“The US really needs to be friendly to Muslim countries,” he [Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar] told retired Malaysian diplomats. “This is not a good development as they have just appointed a special envoy to OIC.” Malaysia heads the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference.-- from this news article
Why do we "need to be friendly to Muslim countries"? Muslim countries need to explain themselves, and the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. For these are now widely available to Infidels for intelligent inspection and study without the apologists -- whether Muslim (those safis, those nasrs, those khalidis) or non-Muslim (those armstrongs, those espositos, those ernsts). We have available the writings of the great Western authorities on Islam, who studied and wrote in the period 1870-1970, before the Arab money came on the scene to buy up pre-existing, or to even start up, academic "Centers" for the study of Islam or matters related to Islam, before Muslims and non-Muslim apologists for Islam began their steady creep into and rise within the academic ranks until now they hold all but a few places firmly in their grasp -- long before the publishers got scared, long before academic standards collapsed, long before all kinds of things.
We can read Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje and Jeffery and Lammens and Zwemer -- there is no preventing it. And we can see that what they write makes so much sense, and has such obvious explanatory value as compared to the vaporings of John Esposito, or Gilles Kepel, or Noah ("After Jihad") Feldman. They make more sense than any of the other entrepreneurs who have made their fortune (Esposito) directly or indirectly through Arab support. They make more sense than the thrusting young academics (Noah Feldman) who have presented themselves as Constitution-writing "experts" and have been given jobs and even tenure by others who haven't looked into Islam themselves and may be mightily impressed by letters of reference from Roy Mottahedeh and John Esposito and, of course, someone in the American government thanking someone for his "important work in drafting the Iraqi constitution." No, we don't have to go for them for our information or understanding.
And that is why we owe the Muslim countries nothing. We understand, now, what explains in a place like Malaysia, for example, the disguised Jizyah of the Bumiputra system, or the malevolence of the O.I.C. speech which Mahathir Mohamad delivered, to great applause, a few years ago. We know now more about Malaysia and other Muslim countries. "But they're not monolithic" -- no, they're not, in dress and food and a few things like that, but the ideology makes them all into Arab wannabes, and the ideology stamps out, and would stamp out everywhere if it could, anything but Islam.
Neither the U.S. nor any other Infidel country "needs to be friendly" to Muslim countries. Quite the reverse. They had better start understanding that in our understanding, there is no going back, and it is they who have a great deal of explaining to do -- if they can do it.
And yet in another perfect illustration of the misunderstanding of Islam, or rather of Muslims, that prevails among those who lead us, Bush is going to send an ambassador to the “Organization of the Islamic Conference.” In his shallow calculation, and that of Rice, sending an envoy to the O.I.C., which has 57 "Muslim countries" as members, will be an intelligent way to "engage" the world's Muslims. It will help to win those hearts and those minds that seem always to need winning, no matter how many Muslims are rescued, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, or given huge sums of money, as with ungrateful Egypt, meretricious Pakistan, and the ungrateful, meretricious, corrupt, and completely transparent "Palestinians," or both rescued from a tyrant and been given all kinds of aid, with the whole enterprise costing more than all the wars, save World War II, the United States has ever fought -- as in Iraq.
This sending of an envoy will be taken as a sign of appeasement and desperation. Either Bush and Rice have it right, or Winston Churchill, and John Quincy Adams, and Tocqueville, and every serious Western scholar of Islam up to the past forty years had it right. What do you think?
...I think Muslims view the obvious signs of desparation in negotiations as a definite weakness....we do not need to talk to Muslim countries...
Bush cant leave office fast enough.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A "FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE"
U.S. President George W. Bush said last week in a speech to mark the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Centre in Washington that the appointment (of a special envoy to OIC) would demonstrate to Muslim communities "our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship."
yet it made the opposite impression:
"The U.S. really needs to be friendly to Muslim countries," Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar told retired Malaysian diplomats. "This is not a good development as they have just appointed a special envoy to OIC."
What about the opposite? Do we expect Muslim countries to be friendly with us and return the favor?
Lockerbie-gate Update: Bush writes hostage extortionists;
Guess someone missed the June memo?Libya goes back on pledge to destroy its WMD
When a country declares itself to be an Islamic state, or when it inserts Islam into its Constitution as the supreme law, that country has declared perpetual and total war against our Constitution and against our (non-Muslim) citizens. That country declares itself to be a member of an international totalitarian project--an Islamintern--dedicated to the subjugation of all free men across the globe.
We should treat the Islamic nations, collectively and individually, as the enemy they have declared themselves to be. As a minimum, we should permit zero immigration--directly or indirectly--from those lands, no foreign aid of any kind to them, no technology transfer by any means, no student visas or other forms of temporary visitation, and no diplomatic courtesies. These are all defensive measures, against a real "axis of evil" that seeks to enslave us all.
Offensively, via a "Radio Free Umma" we should be broadcasting into those captive lands the truth about their self-serving parasitic ideology and the truth about their vicious "prophet." As a small industry, we should be continuously developing and inserting counter-dawa materials into their territories. Finally, in every incidental face-to-face encounter, we should be communicating our utter contempt for their unholy doctrines of loot and plunder, and for their supremacist project to enslave humanity. They deserve no respect for what they believe and for how they act on those beliefs.
The Islamic nations should receive nothing from us--especially, not one ounce of respect.
What part of Islam's directive: "Do not take unbelievers [infidels: Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.] for friends..." don't these pandering polyannas not get?
We must be friends with piranas?
We must be friends with the ebola virus?
One-way streets lead to dead ends.
If you want to get the left wing kooks to pay attention to what islam will get them - read this article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288793,00.html
muslims even stone the men for adultry. The likes of pukes like Clinton, and his gang of followers, should really take another look at appeasing muslims.
It's still shocking when you see it like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2W9XUKHJiQ
So the US needs to be friendly to Muslim countries, eh? You mean the billions of dollars given to these deadbeats, aid after every disaster
and allowing easy immigration from the ummah are signs of hostility? Give me an F-ing break! Had we treated the USSR the way we treat the ummah communism would rule the world and it most certainly would be highly hostile to the ummah to the point of anihilating it.
Elric 66 to answer your question, no.
The reason I say this, and I believe the reason the article was written in the first place is, we have been far too respectful and friendly with the Islamic world, and it has not reciprocated.
Take into account how many times the US has helped these countries in the mid east with financial, humanitarian and military aid. All they get in return is grief.
Think of the billion dollar aid package to South East Asia during the tsunami crisis, most countries that received aid were made up of Muslim populations. The Saudi government gave something like ten million dollars in aid. The following year Pakistan has a devastating earthquake, first there the US. Repayment, money gathered world wide from donations are funneled to terrorists, and Al Qaeda still has free reign in Pakistan.
It's definitely time to cut ties, no need to have friends like these.
Rescued Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia? Armed and militarily supported Muslims is a better definition. Same (to a varying degree) with Chechnia (Chechens are comfortably living in Lodonistan), Cyprus, FYRM, Uzbekistan,... The funniest part about all this is that Muslims are targeting US which is probably their best friend right now (definitely under Clinton, but under Bush as well). They see the invasion of Iraq as a new Crusade while in reality it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with oil (in fact, they were done a favour there by removing a secular-ish dictator with a bunch of Islamic parties). All this may be hard to accept for some of you guys but I believe it to be the truth.
Stendec, i agree with much of what you're suggesting. But, I think the problem is somewhat worse...(or more complicated) and the complications have to do with the Da'wa taking place within the western nations. There are large numbers of non-Muslims who actively encourage, support, and promote Islam (they actively do the work of Muslims). (Just this week-end I read a "book review", this person was reviewing a text (the text was written by a novelist, if I recall correctly, British) which purported to be "documentary" on the "history" of terrorism. And, of course, who is the biggest terrorist in the world today? And, "no," it is not Osama. The entire so-called "history" was to provide a moral white-wash for Islam. so the west also needs to re-assert (re-educate our own children) with respect to western values.
J.S. "There are large numbers of non-Muslims who actively encourage, support, and promote Islam ..."
Yes, the existence of a huge fifth column of apologists and seditionists (either consciously or unwittingly) in the western nations is a huge obstacle to defending our civilization. Therefore, proper education in the West is critical, and JW/DW is only the start of that pedagogical process.
The current academic establishment, whom I see as the biggest villains in this unfolding tragic play, have either been bought with Saudi money or else are ideologically committed to the deconstruction of--even the destruction of--the classical west.
Then there are the predominantly Christian groups who naively project their compromsing, tolerant, and ecumenical values falsely onto the Muslims, who absolutely hold no such values--Islam "must dominate and not be dominated."
Then, there are the blinkered multi-culturalists who see Islam as just another benign culture that should be welcomed into the fellowship of man, ignoring the fact that Islam is adamantly uni-cultural. It recognizes fellowship only among Muslims. The "other," according to Islam, are "filth" in the eyes of Allah, to be converted, subjugated as dhimmi slaves, or slaughtered.
Finally, there are the Marxist utopians, who see the Muslims as just another group of economically downtrodden humans, natural allies in the eternal fight against capitalist "exploitation." Nevermind that all the movers and shakers in the violent jihadist movement are middle or upper class ideologues. Nevermind that these Muslim operatives are far more ruthless in their beliefs and attitudes that even the worst Stalinist, and completely willing to exterminate their allies of convenience once the larger battle against the Great Satan is won.
The first step at home, as has been stated here many times, is communicating--properly and truthfully--that Islam is not primarily a religion, but rather a fascist, supremacist cult of death, whose clear doctrinal and practical purpose is a perpetual quest for absolute world-wide political control. Once we as a society recognize Islam for what it is, and are not afraid to openly so state, then men of good will, from all political and religious dispositions, can unite against this vicious tyranny that threatens our hard won freedoms and that seeks, as its "holy mission," to utterly destroy every non-Islamic culture as so much "jahaliyya."
Not only do I second Mr. Fitzgerald's views I would take things a step further: I would IMMEDIATELY detonate electro magnetic pulse weapons over the air space weapon of every dad-blasted one of 'em! (And leave them like that).
From Standec
"When a country declares itself to be an Islamic state, or when it inserts Islam into its Constitution as the supreme law, that country has declared perpetual and total war against our Constitution and against our (non-Muslim) citizens."
Excellent.
I agree.
Thus, as to Iraq and Afhanistan, we are providing a national defense for countries that have declared war against us.
"The current academic establishment..." as apologists for Islam -- I agree. Would also add that the media plays its part as well. But, as you suggest, some are in positions "to know better," yet they fail. So it's not just that a book is written to support Islam, but the "problem" extends to the book reviewer 9who stupidly lavishes praise on this tripe). So the people who are the proverbial "gate keepers" are also failing the western public. Ditto for the multitude of newspaper "ombudsmen" or the so-called editors (also television, the CBC also has a useless ombudsmen -- ombudsmen who have in the past given free reign for "journalists" to express support for Hezbollah, etc., and simultaneously be praised for "objectivity.") (Ironically, a book which white-washes terrorist Islam COULD have provided an opportunity for a decent book reviewer to tear it to shreds -- such books do not need to be given praise or promotion. yet, that's what happens. So, in the west there's a collapse on a number of levels. (it's not just a tiny, tiny minority of ding-bats..it's a growing presence.)
"Bush cant leave office fast enough." --from above.
It's funny to think back on how Clinton was impeached on the basis of a dirty blue dress. Bush, however, appeard to get a "by" on almost every level. Fail to respond to the Clinton adminstration's warnings that al Qaeda was planning something big? The public rallies around him as the war time president. In fact "Visa Express" program, where the foreign traveler didn't have to show up in person at the US embassy for the visa to be issued, was started up in Saudi Arabia prior to the attacks. Some of the hijackers were able to use it to enter the US. And the list goes on.
By why does this essay account for it as Bush's ignorance? Granted, Bush's ignorance is vast and I was warned, as a child, to never attribute to maliciousness anything that could be accounted for by stupidity. But there must be somebody on watch who knows what the repercussions of these many actions are...and is doing nothing. It's not ignorance. It's criminal negligence on someone's part.
More than a Patriot Act, we need patriots who are unafraid to act. And the first actions are to ask hard, pointed, emabarrassing questions of these people claiming to lead the West. And to demand complete, satisfactory answers. This is the First Amendement in action. The Constitution was designed to be used by the people. And that is its best defense.
Chatillon:
It's been a settled matter in my own mind for several years that bush is acting out of malevolence, not ignorance, for the simple reason that he failed -- & continues to fail -- to secure our borders after 9/11. We are facing an enemy that wants to destroy us, & still he leaves the frontier virtually unguarded. he really belongs in the same category as Benedict Arnold.
I have noticed that one of the tactics (speaking from personal experience here) is to put your opponent on the defensive (this is always, always, always an imperative). And with certain people who lack a conscience and have zero regard for the truth and are in a constant state of projection...then the answer to the question: "Who's the terrorist?" becomes easy and the answer is: "The United States, of course."
And, then, Americans (who, imo, have no reason whatsoever to become "apologetic") spend countless hours mounting a defense.
So the psychopaths who run around and encourage their co-coreligionists to go on a holy war, and murder others in the name of Islam, then project their murderous impulses onto the West, while simultaneously alleging that it is the West which is the "evil tyrant." And this has become so predictable that after every single terrorist suicide bombing in the West (or after every foiled attempt) the murderous jihadists and their sympathizers (the media, the academics, etc.) will come crawling out to promote their distorted notions that it's the West which is to blame. (Hence, I believe the recent promotional pro-islam and its terrorists book reviews. Has anyone been watching the BBC? it's going overboard in its interviews with terrorists and the attempt to promote and "normalize" them.)
But this is typical of disturbed people -- they'll project their own problems onto innocent others, (typically it's precisely what they themselves are doing which they will accuse others of), then the innocent person has to spend inordinate amounts of time in self-defense. And, frequently it will be the disturbed person who will be believed (because the disturbed person is usually an adept liar and manipulator.)
I came across this article by Edward Luttwak last week titled "IT'S BEST TO IGNORE THE MIDDLE EAST". I think it nicely sums up the situation and what should be done.
"Ignore Muslim world - Too primitive to warrant attention"
"That brings us to the mistake that the rest of us make. We devote far too much attention to the Middle East, a mostly stagnant region where almost nothing is created in science or the arts -- excluding Israel, per capita patent production of countries in the Middle East is one-fifth that of sub-Saharan Africa. The people of the Middle East (only about 5% of the world's population) are remarkably unproductive, with a high proportion not in the labour force at all."
"Unless compelled by immediate danger, we should therefore focus on the old and new lands of creation in Europe and America, in India and East Asia -- places where hard-working populations are looking ahead instead of dreaming of the past."
http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/23552.shtml
To The fanatic
We owe Islam nothing. Islam has been at war with us for 1400 years and counting.
I must agree with you sheik yer booty. If common people can see the dangers, why cant our electic officials? '08 I believe will define our country forever by who gets in office. Im not even going to vote by party lines. I will vote for whoever wants to save our country's future.
stendec,
i'd only change one thing in your post above...and that would be to delete fascist and replace it with marxist.
the more we target in on the origins of the modern influences of this death cult, the more we put others influenced by the same marxist teachings on the defensive.
when hitler is correctly identified as a socialist and mussolini (sp?) remains the only true fascist, it further solidifies what people have refused to-date to believe:
fascism isn't the problem, it's socialism & communism (through their origins in marxist theory).
Stendec and Miss_Anthrope,
Your exchange jarred a memory, so I dug out my old copy of Robert A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love".
Here's what Robert A. has to say on the subject: "Political tags such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those people who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from the highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
The greatest danger of all - in the process of denying the threat, of appeasing Islam and of soothing ourselves with our own words we will become something so spineless and despicable that there will be little worth saving of our civilization.
SerbInfidel said
A modest proposal:
Why don't we make a deal with them? We'll forget all about the "Shining Beacon of Democracy" project, and they'll guarantee us a steady supply of oil. We'll even pump it out of the ground for them. They can set up sharia states in their countries, violate as many human rights laws as they want, and we won't make a peep. They get what they want, and we get what we want.
Just don't send your people here to kill us, that's all we ask. That type of relationship with Saudi Arabia has turned out to be very profitable and successful, other than that 9/11 incident. We should try it out in a few more Middle Eastern countries, and save ourselves a few trillion dollars and thousands of our soldiers' lives.
Miss_Anthrope: I know that I have been sloppy in applying terms like fascist and marxist, and there probably is not a perfect fit (a closer fit, as some have suggested, might be the "Borg" from the Star Trek series). I see your point about the common idea within Islam and marxism of repressing the individual in favor of the collective.
I lean toward the term fascist when describing Islam because of the Muslim ideas of supremacy (as in "master race") and purity (purging out the unclean infidels) and a focus on a "destiny" of total world domination for that deserving special group.
I lean against the term marxist because marxism is at root materialist. Muslims by ideology are not materialist, except in the spreading of loot seized from the infidels, which is promised by Allah as their reward for the loyal survivors of his earthly war on humanity. Otherwise, Muslims care nothing of the temporal world--death in service to Allah is all that matters. Working hard to improve the condition of humanity on earth is not part of their ideological project. In contrast, for the classical marxist, the only thing that counts is the temporal world.
Islam seems to have the worst features of both fascism and marxism (and the Borg) all rolled into one. At every turn, it taps the worst of human nature in service to evil ends.
USBeast: I am (mostly) one of those curmudgeon guys. The world needs both idealists and curmudgeons. Islam intends to enslave both groups, and murder anyone who gets in the way of their design.
"...so spineless and despicable that there will be little worth saving of our civilization." How true...
There was a column in the LA Times by Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple noticed that in London, a day after the foiled terrorist plot, everything was "as usual." Darlrymple wrote: "Was this a sign of the admirable tolerance of British society, or of its bovine complacency born of an inability, or unwillingness, to make the effort to defend itself? Was it decency, cowardice or stupidity?" He says he doesn't know what it is. (I got the same impression whenever I read reports from the BBC that Brits were indifferent to the latest attempted attacks -- and I found that the answer to that might not be all that praiseworthy.)
forgot to note. I think isolationism is, of course, attractive. but the problem is that Islam is here in the West...it's not just "over there" any more. (Samuel Huntington made a similar proposal in his "Clash of Civilizations" text).
Some authors are mentioned: "Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje and Jeffery and Lammens and Zwemer"
Sorry for my ignorance, but what did they write? Where can it be found?
As has been stated above, and needs to be reinterated, what the f&#k do the so called leaders of the free world think they are doing? Obviously the best they can, from their perspective. It amazes and frightens me to no end that I, a lowly "john doe" gets it (The evils of Islam) yet those who profess to be "intellectuals" and "on our side" are so totally clueless. Could it be that our leaders don't want to see the truth? Or are they scared of Muslims and Islam? Sometimes I think I know, and other times I hang my mouth open in amazement. I don't believe we can trust our leaders any more to do the right thing, I see them giving America to Islam as "appeasement" in the mistaken belief that, somehow this will keep us from harm. I fear for my country and I fear my elected reps. Did everyone leave the White House and then forget to turn out the lights?
"Islamophobes of the world, Unite!"
"Stop Muslim immigration now!"
Ending Muslim immigration is just the start.
Joseph Schacht wrote "Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence" (1950). Snouck Hurgronje wrote "Mohammedanism" (that text is available in a pdf file on the Internet, through www.gutenberg.org). Samuel Marinus Zwemer was an American Christian evangelical to the Muslims. Anyway, these were all true scholars of Islam. But they were maligned by the literature grad (Edward Said) who called them, disparagingly the "Orientalists".
All this may be hard to accept for some of you guys but I believe it to be the truth.
Posted by: SerbInfidel
I think the cast majority of us accepts this, SerbInfidel.
I was one of the few Germans who knew before 9/11 that mahometanism is the enemy of us all.
Even germans are waking up.. we are far behind the Serbs and the Danes though in terms of our islamo-awareness.
Let us work that the Germans shall soon vote as did the French.
KAROLINGER!!!!
To calatrava, just elaborating on j.s's post above:
One of Samuel Zwemer's books, "The Law of Apostasy in Islam", is available online. I found it via a link from either answering.islam or faithfreedom websites, but I think it would turn up if you simply googled Samuel Zwemer plus the title. It's a great read. Zwemer knew his stuff - he spent all his life travelling from one end to the other of the Islamised world, immersed in the language/s and the society.
What Zwemer's book reveals, incidentally, is that it is NOT TRUE that Muslims don't, won't, or can't ever become Christians. In fact, quite a lot of them have been doing it all along, even right in the heart of the Empire of Islam - it's just that most of them got killed for it as soon as their nearest and dearest, or their political superiors, found out.
If our governments had any sense they'd be defending freedom of religion and freedom of speech within our territories - and making it crystal clear that such freedom ON OUR SOIL involves ESPECIALLY the freedom for people to apostasise from Islam without fear of being summarily executed. We'd be doing all we could to protect the bona fide apostates. If, here in the West, it became clear that the 'death for apostasy' threat was a dead duck, it would be interesting to find out just how many apostates we'd get.
special_guest:
Muslims are historically infamous for abrogating any and all treaties they sign with the 'infidels'.
It is far too dangerous to trust Muslims in any capacity let alone try to get them to not kill our people (which I can assure you they will do anyway whatever deals you may cut with them).
The USA in fact HAS signed such treaties with the Muslim world; FDR signed a friendship treaty with Saudi Arabia in 1934. As 18 of the 19 9-11 Islamikaze hijackers came from Saudi Arabia you can see for yourself just how much good such treaties do in placating the Islamic beast (none).
From L. Auster
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
Separationism
I subscribe to the now tiny but, I believe, some-day-to-be prevalent Separationist School of Western-Islamic Relations. We separationists affirm the following:
* Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
* But we cannot destroy Islam.
* Nor can we democratize Islam.
* Nor can we assimilate Islam.
* Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.
(An earlier version of the above statement, along with a key excerpt from my article "The Search for Moderate Islam," is posted here.)
Other writers who might be called separationists include Serge Trifkovic, Diana West, Randall Parker, the Norwegian blogger Fjordman, and Hugh Fitzgerald. Of course, each of these writers has his or her own emphases, and I don't wish to impose an unwanted label on anyone. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a common core of ideas among the writers mentioned, and "separationism" would be as good a way to describe it as any.
-----------
I believe that many or most of the posters here agree with the elements of Separationism. I know I do.
If there is ever a consensus formed on how the west should begin to address the global jihad, I think it should be premised on the Separationism principles stated above. If the spread of Islam "movement" we know as global jihad can be given an identity and a name, so can that movement's opposition. Separationism sounds fine to me. In fact, it should formed formaly before too long so it can become the next political party. From the posts I see at JW, I would also say that it is a movement already, without ever being officialy named, other than Auster's article.
But what's a movement without a leader?
Anyone here have an open schedule for the next, say, 9 /1/2 years?
special_guest: The Saudi deal is bad for the US (more of sleeping with the devil). They use the cash from oil to promote wahabism. They can afford to stay in the 7th century because they have a limitless supply of cash. US needs to move away from oil completely and that would be an easy sell even for the liberals.
Allahfanculo: I holding my thumbs. Really. God bless them if they wake up.
JihadWatch is than HATE SITE while CAIR is than CIVAL RIGHT SITE. That why some companies ban JihadWatch but not CAIR. When I visit CAIR I donot see any messages of hater like I do on JihabWatch.
Hugh America need to be friend with Muslim Nations around the world you are just too supid to see it.
There is no replacement to oil right now. First 50% of our powerplants still burn coal to gernerate power, while our steel indurt need to turn coal into coke and coal tar for our chemicial ind. We only have left in coal in america less than 100 year. Alchol power is the only fuel but the government will not free alchol from it hight taxes to be use as than fuel. Nuclear power fission plants have two problen what to do with that hight radiaactive waste
which must be kept isolate for thousands of years, there is even less Uranium to be use to powerplants around the world. Fusion power isnot practive like now as we cannot yet maintrain than sustrain fusion reaction in a enclose magnetic bottle as fusion only take place round 100 million dregee Centgrade.
Hey Defender. Some members of CAIR have been convicted of terrorist ties. Can you name anyone associated with jihadwatch convicted of terrorist ties. Man, you make it so easy.
I don't see any problem with nuclear waste: The Arabs will need something to make glow-in-the-dark tourist nick-nacks with, when we've sucked all the oil out.
Hey Paul, wrong again,
" CAIR is than CIVAL RIGHT SITE."
Posted by: DefenderofIslam"
"September 10th, 2003 will forever be remembered as a grim day for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). On that day, the eve of the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, CAIR faced up to its own terrorist connections. It ran away from testifying before an influential Senate panel that heard a barrage of incriminating evidence about the group and its connections. It saw one of its former officials plead guilty to terrorist-related crimes in Federal Court. And, it was stood up by two Department of Justice officials at an immigration symposium in Florida. CAIR should find it hard to recover from this string of defeats.
Last Wednesday, The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security held the second in a series of hearings aimed at examining Saudi Arabia’s role in exporting Islamic extremism abroad. The hearing, titled “Two Years After 9/11: Connecting the Dots,” was focused on the prevalence of the radical Wahhabi Islamic sect among Muslim political groups in the U.S. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad and Chairman Omar Ahmed were invited to testify at the hearing, but both declined to attend. In their absence – and in front of their empty witness chair - the committee heard compelling evidence that Saudi Arabia financially and ideologically supports a network of American organizations that act as the defenders, financiers, and front groups of international terrorists. CAIR has been a major player in this network since its creation in 1994, with a particularly soft spot for the suicide-bombing death squads of Hamas."
"You've heard of CAIR, haven't you? That's the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This is a group that spends most of its time trying its best to ignore Islamic terrorism while searching for any incidents of insensitivity shown toward Muslims by weary Americans.
CAIR has now made its feelings known on the death of Hamas terrorist Ahmed Yassin. CAIR, of course, condemns Israel for the killing of Yassin, and calls Yassin an "Islamic religious leader." Wait ... it gets more ridiculous than that. CAIR says that the international community has to "take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence."
"Why not call CAIR and express some concern?
Call CAIR and tell them you're concerned that CAIR was founded by supporters of the terrorist group Hamas.
Call CAIR and tell them you're concerned that they have received funding from Islamic terrorists and is currently being funded by Islamic countries that support terrorism.
Call CAIR and tell them that you're not feeling all that warm and fuzzy about their spokesman Ibrahim Hooper after he said: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic law sometime in the future."
Call CAIR and tell them that you have just the slightest of misgivings about a statement made by Omar Ahmad, Chairman Emeritus of CAIR, that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
__Contributions by Neal Boortz....
...by the way, The CAIR website greatly censores the comments you see on their website...trying to create an illusion of respectibility....
DefenderofIslam:
Jihad Watch exists to expose jihadist activity around the world so that we are no longer ignorant of the evil committed in the name of Islam.
How can you defend a cult which was founded by a war-monger and which has been spread by the sword? Are you incapable of independent thought?
You say that "We only have left in coal in america less than 100 year" and that "There is no replacement to oil right now". Yet - according to current estimates - oil will run out in 40 years if consumption remains at existing levels:
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
How friendly will the West need to be with Middle Eastern countries when they have nothing left to export to us except death?
I would happily never drive a car again if it meant the West could have nothing further to do with any Islamic countries.
"We" and "in America" used together by you, DefenderofIslam?
What a hoot! Try mastering written English, at a minimum, before trying to pass yourself off as an American. (I suspect you've hardly a clue of what it means to be one.)
Terp Mole's link says Q'Daffy has gone back on his commitment to destroy his wmds. What a surprise, he thinks we are weak. Who can blame him for thinking that?
We have a Prez that wants to let the whole world live in our country and join hands and sing "Kumbaya"....while they plot to overthrow our form of government.
Iran is thumbing it's nose at us.
The opposition is so sure if they are "nice enough" to the headhunters, they will see the error of their ways.
If I was some dictator in any land, I would feel smug these days too.
It's not only islam we have to worry about, we also are being "Balkanized" while we sleep.
http://www.vdare.com/awall/070705_memo.htm
stendec,
frankly i'm just as sloppy at throwing terms around myself.
i just get so tired of hearing the ENDLESS tales of nazi, fascist horrors from people who refuse to acknowledge the same crimes from marxist totalitarian regimes.
i change it mainly to ensure they are uncomfortable hearing that the left ever did any wrong.
usbeast,
lol! i remember this quote from my english lit days in college! how funny, i always loved this quote...
and like stendec, i am firmly planted in the latter. i am proud to be a surly curmudgeon, and have years of experience in being suspicious and holding back on altruism. but i make an excellent neighbor.
defenderofislam,
don't get people like me started in whoopin' up on your ass over the industries you just reguritated from some magazine article.
you are too ignorant on the subject, based on your 'bumper sticker' posts, so i ain't gonna waste my time with you on the laws that put us in this mess.
let's just put things this way:
THANK CARTER AND DEMS FROM THE '70S FOR THIS ONE.
AND OPEC.
defenderofislam,
don't get people like me started in whoopin' up on your ass over the industries you just reguritated from some magazine article.
you are too ignorant on the subject, based on your 'bumper sticker' posts, so i ain't gonna waste my time with you on the laws that put us in this mess.
let's just put things this way:
THANK CARTER AND DEMS FROM THE '70S FOR THIS ONE.
AND OPEC.
typekey sucks! i only hit 'post' ONCE!!!
ack!
Maybe if we ignore them they will go away..
Perhaps it's time for the poster above to check out the site: "Learnaboutcoal.com" which will clear up any misconceptions regarding the amount of coal deposits which still remain untapped in North America. Oh,and of course we all know what lies beneath the Rocky mountains.
The US produces 40% of it's oil consumption;of the remaining 60% which is imported, Canada,Mexico,Venezeuela lead the way,the entire Mid-East combined accounts for 17% of imports. That's roughly 11% of the total consumption. One must also wonder if a fatwa has been issued against Spellcheck? Inquiring minds want to know.
A "defenderofislam" above tries, yet again, to convince others that because oil producers sell oil to oil consumers at the market price, for some reason those oil consumers must in addition be nice to, be friendly to, do favors for, the sellers of oil at market prices. Nonsense. There is no such need, any more than you need babysit for, or clean the bathroom of, the owner of the gas station down the street. You need only pay the posted price. End of story. The amount of confusion about this, confusion that has been deliberately created by the Saudis and other oil producers, and echoed by those in the West who are on the take -- to their own private advantage, not to the advantage of the country -- is considerable, but it can be overcome, by dint of merely repeating what common sense should tell us.