An informative article delineating the two candidates' differing views and approaches to the war on terror. "The lessons of 9/11," by Amir Taheri for the NY Post, September 11:
TODAY's joint visit to Ground Zero may give the impression that John McCain and Barack Obama share a common analysis of the causes of 9/11 and how to deal with its legacy. They don't.And they are many, so how could he have missed them? He didn't; he, like many others, simply ignore them as empty rhetoric from the "frustrated" and "oppressed."The divide starts with the question: Why was America attacked?
McCain's answer is simple (or, as Obama might suggest, simplistic): The United States was attacked because a resurgent Islam has produced a radicalism that dreams of world conquest and sees America as the enemy.
In different shapes and sizes and under a range of labels, that radical streak of Islam has waged war on America since 1979, when Khomeinists seized the US embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days.
The killing of 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983, the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and a host of other operations that claimed more American lives were episodes in a war - the reality of which the United States faced only after 9/11.
McCain doesn't hesitate to acknowledge that his country is engaged in a Global War on Terror. He doesn't believe that 9/11 might've been prompted by some wrong America did to others. To him, the nation was an innocent victim of "Islamic terrorism."
McCain asserts, "America faces a dedicated, focused and intelligent foe in the War on Terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities."
He'd pursue and fight these "enemies" wherever they are - including, especially, in Iraq. "If we run away," he says, "they are going to follow us home."
OBAMA, by contrast, doesn't use terms such as "the Global War on Terror" or "Islamic terrorism." Nor does he claim that America was simply an innocent victim.
In one speech, he used the image of a US helicopter flying over the poor countries in Africa and Asia, where it's seen as a symbol of oppression. He says his objective is to turn that helicopter into a symbol of American aid to the downtrodden.
For Obama, the threat comes not from terrorists but from "extremists" and their "program of hate." He never uses such terms as "jihadist," judging them hurtful to Muslims. He speaks of "violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims."
In one speech, he claimed that the Islamists aim only at "creating a repressive caliphate." He seemingly hasn't heard of jihadist movements whose declared aim is to destroy the United States in the name of Islam.
For McCain, the War on Terror is a "just war" in which Americans fight for their security and their allies'. Obama rejects the concept of "just war." He dismisses the Iraq war as both "unnecessary and unjust" - though the struggle in Afghanistan is "a necessary war."The enemy has been identified -- by himself, by others, and by history and theology, countless times; you just refuse to acknowledge it.ONE constant Obama theme is the claim that poverty and economic factors breed terrorism; this echoes the analysis of Jimmy Carter back in the '70s. Strengthening that impression is Obama's pick of Sen. Joseph Biden as running mate.
Biden denies there's a War on Terror in the first place or that the United States even knows whom it's fighting. He has declared that "terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. If we can't even identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win."
While McCain puts the emphasis on hard power - that is, on meeting and defeating the enemy on the battlefield - Obama, echoing Carter and Bill Clinton, promises a greater use of soft power.He plans to double US foreign aid to $50 billion a year, allocate a further $20 billion to offering "alternatives to madrassa education" in Muslim countries, provide Afghanistan with another $1 billion a year in support and spend $5 billion on a "Shared Security Partnership Program" with foreign governments.
And he promises to "bolster our ability to speak different languages and understand different cultures" - as if America's unique cultural spectrum didn't already include large numbers of speakers of every living language, with millions of immigrants each year. Sorry: The nation was not attacked because Americans don't speak Arabic or don't understand Saudi or Egyptian cultures.
Obama also says he'll open "America Houses" in Muslim capitals. These would be community centers with libraries, Internet cafes and English-language classes. Has he considered the possibility that these might become prime targets for terrorists?
Plus, he'd set up an "America's Voice Corps," which would recruit and train thousands of young Americans to go to Muslim countries to explain "American values" and, in return, "listen to Islamic voices."
More important, perhaps, Obama promises to attend "a significant Islamic forum" (presumably, the summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) within his first 100 days in the White House. He believes that the magic of his eloquence might do what America's hard power has failed to achieve. In an early version of this idea, Obama wanted to invite all Muslim heads of state to a Washington summit. He doesn't realize that this would endorse the claim that Islam merits a special treatment even in international relations.
ONE might expect Obama to be more convincing on Afghani stan, his pet war. Yet all we get is a promise to increase aid - despite the fact that the Afghan economy hasn't been able to absorb the $20 billion pledged since 2002. He would also send in two more combat brigades - precisely the number that other NATO allies were supposed to supply by next January. (President Bush just announced that, from now until January, he'll be sending an even larger reinforcement to Afghanistan.)The Democratic platform's section on foreign policy contains several references to "restoring American leadership." When it comes to tough issues, however, we're told that "the world must do" this or that.
An example: "The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." What if that abstract entity, "the world," of which Obama once claimed to be a citizen, fails to do so? Obama's answer is "tougher sanctions and aggressive, principled and direct high-level diplomacy without preconditions."
He promises to talk to all the "bad guys," including the Khomeinist leaders in Tehran. He ignores the fact that successive US administrations, from Carter to George W. Bush, have talked to the mullahs - so far to no avail. He also forgets that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell traveled to Syria and was rewarded with a series of political murders of US friends in Lebanon.
The platform's Middle East section promises to "stand with allies and pursue diplomacy." Apart from Israel, however, we're never told who those "allies" are.
While Bush fixed the creation of two states, a Palestinian one besides Israel, as the aim of his strategy, Obama takes a step back by claiming merely that the US should "lead the efforts to build the road to a secure and lasting peace."
HE also abandons Bush's mes sage of democratization in the Middle East as the long-term weapon against terrorism and strengthens the fiction that the Palestinian issue is the region's main, if not the sole, problem.
In fact, despotism may be the more important issue. Yet Obama sneers at the elections held in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other Muslim nations thanks to US encouragement and pressure. He would leave America without a core message in the Middle East.
McCain believes that America is at war; Obama doesn't. McCain believes the United States can win on the battlefield; Obama doesn't.
For Obama, the problem is one of effective law enforcement. His model is the way Clinton handled the first attack on World Trade Center in 1993. Obama says: "We are able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial." This means the United States reacting after being attacked.
McCain, however, doesn't fear the politically incorrect term "pre-emption" - hitting the enemy before he hits you.
WHEN all is said and done, this election may well have only one big issue: the existential threat that Islamist terrorism poses to America's safety. Since McCain and Obama offer radically different policies for facing that threat, American voters do have a real choice.
Nice to see JW refute the pretense, enumerated by certain posters here, that there is essentially no difference between Obama and McCain via Islam. The latter certainly needs to be brought up to speed on the soft Jihad, but at least he acknowledges the existence and nature of the enemy.
...and why do they hate us?
I believe the argument of those who say it's because of our foreign policy. We're hated because we're an impediment to the success of jihad, against Israel, against "apostate" regimes, against infidels. In the narrative of the Left, that's a bad thing. In my book, it proves we're doing something right.
Talk softly and carry a big stick.
-TR
Talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk.
-Obama
[McCain would] pursue and fight these "enemies" wherever they are - including, especially, in Iraq. "If we run away," he says, "they are going to follow us home."
A phony argument. For starters, they're right here and you REFUSE to pursue them here. Here, they're just bad drivers or misunderstanders of Islam.
We have fought two-front wars before. They cannot follow us home unless we let them. Absent a missile attack from international waters, they cannot attack us here unless we let them come here. How many people who want to attack us have been let in since 9/11? MANY! How many who, though they may not want to do it themselves, would welcome a Muslim state in America have we allowed in since 9/11? Many, MANY MORE!
Nothing is preventing us from simultaneously fighting the war in Iraq and preventing further infiltration at home - other than the PC of McCain, Bush, Obama, Rice and many more.
[Obama] speaks of "violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims."
And Bush doesn't? McCain doesn't? Rice doesn't?
JW doesn't? Are they or aren't they a small minority? What happened to all those Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only?
[Obama] seemingly hasn't heard of jihadist movements whose declared aim is to destroy the United States in the name of Islam.
Guess what? Neither has anyone else! Otherwise they would have acted on those threats. Instead we're building up two Muslim countries, making them stronger than they were on 9/11. Where is the logic?
Why are we giving them a dime when sharia is their mode of governance? Is that supposed to make us safer? How is sharia an indicator of tolerance and a desire to live with others without being in a position of dominance?
Where are the American Muslims who DON'T want us destroyed? What are they doing to counter people who would fight the US in the name of Islam?
McCain is pretty candid now. Will he be when/if he wins the WH? These people can NOT be reasoned with
He didn't; he, like many others, simply ignore them as empty rhetoric from the "frustrated" and "oppressed."
like many others. it's gonna take some terrorist incident in the usa to make them think, hopefully.
like many others. it's gonna take some terrorist incident in the usa to make them think, hopefully.
Posted by: theygottago
If 9/11 didn't make them think differently then what will?
PMK,
Your points are well taken, but, again, I ask you: McCAin is our only chance, what's your point?
Actually, I found the article rather encouraging in that McCain is much closer to "getting" it than Obama will ever be. One of the two is going to be president. Which one of the two do you think there is a snowball's chance in hell of totally "getting it"?
Here is a hypothetical ... suppose somebody high up in the administration tells the president there is a serious national security issue with the mosques in the United States ... what would Barry Hussein do? Moniter them? or try to give them money?
theygottago,
Even then it's not likely. Those that continue to buy the garbage that we brought this upon ourselves are too entrenched in leftist theology to believe that some people hate you for just existing. It must be for some wrong we, the West, have done. It's an insipid circular argument that the leftists refuse to stop.
The crux of the problem with islam, in my opinion, is that we remind them of all they are not and will never be. So, instead of acknowledging the reality and joining the rest of the civilized world, they retreat into islam and strike out at all of those who refuse to submit to their barbaric system.
In either case, you are buying a pig, lipsticked or not, in a poke. But the language of Obama, and what it reflects, is far more worrisome than the language of McCain, though he is, admittedly, stuck to Tarbaby Iraq -- and if he continues to be stuck to Tarbaby Iraq (or Obama, who wishes us out of Tarbaby Iraq but into Tarbaby Afghanistan and that, it is clear, now also means Tarbaby Pakistan) he may lose the election. All he has to do is say something like the following:
"The surge has worked. And that is why we can now draw down our troops, and remove ourselves. That is why it is time for the Iraqis to do their part, and to rebuild their country. It makes no sense for the United States, which is suffering economically from the stratospheric rise in the price of oil, to continue to send tens or even hundreds of billions to Iraq -- so much of it, we know, has been diverted by grand theft and corruption -- when they have a surplus that is now close to one hundred billion, and that we have repeatedly asked that they begin to spend, but they have not.
And it makes no sense for us, either, to remain in Iraq indefinitely, when our military is so stretched, and when the terms and conditions imposed by the Iraqi government are so very different from those imposed by other countries, by our close allies in NATO.
What does make sense is for our troops to be ready for all kinds of eventualities outside Iraq, where we have done enough, and more than enough. What does make sense is for us to work with our closest allies to make sure that we, or they, are able to deal with Iran's nuclear threat, and to make sure that the wherewithal is supplied our ally Israel to deal with what for it is a mortal threat. We do not want to see a nuclear cloud over Jerusalem, destroying its monuments, and its people, nor elsewhere over the Land of Israel, or what many of us call by another name -- the Holy Land.
There are those who think that we must not allow Israel to be able to protect itself from a mortal peril, the one that threatens Israel and the Middle East, and Infidels elsewhere, the one emanating from the Islamic Republic of Iran. They think this because, as one official said, disgracefully, "we don't want to have any interference with our policy in Iraq and Afghanistan."
But this makes no sense. We have done what we can do in Iraq, and if the Iraqis turn on us it will not be because Israel, protecting themselves and, not incidentally, protecting the entire Infidel world too, sets back for a decade Iran's nuclear project, but because of other, deeply-held beliefs that we have for too long ignored. Those who think we should allow our closest ally, Israel, that prevented Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear weapon when it bombed Osirak, that prevented, just a few months ago, the Syrians from installing a North Korean nuclear installation that potentially could threaten not only Israel but a wide swath of territory, including Lebanon and Turkey, and parts of southnern Europoe, should understand that what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan are far less important, at this point, than what happens in Iran, and whether or not the Islamic Republic of Iran is permitted to obtain nuclear weaopns.
That is why I have concluded that it is time to face new facts in Iraq. The position of the Iraqi government is such, its demands on the continued presence of our troops there so constraining, that it is time to go.
They have been given much. They have been freed from a monstrous dictatorship. We have poured men and money and materiel into that country. And now, it is time, soberly and in order, taking with us all of our equipment lest it fall into the wrong hands, out. Not because Jihad is no longer a threat -- but because, you see, it is."
[wild applause, McCain wins the election]
Your points are well taken, but, again, I ask you: McCAin is our only chance
Posted by: Paleologus at September 11, 2008 10:10 AM
One may argue that it is a mute point, but Tom Tancredo, R-CO, was America's only chance, which like many others, America blew....
As they say, 'In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.'
And Bush doesn't? McCain doesn't? Rice doesn't?
Posted by: PMK at September 11, 2008 9:51 AM
Exellent point.
While Carter, Clinton and other presidents have pandered to Islam, Bush took pandering to, knlwingly or unknowingly, supporting Jihad, AFTER 9/11. Most Americans do not realize that behind the curtains of "War on Iraq" and the phony "War on Terror", Jihad has gained ground like never before. Starting with this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
to
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0903-04.htm
Wafa Sultan noticed this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52962
Where are the American Muslims who DON'T want us destroyed?
PMK
Great observation.
Every time I seriously think that Obama could actually become president it makes me consider putting my head between my legs and kissing my....goodbye.
If Obama is elected America is going to be in shock real soon. If President Obama goes to the OIC he will lose the support of the American people fast.
NEVER FORGET SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
http://attacked911.tripod.com/
Paleologus,
The point is the argument being made. The author implied that McCain would keep us safer than Obama. He won't. Both candidates are making the same argument made here by Robert and others - not all Muslims are jihadists. So what's the point? McCain might very well be the better choice but that doesn't make his argument right.
So let's all elect McCain. He'll fight the wars Obama wouldn't. Maybe he'll even get Osama. It won't do one thing to eliminate the jihad we face here at home. Every Muslim in the US is for-identification-purposes-only, until he decides to plow his car through a group of people.
It's reasonable to vote for McCain. Don't make your need to vote for him blind you to what he stands for. He's not going to do a thing here in the US. Fighting radical Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq won't do a thing to discredit it here in the US.
Here is a hypothetical ... suppose somebody high up in the administration tells the president there is a serious national security issue with the mosques in the United States ... what would Barry Hussein do? Moniter them? or try to give them money?
Paleologus,
And what would McCain do? THAT's the question you need to answer.
One may argue that it is a mute point, but Tom Tancredo, R-CO, was America's only chance, which like many others, America blew....
As they say, 'In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.'
Alert,
Agreed, with one caveat. America didn't blow it. Tom Tancredo withdrew before any of the big primaries were held. He denied us the chance to vote for him and instead threw his support behind some guy named Romney. He then rode off into the sunset. With that action, Tancredo proved he wasn't serious about anything.
While Carter, Clinton and other presidents have pandered to Islam, Bush took pandering to...
Alert
Globalism as a money source for business and politicians did not exist during Carter's administration. Carter was the worst president we have ever had and junior Bush is trying very hard to take this distinguished position away from him.
Carters problem is that he is an antisemite and therefore he loved anyone who hated jews. (I have heard he has received large checks for his library from his Arab friends. He even wrote a book denigrating jews.) Papa Bush was the first president to really get behind globalism. He loved his "new world order". He thought that by giving away the store to our enemies, we would have everlasting peace. He described it as a kinder and gentler world. Clinton loved globalism...this gave him oppotunities galore. Junior Bush is following in his fathers footsteps and doesn't really know why, except that it is what his Dad and his friends did. Junior Bush thinks that his Dad set this all up to help all those disadvantaged people in other countries. The wealthy Bush family, like many other wealthy families feel sorry for all those poor people out there (like a lot of people do) but they want to use our tax money to hand out to them. So globalism filled this nitch in their psycic and kept them wealthy. You can't be in business globally without making friends and they have a lot of wealthy Arab friends.
Now we are left to deal with a giant problem. Our problem is now, how do we stay successful with an unlimited supply of foreign workers available, diminishing manufacturing plants, hugh cash flows going out of the country, and provide for all these new foreign workers social needs.
By the way, the entire system in Washington is corrupt. All the players (and there are exceptions like Tancredo and others who don't take earmarks or other goodies) are basically operating in a corrupt manner, whether they know it or not. Some love it (like Clinton), some think it is morally right (Both Bush's), and others like McCain operate in a dutybound manner. This is why I really like what McCain is saying these days. Maybe he will have the chance to actually make some kind of dent in the Washington corrupt system. We shall see.
Reading that article makes Obama sounds dangerously naive to the Islamic threat. He actually thinks that "poverty" has something to do with Islamic hate and violence? The Palestinians have received more handouts then any people on the planet and they've become more violent and less appreciative as a result.
Obama's handling of McCain and Palin is also giving insight into how he would perform as a leader and its not pretty. He's being badly outmaneuvered by both of them.Does anyone think the same thing wouldn't happen with Vladimir Putin?
It's reasonable to vote for McCain. Don't make your need to vote for him blind you to what he stands for. He's not going to do a thing here in the US.
Posted by: PMK
the problem i have with voting for mccain is that i don't want to. i guess that i'm one those few who remember the phrase "republicans are for limited gov't". but i don't know who to vote for....
Politico-Musical Advice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2cuMdLcgw
the problem i have with voting for mccain is that i don't want to. i guess that i'm one those few who remember the phrase "republicans are for limited gov't". but i don't know who to vote for....
Funny until McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate I did not want to vote for McCain either.I always considered him a RINO and I also promised myself that I would never vote for anyone who supported CIR.However, Sarah Palin and the GOP convention changed all that. I went from someone who didn't know if I could stomach voting for McCain to an enthusiastic supporter of his candidacy.I've come to greatly admire McCain's political skills which IMO rival those of Bill Clinton a man I deeply dislike but who I consider a consummate politician.Seeing McCain and Palin picking apart Barack Obama is a thing of beauty and a sight to behold.
Voting for Obama and Biden would be like putting your car in reverse and expecting to go forward to your destination.
While McCain may operate in a low forward gear with terrorism, at least it is in the forward direction and he may shift to a higher gear if he (or Sarah) gets impatient.
ahh carter i ran into him when i stopped at his library in ga. many years back turns out hes none to fond of Canadians i wounder if its because we sheltered and got a bunch of yankees out of iran befor the main group got out as for any new pres spending billions in the middle east they need to be spent in the usa its shameful that 1/4 of the people cant get medical aND THAT WE DONT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE(i moved here 25 years ago leagly )and that the usa is the only western nation with out universal health insurance and that jizha they want to spend there should be spent here for it!!!!!
Obama doesn't even know how many states are in USA, nor does he care to honor US flag or national anthem. Add to that "Gopd D**n America" and his bitter half "ashamed of USA", a vote for Obama is a vote for the enemy. McCain's hispanic out-reacher is waiting for elections are over before he can 'reach-out' across the border for his 'amigos', and ofcourse, McCain can't wait to grant amnesty. Also, in post-9/11 world, McCain/Palin's ignorance of Jihad should be unacceptable!
Tom Tancredo, R-CO, was on top of these and many other critical issues America faces today, yet he was rejected. Well, that rejection is going to cost Americans dearly, as we can already see.
So, what to do? Whoever is elected, Americans should be ready to 'impeach' their dear elected El-presidente/Amir, at he first sign of treason. That is America's slim ray of hope...
This article is pretty sloppy. The writer implies that only Obama does not use the word "jihadist" but I've never heard of McCain using that word either. Then he says that Obama rejects the "concept" of a just war, but goes on to say that Obama considers the Iraq war to be unjust -- that's not rejecting the "concept", it's rejecting one particular war. A person can believe in the "concept" of just war, yet still oppose one particular war.
I have been called an "Islamophobe" (in a nice way) 3 times. They were all Democrats. No Republican (or Independent) ever called me an "Islamophobe".
Hey, Spot On, wear the moniker "Islamophobe" as a badge of honor.
You recognize your enemies. They don't.
Hugh for President!
PMK, you are wrong about Muslims in this way: they are not all threats, it is the believing Muslim who takes his faith seriously that is the threat.
It is not much of a difference but enough of one. Right now, you're a little too close to the BNP for my liking.
I don't believe we can defeat the threat in the short term but that I believe if we continue to be vigilant, push for democratization and universal human rights, secular states and keep prodding Islam with the sword of scholarship, it will start to disintergrate in twenty to fifty years time.
Islam is an irrational, incoherent mess of a belief system. The optimistic scenario in my mind is that much of the current Islamic world will be Christian (or even Jewish) in outlook by 2100.
I don't believe we can defeat the threat in the short term but that I believe if we continue to be vigilant, push for democratization and universal human rights, secular states and keep prodding Islam with the sword of scholarship, it will start to disintergrate in twenty to fifty years time.
Posted by: Wien1938
Wien1938,
If you think Islam can be turned back without the occasional measured use of a real sword, (you know, the kind that draws blood) you are either living in a dream world, or you have ignored the past 1400 years of Islamic hegemony. What do you think Europe would look like today if the Crusaders were armed only with "the sword of scholarship" as you put it?
Oh, and by the way the threat is ever so much greater than you describe it
"...they are not all threats, it is the believing Muslim who takes his faith seriously that is the threat."
Oh really? ... and what about all those "moderate muslims" who do NOTHING to reel in the fundamentalists? The ones who silently sit by, let the atrocities continue, and reap the benefits of Islamic supremacism? ... like, off the top of my head, ... the US propped up government in Iraq that is allowing terrible persecution of Christians in Iraq?, or maybe the Eurpean governments (pick one) who are ignoring the obvious increase in muslims attacking innocent Jews? ... I am sure that can all be fixed with a healthy use of "the sword of scholarship".
It's reasonable to vote for McCain. Don't make your need to vote for him blind you to what he stands for. He's not going to do a thing here in the US. Fighting radical Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq won't do a thing to discredit it here in the US.
Posted by: PMK
PMK, I understand McCain's shortcomings in the fight against the global jihad. I am not blind to what he stands for ... hell, he signed on to Bush's horrible immigration plan ... believe me, I am not looking at McCain through rose colored glasses. I am just trying to get you to see that in the war against the jihadists (global, stealth, et al) McCain, with all his faults you have rightly pointed out, is the only choice vs. Obama. Do you think Obama has any chance at all in acknowledging and confronting the internal threat we face from Islam? I don't. With McCain I still have a hope he will wake up.
*************
Here is a hypothetical ... suppose somebody high up in the administration tells the president there is a serious national security issue with the mosques in the United States ... what would Barry Hussein do? Moniter them? or try to give them money?
Paleologus,
And what would McCain do? THAT's the question you need to answer.
Posted by: PMK
PMK, the answer is that whatever flawed approach McCain might apply in this situation, I will take my chances with McCain's response over that of Obama's ... you know the "my Muslim faith" Obama?
Paleologus,
The issue was the author's contrasts. They were muddled. He pointed out how Obama was a bad choice but almost every argument he made in McCain's favor was far from persuasive.
Case in point:
"[McCain would] pursue and fight these "enemies" wherever they are - including, especially, in Iraq. "If we run away," he says, "they are going to follow us home."
They are already here and more come every day!
No one in Iraq can "follow us home" without an invitation from us to enter the country. Why are we extending that invitation?
Who you or I would vote for was never the point. This author was making a bad argument. That was all I was saying.
Your hypothetical was an illustration of why you wouldn't vote for Obama, but McCain is no different. He's not about to raid mosques. And how does he monitor them? Plant listening devices? Tap phones? Islamgate, here we come.
Wien1938,
You're welcome to your opinion of me.
How do you propose we distinguish between the Muslim who is serious about his faith and the one who is not? Are you a mindreader? I don't have that gift. I can't know they support America against those Muslims who seek our downfall unless they make their position known.
How am I to know the difference between the Muslim who reads the Koran and the one who reads it and takes the words literally and then seeks out the local al qaeda meeting?
The Muslim who doesn't take his faith seriously is not a Muslim. Why go to the mosque or read the Koran or contribute to Islamic charities? How much of the Koran does the Muslim who doesn't take his faith seriously think applies in the 21st century? Is jihad passe? I can't tell. Maybe you can enlighten me.
"they are not all threats, it is the believing Muslim who takes his faith seriously that is the threat."
Why is it up to me to tell the difference? Why isn't the Muslim who DOESN"T take his faith seriously fighting publicly with the US and all of civilization against the Muslims who ARE threats? Why isn't he reporting all who are planning jihad? You know that there were people in the Muslim community who knew about the many attacks that were carried out in Western countries and they did nothing to stop them. They presented one face to us and another to their fellow Muslims.
Sorry you can't accept reality.
Your hypothetical was an illustration of why you wouldn't vote for Obama, but McCain is no different. He's not about to raid mosques. And how does he monitor them? Plant listening devices? Tap phones? Islamgate, here we come.
Posted by: PMK
The day will come when we will shut down the mosques because the people finally recognize Islam for the miserable world cancer that it is, which advocates the violent overthrow of the US government, ... OR ...we will go the way of Eurabia. I hope McCain can be persuaded to totally "get" the portions of the Islamic threat that he is missing. The quantum leap he would need to make to get to, say, Robert Spencer's vision of the Islamic threat, is much less than the leap that Obama would have to make. To that extent McCain is definitely different.
If Obama is elected he will "negotiate" with Iran until it acquires nuclear weapons...
But maybe Iran needs nuclear weapons because - you know, maybe "they feel threatened by us".
In fact, maybe they will feel "so threatened by us" that they will use them to nuke Israel and/or other neighbours - but that's okay because they are just expressing their anger. This is obviously our fault because we didn't "get through to ther humanity".
Maybe we'd then need to consider sending them some more aid (or perhaps holding a united-world love conferece). But at least Israel wouldn't be a problem any more.
See, Obama is smarter than you think!
PMK- Have you ever met and talked with a big game hunter? I have. But the one that I talked to was a man. Believe me, such a person is no one that you would want to mess with. Sarah Palin hunts Moose and Polar Bear. That is big game. A woman big game hunter...I have never met one, and frankly when and if I do, I will be smiling.
Paleologus,
It didn't happen after three thousand people were killed. Compare that to what happened after Pearl Harbor. Japanese American CITIZENS were removed from sensitive areas.
You think McCain is the man who will shut down the mosques? I'll believe it when I see it.
Spot On,
Palin also subscribes to the "tiny minority" theory of her boss-to-be.
She's an impressive woman but her moose hunting abilities are irrelevant.
She's not going to hunt the big game of Islam. She can't see it. Instead she's going to search for the little ants that carry the bombs and ants can never be eradicated.
She won't attack the nest, so there will always be more.
The Hero and the Beast!
PMK- You are right about the need for someone to attack the enemies nest. These Islamists are like a certain household bug that needs to be eradicated. Attacking the nest, or better yet, allowing them to carry the poisin to their own nest is the way to get rid of them. I hate to say it but it will take another major hit by these islamic creeps, I'm afraid, to set our leaders into any kind of serious action against Islam. I prefer that we have someone in the Whitehouse who is ready and willing to defend us against them when that time comes, and it certainly will. It is just a matter of time. I hope that we all can survive that attack.