future for their goals in the West or they see no future for themselves or their children in a modern society.

What I'm getting here is that we have to give muslims some incentive to either leave islam or leave infidel lands. They are unlikely to do either, if what they see is the continuing islamisation of the West. Why would anyone in their right minds, wish to join what is perceived as the losing side?

This to be followed by an insistence that the rules that define a liberal secular democracy have to be adhered to. For instance

1. The electrically amplified calls of the mezzuen are an invasion of the public square as well as an affront to other faiths.

2. Wearing clothes that signify the oppression of women is a symbol of acceptance of slavery as legitimate. Totally unacceptable.

3. Teaching islam in public schools is not acceptable, as the texts violate several; cherished values of the West.

What is being proposed here are certain ideas, none are racist or islamophobic, bigotted or anti-religious. They are just what defines Western civilisation ie rule of law, separation of church and state, equality of sexes etc.

As I pointed out, 9/11 and othesr such massacres were chastisement delivered to the Western donkey to amke it movce in the right direction. It is the stick and carrots approach. Inessence, this what I'm proposing - stick and carrots approach. Generally works.

The basic impulse of Islam is to expand into Infidel territory. The territory is not just physical but spiritual and intellectual. Unable to do so, it will collapse quite quickly in historic terms, and thus release the 1.2 billion souls in its enslavement. What more can one ask for.

The other great thing of this approach is, that we are will not be untrue to our own ideas of who and what we are.

Sorry for the double posting. Internet or my Browser is slow.
--------------------------------

Mark etal:

Has anyone noticed that PM Blair, with appeasement very much in mind, gathered the great and the good of the muslim world - the moderates of the RoP. And the first outing they had, they shot themselves in the foot. The tabloids in Britain are burning the moderates of islam, and the truth is coming out - not from us, but from the mouths of the moderates of islam.

What we see here is an example of the law of unintended consequences in action. This what I was thinking about in my previous posts.

Cornelius posted:The long-term goal - and we shouldn't be squemish about stating this - is to encourage mass apostasy among Muslims.

Apoastasy in the widest sense - that is, muslims either leave islam or leave infidel lands.

The question is how do we arrive at this point rapidly enough and before the demographic imperative leaves no choice for either us, or for potential apostate muslims.

In the first instance, deporting illegal aliens, particularly muslims, then following it by deporting those who advocate terrorism, will deplete the islamic base in the West to a sufficient degree, that it is unable to facillitate jihadism in the West as easily.

As Islam is mainly a profit motive political ideology, masquerading as a religion, the pressures on muslims to change their ideology must also be based on a profit-cum-political basis. Islam has no real philosophical base, and as such, is immune to arguements based on morality or ethics. Thus deportation of the advocates of islamisation , terror etc will start to demoralise the islamic base. A number of muslims will leave of their own accord, or will leave islam, as they see no future for their goals in the West or they see no future for themselves or their children in a modern society.

What I'm getting here is that we have to give muslims some incentive to either leave islam or leave infidel lands. They are unlikely to do either, if what they see is the continuing islamisation of the West. Why would anyone in their right minds, wish to join what is perceived as the losing side?

This to be followed by an insistence that the rules that define a liberal secular democracy have to be adhered to. For instance

1. The electrically amplified calls of the mezzuen are an invasion of the public square as well as an affront to other faiths.

2. Wearing clothes that signify the oppression of women is a symbol of acceptance of slavery as legitimate. Totally unacceptable.

3. Teaching islam in public schools is not acceptable, as the texts violate several; cherished values of the West.

What is being proposed here are certain ideas, none are racist or islamophobic, bigotted or anti-religious. They are just what defines Western civilisation ie rule of law, separation of church and state, equality of sexes etc.

As I pointed out, 9/11 and other such massacres, were chastisement delivered to the Western donkey to make it move in the right direction. It is the stick and carrots approach. In essence, this is what I'm proposing - a stick and carrots approach. It generally works.

The basic impulse of Islam is to expand into Infidel territory. The territory is not just physical but spiritual and intellectual. Unable to do so, it will collapse quite quickly in historic terms, and thus release the 1.2 billion souls in its enslavement. What more can one ask for.

The other great thing of this approach is, that we will not be untrue to our own ideas of who and what we are.

DP111, what you highlight is so true. In America to some extent after 911 the pressure has been turned up on the Umma. The Patriot Act and restrictions on new Muslim immigrants has started to have a grinding effect on the growth of the Muslim community. It still isn't enough but the closing of so called charitable organization, the prosecution of Jihadi mosque elements, terror connected university professors and the many FBI sting operations has started to grind them down.

What is missing is taming of powerful organizations such as CAIR, the weakening of Muslim economic pressure. the liberation from a dependence on Muslim oil and the protection of those Muslims which to are liberated from Islam or convert.

In our International airports it amazes me the incredible influence that Muslim airlines have over the most obvious things. The other day I saw a group of Muslim woman go through a security at a major airport covered from head to toe in black only their eyes were visible through slits in their head garments. Their passport and documentation had photos that revealed pictures of a face with only eyes showing. An absurd demonstration of Dihimmitude from an otherwise tough system. Why is this allowed to happen? one only has to see the corrosive influence of state run Muslim airlines who because of economic clout dictate what goes on in most airports.It is common knowledge the under the current system the airlines are responsible for validating a passengers identity. Most other world airlines do a good job of it, the ones from Muslim countries take it as an opportunity to impose a little bit of Dihimmitude.

As shocked passengers look on, while little old ladies and young children are force to remove any baggy garments that could hide anything, these black ghosts are allowed to whisk right by with the briefest of searches. Were they the wives of some UN or Islamic Embassy delegation, as an observer I don not know, but the screener who search me was obviously unhappy with the situation and the other travelers just shook their heads with disbelief. Such is the power of Sharia Law!

I can't think of a better image to wake the American public to the remaining short comings of the system then this.

A poster or bumper sticker with am image like this and the words

"Islam is a religion of peace, now give me my special rights or else"

"Germany is home to between 3,000 and 5,000 potential Islamic suicide attackers"
germany is "home" to the terrorists because the belief system of islam was first allowed to be made at home in germany. remove that welcome immediately.
it seems obvious that to correct the problem, the belief system of islam must be made illegal, since islam is from where the terrorists emerged, however undetected. islam is a religion of stealth. islam is now a threat. let's get rid of this treacherous enemy, islam.

it could be that islam will take over the world by sheer numbers, and by displacing whole populations. islam is a religion which employs peer pressure, shame and strict conformity. the tables of shame must be turned back onto islam by making islam against the law so that islam is shamed by it's own illegality. if we delegitimize islam, muslims can no longer shame others because they will be doing so on grounds that are illegal.
if islam triumphs, it will be because the free world let it happen.

the governments of the free world must get a clue that it is islam that is attacking them, although subtly and with a broad spectrum of strategies.
islam must be declared illegal even in islamic countries and measures should be taken to enforce that illegality. i am talking about invasion of muslim lands and a conversion to a secular religious plurality similar to that found in the usa or other free countries where there is no establishment of an official religion by the government, but that only islam shall be banned.

force the surrender of islamic governments worldwide.
close mosques worldwide and outlaw the teaching of islam in any form.
confiscate petrodollar bank accounts of islamic ownership.

this is the kind of action that would get the job done.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

"i am talking about invasion of Muslim lands and a conversion to a secular religious plurality similar to that found in the USA or other free countries where there is no establishment of an official religion by the government, but that only islam shall be banned."

Lets do a quick role reversal here:

"i am talking about invasion of infidel lands and a conversion to Islam similar to that found in the Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries where there is no establishment of an official religion by the government, but that only islam and it's rule shall be embraced."

Oh come, come now.
No need to stoop to a shar'ia like level. Plenty of INNOCENT Muslims out there and none are deserving of such apartheid in modern civilizations. Persecution of this variety is the calling card of despotic cultures and is hardly reasonable force.

On the other hand:

1) If push comes to shove - i.e. terror attacks on US soil - Islamic organizations as a whole can be stripped of their tax status. That's peaceful enough, and it works. How in Allahs scorched earth is ANYBODY gonna pay the property taxes on these freakishly huge mosques around the US? Ain't gonna happen. Instead, Muslims could very well see the foreclosure of the Islamic western dream. Violent reprisals regarding loss of tax status would only be another indictment against Islam, thus hastening the deconstruction of their faith in the west.

2) As a final stitch to Islams burial cloth in the west, raise hell in Washington until they begin the proceedings to evict organizations like CAIR. If enough people are willing to unite and force feed politicians the truth until they're suffering from Islamotoxia (ready to vomit from too much documented and fortified truth), the domino effect CAN begin.

If Muslims need a voice in the future, they can talk to a congressman...like every other equal citizen.

If they're mad that they have lost what they consider a fair voice for their faith, offer Muslims reconcilliation by way of an open inquisition regarding the Qur'an and it's contents. I believe it's called "Ijitihad" and if Muslims wish to restore themselves, they should consider it. If modern Islamic apologists truly want peace, then start by exposing the Qur'an to scrutiny without fear of harm in the west. It may also bring greater world peace and not one forced conversion is needed.

Quantum Infidel, your post is so true, we can not stoop to the level or actions that the previous poster has stated and not lose the essence that makes us Western.

I can only see the drastic total war of civilizations that listen to realanswers.net advocates if the west is attacked by major WMDs.

I still believe that the proper implementation of western ideals can under the right circumstances defeat is Islam.

Expose the truth and only the truth and Mosques will blow away like tumble weeds.