Dems Speak No Evil Of Islamic Jihad

Not being able to identify an enemy is like fighting while blind.

There is a time to be polite and overlook the faults of others—
this is not that time.

Mother said it was rude to point—
this is the time to be rude and to point.

They wish to destroy our culture, our art, our literature.

They wish to conquer our lands.

They wish to kill those we love.

They wish to kill us.

Is this not enough to excuse a little rudeness on our part?

Then in the next breath support sharia finance, thus making sharia a source of law in the United States, like a treaty or the U.S. Constitution. We'll be amputating alternate hands and feet in no time. And someone will say nobody saw it coming.

It's not the Caliphate, but sharia, the Islamic chill on art and free speech, and the coming 'Islamophobia' and 'racism' arrests which we should be worried about. The candidates make it sound distant and unthreatening by focusing on the pipe dream of the Caliphate. We're facing sharia, foot baths, and da'wa in public schools - death by a thousand cuts.

The editorial is way too generous with the GOP. It glosses over their records, such as McCain's opposition to Gitmo and support on giving illegal combatants Geneva Convention rights, Giuliani calling Islam a great religion, Huckabee and Thompson having in their campaigns apologists for Islam. Only credible candidates were Tancredo, and now Romney.

Politicians are only a reflection of the voters they are looking to woo. I think that the democratic voters' major hang up is that if we implement any policy against Muslims or people from predominately Muslim countries such as immigration limitations, they will be upset that it is unfair against some people from these countries. Unfortunately, that is the hand the world is dealt and ignoring it will certainly lead to additional Islamic terrorist attacks. If a Democrat gets elected by people who do not want to address the problem as most everybody on Jihadwatch sees it, then we we will likely be on the receiving end of another major attack (minor attacks get written off as done by crazy people).

I think that 9/11 is still viewed as an anomaly by many people and another similar event would be needed to create a trend and make people believe that Islam is really behind 9/11 and other acts of terrorism. Perhaps when this happens, America will ask its politicians to identify its enemies as radical Muslims. Until then, we just have to hope that these nut jobs do not succeed.

A Candidate for the Republicans needs to call out their Opposites on this Issue. Considering the MSM will not press the Demoncrats on this then the Republicans need to force the Issue on them.

They need to be called to the carpet on this before we are all forced to kneel on it.

The President has warned Iran that we will use force the next time. I suspect that the reaction will be considerably more than just defending against what ever the Iranians provoke.

My view of the bottom line. So much said by so few words.

It would be quite a sight to see the Demoncrats twisting in the winds of discontent as their anti american supporters howl.

Hukabee wants to fight the terrorists with the "Golden Rule" I'm sure they will be quaking in their boots. Can you say another Jimmy Carter?

we are all in deep doo-doo here with any of these guys/gals, trying to run for office, that is the bottom line.

if they dont know by now who is the enemy and WHY they have no right running for any kind of office or political arena.

this only serves to show that my theory about us jews is right, and not that i am happy about it either. we are doomed.

we jews are doomed and the political running personal can not even tell anyone why or what for.

for that matter nearly everyone is doomed in the usa but for the muslims themselves who are already here when the troops come overseas from iran/elsewhere.

More crap from pc bastards, both parties are not up to MY STANDARDS. God save the party that is in power if one of these moron cults or what ever you want to call them, strike us again and there will be hell to pay ,not on the strikers but on the politicians!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Talmud says something to the effect that that those who are kind to the cruel are themselves cruel. The Dems are being too kind to the cruel.
Glad to hear McCain refer to "radical Islamic extremists". Restores my faith.

The Ikhwan in America, in its network of fronts, is presently a Democratic constituency, organized as it is--through associations, charities, mosques, and madrassahs--to maximize its clout and to deliver money and a blok of votes.

THIS IS THE LARGER ENEMY, RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA and IN BED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY--the party that's just one big kinky, amorphous LOVE FEST.

Fred Thompson has repeatedly emphasized that this war has been going on for over 1000 years. I think this point, while subtle, illustrates that he puts the current efforts in the context of history.

Spencer Abraham is a loser, but it is outweighed by Fred's historical perspective which is based on a view that nothing we are doing is causing this problem (the problem predates the US-- not as D'Souza and others would say post WWII America) and that the problem originates in a the core belief system (it is not some small spinoff group).

Not suprising that the Dems do not want to indentify the enemy. They do not want riots in Dearborn.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 9, 2008 6:39 PM

Agreed to a point. Giuliani at least, did not call Islam a "Religion of Peace" as far as I know.

A "great religion", in terms of global status and the billion plus who adhere to that mental slavery, yes, certainly! A "great religion" in terms of respect for it and being clueless to its collective global objective?...I doubt.

The Republicans only pay lip service to the GWOT. Maybe it's more than the Democrats do, but it leads to the same result: nothing. They talk a good game about "radical Islam", but what will they do in response, other than "reach out to peaceful Muslims"? Would any of them do any more than Bush has done, absent another attack and thousands (if not tens of thousands) of Americans dead?
John McCain, for example, may talk about "radical Islamic extremists" but does he understand what that means or does he think Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by Osama bin Laden and that jihad is purely internal? How long would it take for him to give his spokespeople (like Senator Graham) permission to denigrate Americans who are concerned about jihad?
As one poster said, Tancredo understood. I'm not sure Romney does, however.

The Democrats are hamstrung by a rabid secular netroots that will go ballistic on them if they ever say bad things about Islam.

The people who populate the netroots are your classic upper middle-class leftists, trustfund pukes, political fanatics, etc. They care nothing for the people of this country or any of the threats the nation faces. All they care about is promoting their toxic anti-western agenda.

This is why Democratic pols are avoiding saying much of anything about foreign policy, immigration, etc. They don't want to be a target of Move-On and DailyKos.

This isn't the party of FDR, its a party of pasty faced bloodless yuppies and their spawn.

The people that invited the muslim barbarians to invade America: the multiculturalist, globalist, internationalist one-worlders, wouldn't look too smart if they were to turn on their darlings of diversity and call them what they are---retrograde, heathen, third-world savages that are good for nothing but subversion, frivilous litigation, incessant and unreasonable demands for special treatment, dreams of jihad and islamic conquest; and for creating endless inconveniences and hardships for American citizens at airports and in all government and public venues. They were invited to America and encouraged to retain their hideous culture, the very breeding ground and cultivator of jihad. It wouldn't be fair or politically correct to criticize them or complain about their hostile attitudes and ambitions. They'll solicit their votes instead; they love nothing better than identity politics and special interest minority groups, even if they are enemies of the state.

Even the Republicans, who are well aware of the islamic threat, can't bring themselves to name the enemy or stop the endless flow of muslim immigrants and "asylum seekers" from polluting America. Most Democrats don't even consider islamic jihad or islamic terrorism to be an issue worth discussing so it stands to reason that they are clueless. God help us if Hillary Clinton or any Democrat should be elected president. I loathe John McCain and his stance on almost every issue, but even he would be better than a Democrat. I will continue to hope and pray that the American electorate is smart enough to realize that there are more important issues than free, government controlled health care, which would be a lamentable disaster in itself, or universal pre-k, or global warming, or AIDS. In fact, none of these issues compare to the threat of a nuclear attack by islamic maniacs and after such an attack, they will be as irrelevant to everyone else as they are to me.

If a Democrat is elected president, our health care system will be destroyed in the name of social justice; our national defense will be irrelevant; illegal and legal immigration will continue to flood the country with unassimilable, third-world peasants and fanatics; taxes will rise to record levels to pay for all the new social programs, immigrant welfare recipients, and handouts; and America will continue down the doomed path of socialism. It makes me sick to think about it. Whoever thinks that communisim is dead should take a long, hard look at Hillary Clinton. She is the quintessential Marxist, as is Obama. They call themselves "progressives", the code word for communist. The Cold War might be over, but communism is alive, well, and thriving in the American Democrat party.

Susanp,

Health care, abortion, and the other minutiae of the Dems are the least of my worries also. National security has always trumped them all. That's why I don't see how you can say that John McCain, the darling of Teddy Kennedy and the open borders crowd, would be better than any democrat. Protecting this country from the maniacs who would attack us should have been top priority since 9/11 but instead we have been subjected to all manner of lectures about the religion of peace and diversity and our history of openness. People who are unwilling to tell it like it is are not my choice for president. John McCain has been steadfast on Iraq, but that's it. Iraq could become the new miracle child and it wouldn't be enough to protect this country. John McCain is not willing to take the hard stances if it would compromise his standing with the media and with the Democrats who love him so.

"Better than any Democrat" isn't a good campaign slogan. It doesn't look good on a bumper sticker.

The candidates must be pressed on the issue. If they think Islam is the Religion of Peace, they must say so. If they think that terrorists "just happen to be" Muslims, or "all religions are the same", they must say so. But silence should not be allowed. Whether it is a traditional reporter, or a radio-call-in, or a townhall meeting, someone must force an answer, one way or the other.

Ironically, Obama is the only dem who has spoken the words Radical Islam and Islamic Extremism.

One of the reasons why so many people are drifting in from the "left" is that the left's accomodation with the forces of anti-reason have left a sour and bitter taster in the mouths of those who cannot and will not grant approval to theocratic states that break every rule in the "Human Rights" book ...

.. coming from a left-wing background that supported Women's right, sexual freedons and also opposed racism - I cannot "get with the program" and decry "Chimpy Bush" just becuase of biased (racist) knee-jerk anti-Americanism which specialises in granting approval to some of the worst places on Earth to be if you are a woman, gay or just the wrong skin colour .. not to mention non-moslem ..

"Dems Speak No Evil Of Islamic Jihad"

...this may account for the large bloc of Muslim voters voting Democrat....

...birds of a feather flock together...

It has just been revealed that Mike Huckabee has as his main advisor, Richard Haass, the president of the CFR. The only candidate not beholding to, or in the back pocket of the CFR, is Ron Paul. He is what I call a 50%er, and can't win. His apparent distain for sovereignty sapping globalism, is admirable and worth supporting in my opinion, but his overly simplistic and unrealistic views of Islam/jihad/terrorism, are scary. If for some reason he gets elected, I hope he bones up on Islam quick,
if not, he will become like Bush, part of the problem, not a solution to it...

Thanks to 8 years of fear-mongering, propelled by organizations like your employer's, Robert, the Democrat's don't need to bring it up. They understand how to focus on real threats, not ones created by spin and misinformation, like the bogeyman of Islam.

obama well israel will be screwed if he ever makes it to the white house and here is why
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7688

Mr. Carr:

I hope you are posting as a polemicist, rather than the objective analyst that you hold as your calling.

Let's see what the crise de jour is: Pakistan? Iran? Afghanistan? Lebanon? Iraq? Gaza? Kashmir? So. Thailand? Mindanao? Golan Heights? Kosovo? Sudan? Somalia? Kenya? Nigeria? [Eritrea/Ethiopia? E. Timor? Cyprus? Western Turkey? Kurdistan? Chechnia/Daghestan/Ingushetia?] Somewhere else along or within Samuel Huntington's "bloody borders," potentially?

And YOU don't see a pattern or connection? YOU don't see a resurgence of "classical" Islamic ideals such as religious "holy war" to expand Islam's frontiers, or shari'ah-creep, or subjugation, slow suffocation--and eventual extinction--of non-Muslim minorities? The yearning for a restored caliphate and a "pure" Islam?

But, then, I suppose that there's nothing more to it all; it's all just a bumper-sticker slogan.

Of course, I forgot, Mr. Carr--

9/11 was all staged, like the Reichstag Fire!

Jeffrey Carr posted:
Thanks to 8 years of fear-mongering, propelled by organizations like your employer's, Robert, the Democrat's don't need to bring it up. They understand how to focus on real threats, not ones created by spin and misinformation, like the bogeyman of Islam.

That may work during primaries, but good luck selling it during the general election. Unfortunately, our current Democrat leaders either cannot, or will not, discriminate good ideas from bad ideas, nor enemies from friends. In fact, they seem to be determined to become their own worst enemy.

Ahh, World Affairs--not to mention Sarkozy & Bruni--what does tomorrow (or yesterday, for that matter) bring us? Hhmm... Central Asia? East Turkestan (Xinjiang)? The Maluccas? The Maldives? Sulu Archipelago? India? Syria? Uganda/Eastern Congo? Chad? Morrocco? Western Sahara? Mauretania? Algeria? Bangladesh? Bosnia? The West Bank/AlQuds (Jerusalem)? Ceuta/Mellila? Al-Andalus, sundry irredenta and other "stolen" Muslim lands?

Mr. Carr:

You simply DON'T get it. It's NOT JUST violent jihad, but the entire Islamist Islamization-by-degrees how-to-cook-a-frog package.

Sir, you do a GREAT disservice to truly rational, objective, transcendant and universal HUMAN VALUES. And betray a monstrous smugness and egotism while doing so.

Mr. Carr:

You simply DON'T get it. It's NOT JUST violent jihad, but the entire Islamist Islamization-by-degrees how-to-cook-a-frog package.

Sir, you do a GREAT disservice to truly rational, objective, transcendant and universal HUMAN VALUES. And betray a monstrous smugness and egotism while doing so.

MR. CARR:

I EMPHATICALLY PROTEST, That the Muslim Brotherhood ARE NOT, nor could they be, our "moderate Muslim allies" for "democracy" over tyranny!

You, Sir, in your vain blindness, are serving as a champion of true TYRANNY and EVIL.

You ARE NO champion of fundamental (beginning with the most basic) human rights.

(Sanctity of one's life, limb, livelihood and property; equality before the law; freedom of conscience and of speech--I enumerate these, among others, because your stands are, ultimately, an implicit DENIAL of them. And, no, I'm not talking about a river in Egypt.)

The Dems can't face FOX news much less the GWOT.

In my head I have a general election add againts a third Clinton term.

I would show pleople coffing up smoke in the 1992 WTC attack. Then our soldiers bodies in Somolia. Then the carnage of the attack on the Kenya Embasy. Then the ruins of the Cobar towers in saudi. Then Show the hijacked jumbo crashing into the Indian Ocean. Then show a the USS Cole.

Then Bill Clinton huging Monica, as the voice over states "The Clinton officials removed all the 'W' keys from white house computers upon leaving office."

Then I would finish with pictures of people freefalling from the WTC in the 9/11 attack.

A great rendition of Dirty Harry

Jeffery Carr- A legend in his own mind. A small space with many cobwebs.

Ruebacca,

You remind us all of why Clinton & Co. is such a bad memory, in the larger view of things.

On the American candidates for President in the recent ABC News/Facebook debate:

It is really unfortunate that one of the only two consistently Constitutionally-sound candidates argues just what apologists for jihad and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis would argue on the topic of Muslim holy war.

Ron Paul's retort to Giuliani about "all Islamics" is something you'd expect from someone trying to subvert the Constitution in favor of Shari'a (or someone trying to help others do it), not someone who recognizes and rejects the threat posed by the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

Romney sounds as though he's done some reading, but not of the essential texts, for it appears that he believes poverty, discrimination, a lack of career opportunities, rainy days, etc., lead to jihad. He stated that Infidels should:

"help provide the rule of law, education that's not through madrassas, agricultural and economic policies that can be instilled in various Islamic countries, so the Muslims are able to reject the extreme and the terrorists . . . the answer is to move now to a second phase, a phase of helping Muslims become so strong they can reject the extreme . . . ."

Worse still, his comment that "someone like Sayyid Qutb lays out the philosophy of radical jihadism," fails to recognize that Mohammed "laid out" that philosophy first. It also contains the abominable double redundancy "radical jihadism."

As for Mayor Giuliani, though he talked tough about "Islamic terrorists," this is what he said about Islam, the Source and Sustenance of jihad:

"they've [mujahideen] perverted their religion into a hatred of us . . . I have great respect for the Islamic religion. I have great respect for the Arab world, for the Middle East.

"I think we should be closer to them. I think we should trade more with them. I think we should have cultural exchanges with them . . . ."

Which part of Islam engenders such respect, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . . ," or "the Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old"?

Which part of that culture would Giuliani like to have take root over here?

Huckabee too is clueless. In speaking of Islamic terrorism he said, "This isn't an Islamic problem. This is a jihadist problem. This is an Islamo-fascism problem . . . He [Qutb] is one of the major philosophers behind this [Islamo-fascism] . . . ."

Apparently, neither has Huckabee heard of Mohammed. And in light of the testimony of Qur'an and Sunnah, to separate jihad from Islam would be to destroy Islam as it has always existed (despite Robert's belief that it is possible to reinterpret/reject those passages requiring brutality against non-Muslims, apostates, and women without destroying the integrity and authority of those documents from which such passages come).

I like Thompson's recognition that fidelity to the Constitution would cure many of our nation's ills. Though I've heard him speak not inaccurately about jihad, I've never heard him say anything that specifically indicates a proper understanding of it.

Where did he say that jihad has been ongoing for over a thousand years?

(By the way, am I the only one that found Charlie Gibson's moderation of the two debates surprising? He not only gave the socialists difficult questions that exposed their utter inability to lead our nation, he also used the terms "Islamic" without any ridiculous qualifiers.)

Amillennialist,
I skipped the debates. No point since I know I'm not voting for any of the "top tier" candidates of either party.

I would cut some slack for Huckabee and Romney. At least they know of Qutb. They're at least partly right because Qutb is the driving force behind most of the religious terror groups. He's the one whose ideas were strengthened at the sight of American women dancing with their husbands at a church gathering.

Before 9/11 I wasn't aware that jihad had never stopped. Colonialism, the Cold War and Russian domination over a large part of the Muslim world left me with the idea that it was all in the past and was revived only with the Iranian revolution. We never really learned about Islam in school. People need to educate themselves. Huckabee and Romney are in a bind because they have to deal with multiculturalism and they are seeking to become the leader of all Americans, including many peaceful Muslims. While they may be willing to confront radicalism in the Middle East, how do they tell American Muslims who haven't committed a crime that what they are doing is wrong?

Better than any Democrat" isn't a good campaign slogan. It doesn't look good on a bumper sticker.

Posted by: PMK at January 10, 2008 12:43 AM

I wasn't planning to plaster those words on a bumper sticker or support McCain for president; I was merely stating an opinion. The one and only asset I see in McCain is that he is not afraid to confront our enemies. His immigration bill was horrific and he is an advocate of open borders, so that shoots national defense to hell.

Which democrat running for president understands the threat of islam? Hillary's girlfriend is a Saudi muslim mole; Obama might be a covert muslim disguised as an ultra left-wing messiah for all I know; Edwards is a hypocrite and a fraud who considers the war on terror a joke. All the democrats want to do is turn America into an even bigger multicultural, socialist welfare state with higher taxes and bigger government.

Romney and Thompson understand the islamic threat better than any of the presidential candidates and both are preferable to McCain, but McCain is preferable to any democrat because he would do more to defend this country than any democrat candidate would. And that's really all I want from the government--to defend America from its enemies. As far as the "progressives" are concerned, we have no enemies except those created by our imperialistic global ventures, which they would immediately end. Then the nice jihadists, al qaeda, islamic terrorists, and all other offended parties would instantly love us again and they could get down to the serious business of raising taxes, decimating our health care system; ruining the economy and blaming it on Bush; the indoctrination of four year old kids in government schools (universal pre-K); and "ridding America of the tyranny of oil."

PMK,

"Huckabee and Romney are in a bind because they have to deal with multiculturalism and they are seeking to become the leader of all Americans, including many peaceful Muslims. While they may be willing to confront radicalism in the Middle East, how do they tell American Muslims who haven't committed a crime that what they are doing is wrong?"

So, continue the deception about Islam because Muslims will be offended? What does that say about those Muslims? Should not they have to deal with what their own "sacred" texts demand?

Why would decent, peaceful Muslims be offended at any person, politician or not, who pointed out what those texts say?

Should they not be offended (outraged, disgusted, and mortified) instead at Allah's bloodlust and Mohammed's depravity?

Agreed to a point. Giuliani at least, did not call Islam a "Religion of Peace" as far as I know.

A "great religion", in terms of global status and the billion plus who adhere to that mental slavery, yes, certainly! A "great religion" in terms of respect for it and being clueless to its collective global objective?...I doubt.
Posted by: awake

And besides your point re. the rhetoric.. Giuliani's actions should count more than his words. Having that terrorist arafart thrown out of the Public Library concert by security was definitely heart-warming.. and he rejected the $10m from some sowdi barbarian right after 9/11 when the sowdi attached conditions such as equivocating on islam and Israel's self-defensive actions.

He's got my vote. Giuliani Time!

Speaking of Repub candidates.. mcCain is a complete RINO. He should be considered a dhim.

McCain doesn't want to keep the terrorists in Gitmo . McCain wants to accord these terrorists who behead anyone falling into their hands Geneva Conventions status.

Some Fred Thompson quotes relating to Jihad. He's no Trancredo, but he is the next best thing in my view.

Fred on the dangers of domestic multiculturalism
http://towncommons.blogspot.com/2007/04/fred-thompsons-most-important-piece.html

Fred Thompson on CAIR
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017038.php
http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=427045&SPID=15663

Fred Thompson on Ayaan Hirsi Ali
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187200.php

Fred Thompson on moderates
"I think sometimes we have a little bit difficulty in choosing among our friends. There are some who give lip service and not only do not come through with moderation and preaching moderation. They go in the other direction sometimes. And we need to — we need to, again, be able to call a spade a spade. But for those who are standing up and really putting their lives in jeopardy, is what they’re doing, we need to support them in every way possible. We need to honor them. They need to know that they have our support. Now, having said that, I would think the average Muslim and the moderate Muslims, the ones around the country, around the world who live in moderate societies, which is most of them, would be the most outraged about what they see. They shouldn’t need constant bolstering to come out against the slaughter and wholesale slaughter of innocent people in trying to bring down western civilization which they are now part of and enjoying along with us. So I think they need to recognize the commitment that they need to make."
http://pajamasmedia.com/pages/2007/11/fred_thompson_war_on_terror_co.php

I know there is an article in which Fred specifically mentions that Jihad has been going on for more than a 1000 years--I will look for it tomorrow

Fred's quote above from Pajamamedia will not go as far as many commentors on this site would like to see. However, I like the fact that he is saying the impetus is on the "moderates" to show that they are moderate.

Thanks, JSobieski.