Jihad the defining challenge of new generation, says Romney

Very promising. While this statement isn't perfect, Romney with one stroke cuts through much of the politically correct fog that chokes us on this issue, and sounds at points as if he has been reading Jihad Watch.

From Ynetnews, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

"Many (people) still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam," said presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and one of the top Republican candidates for the presidential race. He identified radical Islam and the jihadist threat as "the defining challenge of our generation."

Romney compared the challenge of radical Islam to that posed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Additionally, he cited jihad's trans-national nature as one of its chief dangers, saying it was "symptomatic of a range of new global realities."

"Jihad is much broader than any one nation, or even several nations. It is broader than the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, or that between the Israelis and the Palestinians," he wrote, in an article for the Foreign Affairs journal.

"Our enemies now have sleeper cells rather than armies. They use indiscriminate terror rather than tanks. Their soldiers - as well as their victims - include children." He noted that it was often conceptually difficult for representatives, accustomed to conflicts between nations, to know how to deal with such new tactics.

If elected, Romney wrote, he would convene a summit between the United States, moderate Muslim nations and developed countries to create a worldwide strategy to defeat violent Islam.

Hmm. Which moderate Muslim nations?

Among other things, the coalition would fund public schools in the moderate Muslim world, support microcredit initiatives, human rights, education and the rule of law.

This is because, according to Romney, terror groups were often increasingly effective due to their ability to provide civilian services, left unanswered due to mismanagement of such tasks by international organizations.

"We struggle to integrate our nonmilitary instruments into coherent, timely, and effective operations," he said, noting the lag time of trans-national agencies to provide basic civil services in Iraq.

"It's no surprise" that Hamas and Hizbullah gained the support of the people because they were able to provide civilian services that the international community was not, he wrote.

He stressed the importance of transforming interagency coordination, in order to develop a more effective way for national and international organizations to provide civilians services and avoid being displaced in this capacity by militant or terrorist groups.

Romney said he would also lead an "energy revolution" to make the United States independent of foreign oil, so that "our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states."

| 63 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

63 Comments

Romney gets it. And I have a hard time convincing myself that I would not vote for him if he were to appear on the ballot in November 2008.

Greetings:

And from where are the jihadis getting all the money that they use to supply social services. Moderate Muslim nations... Oil Sheiks...
Western nations...???

From the article:

Romney said he would also lead an "energy revolution" to make the United States independent of foreign oil, so that "our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states."


Is it just me, or do ALL politicians say that when they are running for President? And, when they get in office; nada, zilch, zero...

I have a hard time believing Mitt Romney on that one, but he does show potential.

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Romney said, ""It's no surprise" that Hamas and Hizbullah gained the support of the people because they were able to provide civilian services that the international community was not, he wrote."

__________________

So I guess he thinks the "international community" is to support the Palestinians ? No maybe they chose Hammas because they agree with their core "values", the destruction of Israel. And perhaps the Palestinians continue to forever need "international" support because they will not accept Israel nor lay down thier terroist agenda against her.

I don't trust Romney,he may get some issues but doing something about them is another matter then talking about them. I think he's a slick huckster to some degree along the line of Clinton. Good looking, good speaker, charmer. Romney may have some decent values and is not a moral failure as Clinton was/is but I am far from convinced he means what he says.

Better than all the rest (Romney). Still not hanging on to concept of "moderate Moslem nations," as you pointed out, Robert.

Romney/Tancredo ticket would be more attractive than many of the others swirling about in a backwash of ignorance and semi-ignorance about Islam and jihad.

As for the Democrats, forget it. Anything they can field is lacking in understanding of what is happening to the still-free world.

(And I am neither a Republican nor a Conservative [nor a Liberal nor Leftist]).

Sorry no cigar, he doesn’t get it. I have a question for him, would he discard one of the Ten Commandments in exchange for social services/roads/outdoor plumbing and such? I know the answer so why would he believe they would toss out one of the main tenets, jihad, for the same? This is however a beginning and the rest of them will be forced to see him and raise him or fold. I’ll hang around and wait for the candidate that is willing to go all in.

What is important is that Romney is cutting through the confines of political correctness and bringing the issue of islamic jihad, the most important issue the world faces, into the national forum. Romney is not perfect as a candidate, but I admire he, Tancredo, and Fred Thompson for cutting through the "Religion of Peace" BS and speaking the truth. It's at least a start, and he should commended.

The weird thing is, if you look at the life of Joseph Smith and the **founding** of Mormonism, it is eerily parallel to Mohammed and the founding of Islam. Polygamy, violence, "us against the world that hates us" rhetoric...
LDS does not have the systemic assimilating violence of Islam (join us, submit, or die) not even close, and is benign today, but the cult nature and cult of personality of the founders is uncanny.

Romney states he wishes to fund public schools in the moderate Muslim world.
Let us assume, for the moment, that there is, in fact, a "moderate Muslim world," implying that there are, somewhere, Muslim governments who pursue "moderate" political and social agendas. Let us also assume, for the moment, that these governments can be characterized chiefly by explicit rejection of jihad and Islamic supremacy, coupled with support for a secular constitution, ethnic and religious pluralism, and equality of the sexes.

In all of dar al-Islam, comprising 1.5 billion adherents, I can only think of one such country meeting the above criteria..maybe. That country is, perhaps, Kazakhstan. That's it. I wonder what countries Mr. Romney would add to my list.

Consider the source. Romney may want us to think he gets it, but I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

One of the plotters was a Guyanan MP. So much for terrorists being the poor and the downtrodden.

Before becoming a presidential candidate Romney would have said that Russell Defreitas was one of many who came here to "do the jobs Americans won't do".

There is an Islamist movement in Guyana but that doesn't matter as long as the people are willing to come to the US and work for next to nothing.

I heard yet again on one of the channels that Defreitas was recruiting someone who said that the greatest honor a Muslim can have is to die for the faith. Peaceful? In a pig's eye!

This ups the ante for other candidates. They will have to do him one better. Here's what they should start doing: if Republican, distance themselves by a million miles from Tarbaby Iraq. Don't say that "disaggregation" will work. Don't say it is merely a matter of Al Qaeda. Don't say that we need more patience. Do say that we need to get out and the assorted factions, ethnic and sectarian (say: "ethnic and sectarian"), will either make peace or they won't. Do say "We have done all we can and more than what anyone might have expected." Do say "we have spent $880 billion dollars so far in past, present, and committed future costs, more than the total of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has ever fought in. Do say that the goal of the United States should be "to weaken the forces of Jihad."

Leave it at that: "To weaken the forces of Jihad."

At least he's using the word jihad.

That's significant.

============

Politicians aren't intellectuals.

What I'd like to know is who's his pet intellectual?

Where does he get his ideas?

I want to know how Romney will deal with the Saudis. Are they on the list of approved moderate Islamic countries? How will he address their massive exportation of Wahabbi extremism and funds for building mosques and schools founded on the teachings of this evil sect? The documentation is there (for their US activities) and it needs to be resolved head-on.

He will certainly get more attention if something 'big' happens between now and election. If it is true that many Muslims believe that the greatest honor is to die for their religion then they should do everything they can to usher in the most antagonistic leaders in the West. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say, and how others respond, in the meantime.

Good for this presidential candidate, lets how far the others will dare say! l am so sick of hearing stupid reporters asking too many stupid questions, such as Mr Wallace asking him about if he had premartial sex! what a bunch of disgusting reporters and so called journalisms. lets hope some real good questions and hear what answers all these candidates have to say.


I've read other statements by Romney about the threat of terrorism/jihad which have been better than this one. Here it sounds too much like Romney wants U.S. to lead a trans-national welfare agency to compete with Hizbollah, Hamas, and the like. What that leaves out of the equation is the appeal to jihad deeply rooted in the texts of Islam itself. No matter how much our leaders pretend it doesn't exist as such, reality always trumps wishful thinking.

On the other hand, Romney does seem to me to be the best of the candidates with any chance of winning. And he's smart (some might say too smart and too political) which is more than can be said of the present denizen of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There's room for growth.

To me he's the most "Reaganesque" in the sense that he's both very decent and very tough (seemingly). Also very competent. I have some hopes for what he could bring.

Hmm. Which moderate Muslim nations?

Uhhh, the UK? Sweden? Michigan?

Energy independence works if we stop them coming here. Stopping them coming here works, even if their oil comes here now.

What is scary is how normal the Senate, Bush, CNN and the rest think these plots are. They have no sense of outrage at them. Nor do they have any sense of protecting us. Their only thought about us is as bigots.

Its our job to explain they have to be on our side and stop validating themselves as humans by calling us bigots and advocating policies that kill us. They have to be loyal, whether to be senators or to get our customer dollars.

The positives..

(1) He said Jihad and linked to Islam
(2) Energy Independence
(3) He seems to get the Trans-national part

The Negatives..

(1) moderate muslim nations
(2) still uses the word radical


Does he get it yet...no but he does go furthur then most. Remember Lincoln only wanted to end the progression of slavery into new states at first. It takes time for people in political office to get it fully or even if they do to say so in public.

At least show me signs you are going down the right path.

"(2) still uses the word radical" -- greatcomet

Well, "radical" means to the roots of, so radical Islam means going to the very core of it, not such a bad way of talking about it.

alexon


But that also would mean that there is a non-radical Islam....or should I say...peaceful version of Islam.

The word radical implies an extreame or non-mainstream version of something. In this case Islam.

definitions...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:radical&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Its important to remember that immigration is a double harm. Men's median wages are the same as in 1973.

Labor force participation rate of white and black men in 1965 was 80 percent, today its 74 percent for whites and 66 percent for blacks.

The BLS is projecting that the labor force participation rates of black, white, Asian and Hispanic men will all fall from 2004 to 2014, even without this year's amnesty.

Immigration benefits senate stock portfolios.

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.


Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

From 1800 to today, the only period when fertility went up was during immigration restriction. At no other time since 1800 has fertility gone up. Links on fertility graphs and other data here:

1965 Immigration Act Causes U inverted U in Income Inequality and Fertility

Links on above data here.


A Nation of Lou Dobbs Democrats

Americans are being placed at risk by Senators for their stock portfolios. Its not to help us on wages or jobs, because wages are the same as 1973 and labor force participation rates are lower than 1965 for whites and blacks. That means price stayed the same and quantity went down. Microeconomics tells us that only happens if another supplier steps in, i.e. immigration.

Excuse me if I can't get too excited...

Read the entire article: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402-p10/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html

First, he wants us to stay in Iraq:

But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world. Iran could seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey.

So is the "new" Iraq, with its Islam-enshrining constitution, one of those moderate Muslim nations he's excited about working with?

He is inaccurately extreme about the goals of "radical Islam":

Radical Islam has one goal: to replace all modern Islamic states with a worldwide caliphate while destroying the United States and converting all nonbelievers, forcibly if necessary, to Islam.

As we all know, conversion is not a mandatory element of traditional Islam, and saying it is gives a differentiable "out" for the "moderate" Muslims who are just fine with subjugation (don't forget the wonderful tolerant time of Andalusia!) instead of that horrible forced conversion required by those "radicals."

He starts with a big talk about a broad threat, but ultimately he focuses on the same old boogeymen--Iran and al-Qaeda:

Today, among our main challenges are an Iranian regime and an al Qaeda network that developed while we let down our defenses.

Just look at the JFK threat: an immediate obsession to discover if "al-Qaeda" is involved. Because you know, if it's not al-Qaeda, it's just an isolated incident--carry on! What about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Thailand? Syria?

And consider the following line. Neither of its implications are good ones--that either the international community should redouble its efforts to take care of the Palestinians, or that a "moderate"-led (Abbas?) Palestinian government would have been just fine...

Likewise, the popularity of Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank should be no surprise given that the group has provided Palestinians with the basic services that neither the international community nor the Palestinian government could deliver.

He brings up Darfur, but no courage to mention the connection to Islam & Jihad:

We should also look for new ways to strengthen regional cooperation and security partnerships with responsible actors in order to confront challenges such as the genocide in Darfur. And if the UN Human Rights Council continues to be inactive or behave hypocritically, we should unite with nations that share our commitment to defending human rights in order to promote change.

And of course, it's all about winning hearts and minds, showing Muslims that we care and that we're compassionate! Oh do we care!

Yet it requires the same type of political attention and resolve we exhibited then. Today, thousands of Americans, such as former Senator Bill Frist, are helping to alleviate problems in the vulnerable parts of Africa and the Middle East, showing that we are a compassionate people.

And, alas, nothing to differentiate radical Islam from non-radical Islam, and as Robert mentioned, nothing to identify which nations exemplify this non-radical brand we're going to endorse.

alexon

I too have used the word when dealing with jihadist.

Jihadist & Radical Jihadist

They both suck as far as non-muslims are concerned but one is more nutz then the other. Afterall there is no peaceful jihadist...so it is a given they are violent. One just wants to get to paradise faster...

A few other points about the Foreign Policy article:

1. Use of the word "Palestinian" adjectively, when it ought always to appear only in the phrase "Palestinian Arabs." One should never accept the language of the enemy, and do unwittingly his bidding.

2. Use of the phrase "the international community." It is a hideous phrase, and a false one. There is no "international community." There never was. There are nations that share certain assumptions and ideas and ideals, and others that do not. What "international community" contains both Iceland and Syria, or Italy and Saudi Arabia, or Costa Rica and the Congo? What "international community" links well-run and industrious Singapore with falling-down Zimbabwe? What is that which links North Korea to Australia? Denmark under Rasmussen to Venezuela under Chavez?

This phrase "the international community" bespeaks a willingness, again, to adopt the loaded and dangerous language of -- not exactly the enemy, but of those who like to lecture and even berate certain countries (hint: the United States and Israel are two of the countries that those who use this phrase most like to lecture berate).

It is a phrase that should be abolished, for the sake of clarity. That does count, doesn't it? Mental clarity?

Romney may not "get it all", but at least he understands our enemy better than others who are running at this point. I would vote for him.

I could go for a Romney/McCain Combo.

The phrase "international community" makes we want to throw up. But I think it is inevitable that anyone seeking votes is going to use some phrase as code for "don't worry, I want the U.S. to have allies." When Republicans use the phrase "international community" that is what they mean. When democrats use the phrase, they mean "we will do whatever the UN authorized us to do."

In terms of candidates, Romney seems better than many. However, I for one support Fred Thompson.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjdhNjc5MTk2NjA4MDkzNmU3MTU4YTIwZTIxMDI2NzQ=

"International community" can include all of the countries that think the US is a militaristic, violent nation that needs to be suppressed. That most likely has Saudi Arabia and Iceland on the same side. Look at how countries vote in the UN to see how they fit in the "international community".

"International community" is not necessarily a "global community".

All of the Muslim nations comprise an IC. They are frequently (not always) joined by the likes of France.

As the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Better than denial; worse than understanding.

We may have to do with half a croissant[loaf], rather than the opposing party's serving of accelerated dhimmitude.

Tancredo is better, but less self-confident.

Romney-Tancredo would be interesting.

I disagree with the Romney doubters above. With most pols, they look at moderate Muslim countries, and then assume that there's little wrong with Islam. Romney, OTOH, seems to be aware that there are problems with Islam: as governor, recognized that mosques needed to be monitored, and did it. He's aware of the root of the problems, but allowing for the unlikely, if not impossibility that moderate Muslim countries are a way out.

Normally, I'd support Tancredo, but if Romney is only narrowly behind any of the other candidates, including Fred Thomson, I'd back him. I'm not going to jump on the Thomson bandwagon until I see what he explicitly says about Islam and Jihad: I used to think that Bush would be a good president. I'm hoping that Melanie Morgan is right, and that McCain is toast.

Don't be so hard on Romney - it's not like the other candidates are so good (Tancredo aside). Jim Gilmore said something about befriending the Muslim people to convince them that we aren't their enemy - good news is that he's the lower tier. I can't wait for the first straw polls and McCain to be shown to have no support. Also, it would be cute if Ron Paul ran away with all of McCain's Left Wing support in the GOP. Although with a fierce competition on the Dem side as well, I doubt that there'll be too many crossover McCain supporters like there was in 2000.

"Americans are being placed at risk by Senators for their stock portfolios."

Old Atlantic,

Americans refuse to recognize this and put those senators out of office. They had a chance with Kennedy last year and they blew it, big time. Maybe Bay State voters are doing just fine with Teddy and John in the Senate. Maybe their needs are being met. It's a truism that Americans love their own representatives even as they hate the job Congress is doing. My guy is great and deserves reelection, yours is a crook who needs to be defeated.

Below is a partial list of democratic senators who were up for reelection in 2006. All of them voted for the immigration bill last year and they all won in November. Dayton didn't run but he was replaced by another Democrat.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Nelson (D-FL)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

Of the GOP senators defeated last year, four (Allen, Burns, Santorum and Talent) voted nay and were replaced by Democrats.

Illegal aliens showed us their agenda last year with their demonstrations holding the Mexican flag. Senators let us have a peek behind the curtain last year with the Kennedy-McCain bill. They gave us a chance to show them how we felt on this. Either we had blinders on or we just didn't care. For some, Iraq was more important. The American people aren't voting on this issue and they will get what they asked for: an amnesty bill.

McCain has ejected himself from this race.

By his lack of instincts for the primary line of defense of his country.

Those heroic qualities he that once had on this subject- and on other basic rights- apparently got lost in the Bureau of Cracy.

Infidel Pride,

It's more than doubt. It's distrust. I don't trust any of the frontrunners on either side.

Tancredo, yes. Hunter, yes. Biden, maybe.

Tancredo on the ticket would make me vote for Romney because I would believe Tancredo's assurances that the guy was for real and I don't think Tom T. would partner up with someone who wasn't.

Otherwise, it's third party all the way. Here in NJ a vote for a Republican is meaningless anyway.
No more picking the lesser of two evils and no more votes for the children of politicians. That's how we got both Bushes and how we almost got Al Gore.

Mitt's a good guy, but he still sounds pretty naive ("moderate" Muslims and winning hearts and minds from Islamists via foreign aid come to mind). To counter that, someone needs to send him one of Robert's reality books, strap him in a chair, prop his eyelids open and administer small electric shocks if his attention wanders while reading.
Meanwhile, I like Rudy better because NYC breeds cynicism, and that's a good quality to have when dealing with Muslims, especially the "moderate" ones. Tancredo's great, but he's not top tier electable yet.
Then there's the rest of the pack - pretty scary!

It takes time for people in political office to get it fully or even if they do to say so in public.

At least show me signs you are going down the right path.

Posted by: greatcometof1577

Is he going down the right path or leading you astray?

It's not 1862. America doesn't have time for political niceties. People who seek elective office need to win our trust. For that they need to say what they mean and mean what they say. If they're not willing to say what they mean in public before the election then their word can't be trusted after the election.

Granted, situations can change. In order for us to deal with them we need a leader we can trust. Maybe Romney will turn out to be the guy. Right now, he's not. He has a big job ahead.

"Then there's the rest of the pack - pretty scary!"

Yeah -- as in Pretty-Scary Hillary -- God help us if she wins. Please tell me she doesn't stand a chance so I can stop fretting about it.

I still think Thompson/Romney would be the best ticket but I also like Hunter and Tancredo. Gilmore never heard the story about the smiling young lady from liger, who rode on the back of a tiger, and after the ride she wound up inside, with her smile on the face of the tiger. There is really no excuse for any generally healthy adult to be such an imbecile. But this is the status quo, its almost not even worth voting anymore. It is quite depressing. I’m almost as depressed as McCain no doubt is right now. If they give amnasty how long do you think it will be before we have an insurgency right here in the USA? Oh sorry I forgot, they already have one going in LA. Will the pols, once they are the ones being butchered, react? Inquiring minds want to know. We need a slogan like, No Mo! Status Quo! That one kills two birds with one stone.

What does Thompson think …

PMK

We are going to have to go through a couple more elections and a couple more Islamic attacks before we get that kind of guy.

Keep your head down until then. :)

I think Thompson/Romney is the best that we can hope for---both with respect to Jihad was as well as other issues.

Thompson has specifically chastised our PC culture with respect to how it deals with Islam.

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=RWH&ShowVidNum=4&Rot_Cat_CD=RWH&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=365#

Another relevant commentary by Thompson on Jihad can be found here

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/04/26/rewriting_history_a_classroom_at_a_time

The bottom line is I don't think a successful Presidential candidate in 2008 is going to take a position on Islam that goes as far as "Islam is a cult" that "Islam is unredeemably evil" or that "Islam is per se without any good value." Thus, I don't think we can avoid having Presidential candidates say things like "radical Islam" as a description for Muslims who act violently.

On the other hand, there is substantial room for improvement over what we currently have. Any candidate who says the phrase "religion of peace" is off my list. I think terms such as Islamofacism and Jihad can be used successfully even with the PC MSM. I really like the idea of Robert's proposed questionnaire, and I would hope one or more candidates would address something of that nature. I think any candidate who "get is" is going to use Sharia law as a punching bag. No reason to pick on Islam itself, Sharia law should be the proxy.

I do think we can have successful presidential candidate go as far as saying, "I don't see other faiths inspiring this propensity for violence" and "we can't look at Islam through PC-colored glasses" -- see the first Thompson link.

I do think that Romney is hampered a bit in this area due to the fact that he is a Mormon, so he is sensitive to having people be judged on the basis of religious categories. He takes on Islam directly, and the MSM is going to do a 9 part in depth report on Mormons and people who won't vote for Mormons, while concluding that those people are Mormophobes and making obvious comparisons of things that aren't comparable.

The U.S. Consitution gives us the right to believe what we want to believe, but it does not give us the right to act in accordance with all of our beliefs. A successful presidential candidate is going to focus on policies linked to behavior, not merely belief/affiliation. I know this will frustrate many readers on this site, but it is the reality of our situation.

If anything short of "Islam is evil" will disappoint, then you will be disappointed.

PMK

I don't blame you, but for Romney, I'd look at his record. Wasn't he the governor who had the mosques in his state put under surveillance for monitoring for Jihadi activity? That's what I need to see - mere words wont do. Giuliani too - given his reputation - is unlikely to put up with any crap from the Jihadis, no matter what he states about the ROP, and his returning that check from Sultan Alaweed won him my eternal respect.

Champ

You've got to be kidding - McClain? Regardless of what he went through in the Hanoi Hilton, I consider him a traitor - it's he who opposed the Gitmo detainees being classified as enemy combatants, it's he who opposes torturing those poor babies because al-Qaeda may torture US troops back (has he been following the beheadings in Iraq and Pakistan?), it's he who supports amnesty for all illegal immigrants, pretty much pissing on those (like me) who came here legally! No, if McCain is on the ticket, we should all vote the Loyalist Party, even though they don't stand a cold day in hell of coming to power. Anybody who supports him is a traitor - nothing more, nothing less!

PMK good comments. We have to make senators connect their re-election to their position on amnesty or legal immigration.

"I know this will frustrate many readers on this site, but it is the reality of our situation.

If anything short of "Islam is evil" will disappoint, then you will be disappointed."

Sobieski, I have come to realize that many readers/posters on this site have VERY high expectations!!!

This challenge does not have to paralyze us for 100 years -- we could choose to name the enemy and destroy it.

But, most likely our leaders will never have the stones to do that.

In not naming Islam as the source of the "terror", we are running a huge and exponentially increasing risk of losing this war altogether. Islam has about as much chance of reforming as a rabid dog of living. And that same dog is spreading the disease at an alarming rate.

This is why I defy so many and refuse to utilize terms like "radical" and "extremist". Every single time we do this, we are empowering Islam, guaranteeing its growing influence upon our societies and along with that, guaranteeing that the violence will never end until Islam reigns supreme.

At some point everyone, including R.Spencer and the more mainstream experts on all this, are going to have to also come clean with their own conscience and decide what's more important -- to try to "play nice" or to "play to win".

This war is going to get far, far worse, imho. I hope most of you are prepared to deal with the future, because I highly doubt that my way of doing things will be adopted until after a nuclear strike, and by that time I'm willing to bet the politically correct establishment will either be ready to surrender to the Islamists or the USA and other Western nations will split into open civil war in order to save what's left.

Either way, we lose.

This isn't inevitable yet, but with each passing day that we continue down the path with blinders on, the odds stack against us.

Hugh

The other big myth about the 'international community' is that who among the ordinary folks in Congo, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Slovenia, Bhutan or Barbados really cares whether or not the 'Palestinian Arabs' get their own state, or that the killings in Darfur get ended? The world's top leaders could take just about any decision re: a trouble spot in the world, and except for the people impacted, not too many would complain. The exception, of course, being Muslims, who would complain whenever Islam's borders are perceived to shrink.

High time this meaningless phrase was retired.

Foehammer

"This is why I defy so many and refuse to utilize terms like "radical" and "extremist"."


Agreed. From this day forth I shall not use said terms in regards to Jihad or Islam. The terms present a false impression.

You are correct. If the problem is with Islam thus so be it.

The problem is Islam.

CAN'T YOU RECOGNIZE DHIMMIE SPEAK WHEN YOU HEAR IT
I mean, just look at this: "If elected, Romney wrote, he would convene a summit between the United States, moderate Muslim nations and developed countries to create a worldwide strategy to defeat violent Islam.


Hmm. Which moderate Muslim nations?" Romney is just a Dhimmy Ass loaded up with the same Dhimmy BS as the rest - we are light years better off with Bush !

"we are light years better off with Bush !"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The same Bush who so boldly declares that Islam is a religion of peace, hijacked by fringe extremists? PLEASE! Get this nonsense out of here.

Dear think for yourself - dead wrong, Romney is a phoney - but here is a real man who is not a bit afraid to be religiously incorrect - I give you our next president, Thomson! Read and see that I am correct !! Here is what he says, clearly ! "It's bad enough hearing from a distance about the bizarre anti-Semitic theories taught by heads of state as well as schools and religious leaders. Now, according to a study funded by the British government, we find out that some schools in Great Britain have stopped teaching history that is offensive to Muslim students. The topics that have been erased from the curriculum, the study found, include both the Nazi genocide and the Crusades.

This rewriting of history through omission wasn't some government policy. It was the result of individual decisions in local schools by teachers with large populations of Muslim students. Unfortunately, many of these students have been taught by parents and mosques that the holocaust never happened and that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack on Islam by European Christians. History books that present these events in any other light, they believe, are part some giant conspiracy designed to attack their very religion.

If anybody needs to hear these facts, it is the children who are being abused by those who are teaching the same hateful lies that have helped turn the Middle East into the self-destructive and often suicidal mess it is today.

The British are, in the main, a particularly polite people, but there is a point when the desire not to offend the easily offended becomes an even bigger problem. We've already seen an English organization ban images of Piglet, the harmless character from the classic Winnie the Pooh books, because of protests by those who imagine that simply seeing a cartoon pig is a violation of their civil rights. We've even seen the banning of pins bearing St. George's cross, because it reminds some of the Crusades -- accompanied by demands that Great Britain get rid of the venerable Union Jack for the same reason.

These views, common in the Middle East, are not just an academic or intellectual challenge. We have seen homegrown British terrorists act on the same lies and conspiracy theories that are now being used to silence teachers. Ideas do have consequences and we all need to understand that the war on terror is taking place as much in the realm of ideas as it is on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

America is a free country and we do not tell people what they can believe or say. We should realize, however, that there are people in America who are also telling their children that the holocaust is a lie and that those who say otherwise are their enemies. We cannot prevent them from doing so, but we also cannot let them promote their agenda by claiming they are victimized by historical facts.

This would be a good place to quote an important British writer, George Orwell, who wrote, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." Even in America, our children are often taught a watered down, inoffensive and culturally sensitive version of events ranging from the Crusades to the battle at the Alamo.

It's time for people who believe that they have a stake in Western civilization and its traditions to get a little backbone -- even if it offends somebody.

"Dear think for yourself - dead wrong, Romney is a phoney - but here is a real man who is not a bit afraid to be religiously incorrect - I give you our next president, Thomson!"

That is all fine and good. I do noy agree with much of what you say in your paragraphs, but I was not talking about Thompson, I was talking about Bush. On what merit is Romney is a phoney, now that you mention it. It is simply not enough to say that he is a phoney! ;)

Oh, I don't know... I don't think I can support giving "moderate" Muslim nations for schools. Aren't we building madrasses in Afghanistan now? It doesn't sound like a particularly wise idea to me. The Indonesians are about to legalize polygamy, and are clamping down on Christians, and they are purported to be the most moderate of Islamic nations. Pakistan is about to fall, and Dubai welcomes anti-America rallies held by Ah..madmanjihad. Turkey is about to fall to Islamists, too.

As for Thompson, what is up with his 30-something wife? I'm not really thrilled hearing about that. Isn't he in his 60s? That is a bit strange.


"This is why I defy so many and refuse to utilize terms like "radical" and "extremist." - Foehammer

"Agreed. From this day forth I shall not use said terms in regards to Jihad or Islam. The terms present a false impression.
You are correct. If the problem is with Islam thus so be it. The problem is Islam." -- greatcomet

Yes the problem is Islam. And Islam is many important respects extreme. So technically it is redundant to say radical or extreme Islam. But a lot of Non-muslims (even some muslims) don't realize how extreme and aggressive islam is, so it's a way of not making more enemies -- Non-muslims and muslims alike -- than we need to.

On the other hand we certainly don't need to pull our punches on this site which is central to the mission of speaking truth about aspects of islam which inspire so many of its followers to murderous thoughts and deeds in its name. And if the whole of islam is condemned (here) then so be it. Who cares about the peaceful passages in there if they are trumped by the exhortations to war, conquest, and world domination?

Islam can't stand criticism which is why this site is so incredibly effective. I don't care so much about the semantics of how or which part of islam is being criticized, the important thing is to keep it up and heap it on. Truth hurts but it also liberates.

dear thinkforyourself You are wrong - bush no longer thinks there are moderate Muslims, but he can't say so (think!) but Romney could, but he is very uninformed - not smart! A leader wanta be should know what is going on - there is no such thing as a real Muslim that is "moderate" If he doesn't know that by now he is nothing but a Phony who only pretends to know what is going on - as for Thomson's 37 year old wife, why some people get old at 35 (I did) and others get old much later - it is only their business how old they really are, and should only be up to them to decide - we can not be in their bodies and spirits, freedom starts here. None of my business thank God Kay.


s for Thompson, what is up with his 30-something wife? I'm not really thrilled hearing about that. Isn't he in his 60s? That is a bit strange.
Posted by: Kay

I dont see anything strange about that, more power to him. Lots of older men like younger women, but only a few get one...


From article: "Jihad is much broader than any one nation, or even several nations. It is broader than the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, or that between the Israelis and the Palestinians," he wrote, in an article for the Foreign Affairs journal.

'Foreign Affairs', is the periodical of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Infamous CFR, known to be the most visible part of the 'shadow government'. The CFR is the most suspected organisation by conspiracy theorists, and not for NO reason. It is above all a globalist org and works toward a one world government. The membership views themselves as elititists and the rest of us slaves and knaves.
That Romney writes for them is not really a surprise, but in doing so he gives himself away. Just another elitist take over type, hobnobbing with other take over types. He wont get my vote, his vaneer is too thin. He looks like a dress-up store dummy, a 'Stepford Husband'. Dont you think thats just a little tooo coincidental???

"Tancredo on the ticket would make me vote for Romney"

Who else is better? Thompson perhaps, have not heard enough from his positions, even from this " may want to be in the race". Others may arrive, but we have to go with the best as we got right now.

Until then, remember that the people do NOT vote the president into the office.

The RNC is really excellent at finding good guys.

But America doesn't need a good guy.

America needs a great man.

America doesn't need 'good guys' It need Great Guys. Not so, it has Great Guys, Bush and VP have learned and they are not fainting - we have a whole army set down right in the middle of the Muslim death schools and their bread basket -American eyeballs and teeth inside the enemies boarders - and after Bush, another great man, Thomson! Against all the power liberals, Bush snaked a huge army into the Muslim heart land - how great can you get ? ?

IP --

Thanks for the information regarding McCain; although I had no idea he did those things or that you considered him a traitor.

It is important to know all the facts concerning ALL of our presidential hopefuls, so I really appreciate your input.

I haven't really seen how Mitt proposes to fight the Jihad.

My view is that Bush's efforts have been a complete failure.

(1) The first step to fight the Jihad is economic.

(a) Put a much higher tax on gasoline. (It can be phased in if that makes it politically acceptable.) Perot got 19 percent of the vote and he proposed putting a much higher tax on gasoline. Reagan said that if you want to reduce something you tax it! Its possible! Does Mitt have the will to do it?

(b) Increase domestic production of oil including Alaska oil, coal and shale oil. Here, the trade off to the environmentals, agree to higher gasoline taxes (1)in exchange for not fighting the other domestic production sources.

(2) The second step in fighting Jihad is by not being timid! Why hasn't Mr. DeFreitas been hanged yet? In the days of pirates, the custom was to have the trial and hang the pirates the day that they get off the ship. Lets do the same with Jihadists. We catch them. We kill them.

(3) The third step in fighting Jihad is military. But not everything has to involve a full-fledged assault or police actions. We can do the same kind of limited warfare that Iran and the Arabs use against us. Instead of the U.N. force in Darfur, how about blowing up some government buildings in Khartoum.

I haven't really seen how Mitt proposes to fight the Jihad.

My view is that Bush's efforts have been a complete failure.

(1) The first step to fight the Jihad is economic.

(a) Put a much higher tax on gasoline. (It can be phased in if that makes it politically acceptable.) Perot got 19 percent of the vote and he proposed putting a much higher tax on gasoline. Reagan said that if you want to reduce something you tax it! Its possible! Does Mitt have the will to do it?

(b) Increase domestic production of oil including Alaska oil, coal and shale oil. Here, the trade off to the environmentals, agree to higher gasoline taxes (1)in exchange for not fighting the other domestic production sources.

(2) The second step in fighting Jihad is by not being timid! Why hasn't Mr. DeFreitas been hanged yet? In the days of pirates, the custom was to have the trial and hang the pirates the day that they get off the ship. Lets do the same with Jihadists. We catch them. We kill them.

(3) The third step in fighting Jihad is military. But not everything has to involve a full-fledged assault or police actions. We can do the same kind of limited warfare that Iran and the Arabs use against us. Instead of the U.N. force in Darfur, how about blowing up some government buildings in Khartoum.

I haven't really seen how Mitt proposes to fight the Jihad.

My view is that Bush's efforts have been a complete failure.

(1) The first step to fight the Jihad is economic.

(a) Put a much higher tax on gasoline. (It can be phased in if that makes it politically acceptable.) Perot got 19 percent of the vote and he proposed putting a much higher tax on gasoline. Reagan said that if you want to reduce something you tax it! Its possible! Does Mitt have the will to do it?

(b) Increase domestic production of oil including Alaska oil, coal and shale oil. Here, the trade off to the environmentals, agree to higher gasoline taxes (1)in exchange for not fighting the other domestic production sources.

(2) The second step in fighting Jihad is by not being timid! Why hasn't Mr. DeFreitas been hanged yet? In the days of pirates, the custom was to have the trial and hang the pirates the day that they get off the ship. Lets do the same with Jihadists. We catch them. We kill them.

(3) The third step in fighting Jihad is military. But not everything has to involve a full-fledged assault or police actions. We can do the same kind of limited warfare that Iran and the Arabs use against us. Instead of the U.N. force in Darfur, how about blowing up some government buildings in Khartoum.

DavidE, do you know what three times zero equals?

What moderate muslims? The life of a muslim is defined by a book which is calling for hate, lies, deception and destruction of anything non-islamic. For how much longer does the western world will carry on this intelectual masturbation about moderate muslims. Its a myth

I am not denying that "moderate" Muslims are like unicorns. What I am saying is that an effective strategy at moving things forward involves an incremental approach. At this time, no successful Presidential candidate is going to be able to make blanket statements about Islam. If that makes you not vote at all, I think you are being penny wise and pound foolish.

An effective approach involves knowing where you are, knowing where you want to go, and knowing how to get from point A to point B.

If people on this site want to disqualify anyone who useses the phrase "radical Islam" then you are blinding yourself to the substantive differences between the candidates on the issue of Jihad. If you want to take the position that Mitt Romney is equivalent to John Edwards simply because Romney used the phrase "radical Islam" then realize you are in your small way, going to contribute to the election of someone like Edwards.

Feel free to personally refuse to use what we consider to be linguistic gymnastics, but understand that the candidates do not have your luxury.

Before we can get close to (A) "Islam is an evil that must be confronted" we must get to (B) "Islam is a religion that has evil in it."

If you want to be purists and reject anyone who won't say (A), realize that you are going to make yourself irrelevant to the political process, and as as a result, hamper the struggle against Jihad.

JSobieski, this could go on forever! How in the world do you think that a clearly defined, and clearly expressed religion of Murder can be addressed as anything but what it clearly is and what at least 90% of it follows believe? Just because they tell you they don't believe in Murder does not mean that they are not in favor of killing anyone who tries to leave - a murderer by any other self perception is still a murderer! Stop being Religiously Correct and help us get the truth out to people who need to know before it is too late that all Muslims worship a God who clearly calls them all to murder innocent people if circumstance call for it - and those circumstances are clearly defined in the Koran! Some religions are really bad, wake up!







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter