Looks as if Lieberman could use a little education about "violent Islamist extremism" himself. Speaking of the whitewashed dhimmi report on the Fort Hood jihad massacre, he said (thanks to Alan):
"I am disappointed, however, that the report does not adequately recognize the specific threat posed by violent Islamist extremism to our military, a threat directly addressed by Senator Collins and me in a January 13 letter to Secretary Gates. I believe firmly that if DoD educates its personnel about violent Islamist extremism - and how terrorists distort the Islamic faith to promote violence - we will increase trust between the thousands of Muslim-Americans serving honorably in the military and their colleagues."
No one has ever adequately explained how exactly terrorists "distort the Islamic faith." Could it be by promoting attacks on "innocent civilians"? See here for why that couldn't be it, but that's the best the Islamic apologists in the West can do. And despite their signal failure to produce the Moderate Islam upon which American foreign policy, thousands of lives, and billions of dollars depend, everyone in Official Washington simply takes it on faith that this great Santa Claus really exists, and will soon bestow his gifts upon a waiting world.
Also, is the point of the Fort Hood investigation really to "increase trust between the thousands of Muslim-Americans serving honorably in the military and their colleagues," or to prevent future jihad attacks? It seems as if making Muslims comfortable in the U.S. military is more of a priority than making sure that another one of them doesn't go jihad.
Joe at least associated terrorism with Islam, which is more than the Fort Hood report did.
Now, if we could just get him to read and study those texts, tenets, and teachings of Islam, or at least regularly read JW, we could get him the rest of the way.
"the specific threat posed by violent Islamist extremism"
What is telling is the nervous attempt by Lieberman to pile on the words, with not one but two adjectives -- "violent" and "Islamist" before the question-begging noun ("extremism") whose exact meaning is unclear, but that lack of clarity is something of which Lieberman either is unaware or, more likely, does not care. The effect is one, in the end, of fooling-no-one-but-yourself hollowness. How one longs for those who use words well, and accurately. There are not many such people, in and out of public life, but there are some.
How long will it take Lieberman, a great supporter of the Iraq folly, precisely because he could never allow himself to think in terms other than those of "making Muslim states better" (more unified, more prosperous, more this and that), could never think that perhaps allowing their internal fissures to play out would help to weaken the Camp of Islam -- because the very idea of positing a "Camp of Islam" is far too worrisome an idea for the likes of Lieberman, to realize that the truest formulation would be to say:
"the specific threat posed by Muslims who choose violence as their instrument of Jihad"
Such a statement makes clear that those who choose other instruments, out of calculation, out of self-interest, are not to be ignored, are in the end just as dangerous to the wellbeing and survival of Infidels.
When will Lieberman begin to speak in a way that cats and dogs can understand, about the ideology of Islam, and without his confused and pusillanimous adjectives -- "violent" and "Islamist," modifying that misleading word "extremism" that everyone in official Washington thinks they can continue to use, without disheartening, and infuriating, those who through their own efforts at study, have come to know more about Islam, its texts, its tenets, its history of conquest and attempted conquests, than those in Washington who, like Lieberman, continue to lead us, and themselves, astray.
I believe firmly that if DoD educates its personnel about violent Islamist extremism - and how terrorists distort the Islamic faith to promote violence - we will increase trust between the thousands of Muslim-Americans serving honorably in the military and their colleagues.
Huh? Is Lieberman's main concern that a level of mistrust might exist after a muslim office motivated by religious fervor gunned down fellow soldiers in cold blood? It sounds like he is implying that "mistrust" by "colleagues" contributed to Hassan's rampage and/or that such "mistrust" will cause this to happen again.
Sorry Joe. What is desperately needed is to drop the PC/MC blinders, recognize what islam truly teaches and then implement sound, common sense policies to weed potential enemies out of the ranks. Reducing "mistrust" (whatever that means) for the sake of "community cohesion" by ignoring common sense was tried with Hassan. It failed. Time to try something else.
Say it ain't so, Joe?
thousands of Muslim-Americans serving honorably in the military...
The concept of honor imputes honesty and integrety to the conferee.
*** 66:2 ***
So is it that our "honorable" Moslem GIs are being honest with themselves when they accept Allah's commands, many of them military commands, over and above their earthly American chain of command?
*** 9:2 ***
Moslems long ago were declared by the sky god they imagine to be fundamentally unreliable. And dangerous.
I have been focusing on the negative aspects of Islam without providing an alternative that would be acceptable to both Muhammadens and Non-Muhammadens. Because of this awareness I am now offering the following. Over thirty years of studying major and minor religions, psychology and philosophy I have distilled, for myself, a common understanding. This may or may not be applicable to Martin Luther King’s day but I have been compelled to present this on any day. I believe the ‘good doctor’ would approve.
We live in a world surrounded by and completely composed of atomic particles within us and in everything. All of our senses perceive the molecular motions of these atomic particles through molecular interactions with our skin in touch; the mechanisms in the ear in hearing; the eyes in sight; the nostrils in smell; the tongue in taste; the brain in thought; in the food and drink we consume; in the air we breathe. All of our senses prefer harmony, equilibrium or chemical balance. When it is too hot, too cold, too bright, too rancid, too salty, too noxious, too loud, too sharp, too painful, etc. we seek harmony. Psychology, psychiatry, religion, sex, hunger, thirst, status, egotism, revenge, medication, socializing, natural settings, beauty and almost if not all humans pursuits and drives can be seen as perversions of or agreement with our innate desire for the fulfillment of harmonious loving union with all in the Omniverse or GOD.
If we split the nucleus of an atom or fuse two nuclei together we start a chain reaction that will release much energy. Einstein’s theory E = MC2 provides a scientific basis for atomic energy’s presence everywhere. Everywhere there is GOD’S Spirit for the religious or Atomic Energy for the scientifically minded. This Spirit or energy exists in the good and the bad and the ugly. There is no place to turn that the atomically charged energy/Spirit of the Omniverse/GOD does not exist including our so-called enemies.
Religion and science are speaking about the same Creator. Monotheistic religions use the term GOD as Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and the Creator of all things. Science and common sense logic are aware the all things must have come from the Omniverse (all universes or everything). Every living thing is a creation of GOD in religious terms or a product of the Omniverse in scientific terms. All living things are part of and at one with GOD or the Omniverse. There is no escaping this fact no matter how much alcohol, drugs, distractions, denial, hatred, divisive thought, work, wealth or poverty we have. All humans have an inherent desire for acceptance of and harmonious loving union with, the inescapable unity that is the Omniverse or GOD.
Christianity (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and 1 Corinthians Chapter 13), Hinduism (through the Bhagavad-Gita), Buddhism (basic Buddhist principles), some of the minor religious beliefs, some current and past philosophers and good old common sense are in agreement with humanity’s innate desire to cooperate with our yearning for harmonious loving unity with the unity that already exists within us and in the world around us in the Omniverse or GOD.
Here is a brief list of some of the reasons that Muhammadenism is a spiritual or psychological illness that is not compatible with our innate desire for harmonious loving union with ourselves, all of humanity, nature and the world around us. Killing, raping, divorcing at the slightest provocation, enslaving and trading slaves either directly as commonly understood or through the death penalty for leaving or not believing what you believe, molesting children, forcing anyone to believe something against their will, forced prostitution, demonizing hate speech along with the hate and divisiveness it produces, suicide, prejudice, racism (Arab, black or any other), terrorism, deception, idolatry, piracy/looting/thievery, anger, jealousy, abuse, sexism, harassment, violence, arrogance, ignorance and others are incompatible with World Peace or harmonious loving union with all by all.
Islamic source materials are spiritual and/or psychological diseases for their adherents and the rest of the planet. This disease needs to be inoculated against and healed among those already infected. Harmonious loving union with all in the Omniverse/GOD is a defense against infection and a cure for those in its grip.
Well Joe,
If you really want to increase trust between Muslim-Americans in the military and their colleagues, explain to our military 'leaders' why requiring America's non-Muslim military personnel to don clean, white gloves before handling a Gitmo detainee's taxpayer provided Qur'an is counter productive.
Gonzo Gitmo Charade
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/09/20050609-092940-3178r/
it produces, suicide, prejudice, racism (Arab, black or any other), terrorism, deception, idolatry
Speaking of deception, it was just reported that Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, nephew of the Saudi king, said he is looking to expand his alliances with media giant News Corp in a meeting with Rupert Murdoch that "touched upon future potential alliances..."
*** 92:8 ***
I'm sure many of you have noticed the reluctance to say the truth about Moslems on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and in other important news entertainment venues. Expect more now. Rupert Murdoch is such a disappointment, such an opportunity lost.
New alliances for what purpose, to what end?
I certainly agree with most of the criticisms presented here of Joe Lieberman and the limits of his understanding of the threat we face from Jihad.
However, I feel duty bound to note that by the standards of the Senate—indeed, by the standards of US governmental officials in general—that Joe Lieberman is one of the more staunch anti-terrorism figures.
Firstly, he at least uses the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist"—which certainly doesn't indicate a full understanding of Jihad, but with an administration that has wanted to characterize Jihad terror attacks as "man-caused disasters", it's at least somewhat heartening.
At least he hasn't characterized Jihadists like Nidal Malk Hasan and Christmas bomber Abdulmutallab as simply "mentally ill"—or worse, acting out of legitimate grievances.
So, while I share your disappointment over Lieberman's statements, I have to note that many other officials would be either much, much worse—or would fail to consider protecting us from terrorists to be an issue at all.
... Official Washington simply takes it on faith that this great Santa Claus really exists, and will soon bestow his gifts upon a waiting world.
The chimera of "moderate Islam" is more like Charles Schulz's "Great Pumpkin" than Santa Claus. Santa Claus is at least a living symbol of generosity, whereas the Great Pumpkin is merely a pathetic joke.
gravenimage,
Not to be rude, but he--and each of our nationally elected officials--would be far more more staunch anti-terrorism figures if they actually understood the threat.
His conclusion that the problem is a distortion of Islam--rather than what it really teaches--is preventing him from understanding the problem as it really is.
But, hey!
It ain't just Joe. His sidekick, John McCain, explains the problem, quite similarly, as one of 'radical Islamic extremists'.
And then there's that wealth of Islamic knowledge--NJ Congressman Pascrell--who informed a national television audience that the terrorist's behavior makes them 'infidels of their own religion'.
And, according to Togo West in addressing the Fort Hood report the other day, "the the problem with “self-radicalization” in the military was not rooted in Islam. “Suppose it were fundamentalist-Christian-inspired,” Mr. West said. “Our concern is not with the religion. It is with the potential effect on our soldiers’ ability to do their job.”
Although I understand what you're saying, our elected officials' failure to acknowledge the facts is causing them to make some very faulty decisions.
Indeed and the SS distorted Nazi teachings.
Graven,
I think you make a valid point. In a stultifying environment of political correctness and intellectual ignorance, beggars can't be choosers. When all is said and done, Joe Lieberman is a friend of the anti-Jihad.
I wonder if Lieberman or any of the other politically correct buffons who populate the West are aware of these quotes - very politically incorrect about Islam and what we're dealing with:
“Now, the Muslims are the crudest in this respect, and the most sectarian. Their watch-word is: there is one God (Allah), and Mohammed is His Prophet. Everything beyond that is not only bad, but must be destroyed forthwith, at a moment’s notice, everyman or woman who does not exactly believe in that must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be immediately broken; every book that teaches anything else must be burnt. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism (Islam)!” - Swami Vivekananda, Shakespeare club of Pasadena, California, USA, on February 3, 1900
“The more selfish a man, the more immoral he is. And also with that race which is bound down to itself has been the most cruel and the most wicked in the whole world. There has not been a religion that has clung to this dualism more than that founded by the Prophet of Arabia (Mohammed), and there has not been a religion (Islam) which has shed so much blood and been so cruel to other men. In the Koran there is the doctrine that a man who does not believe these teachings, should be killed; it is mercy to ill him! And the surest way to get to heaven, where there are beautiful ‘houries’ and all sort of sense-enjoyments, is by killing these unbelievers. Think of the bloodshed there has been in consequence of such beliefs! (Islam)”. [The speech delivered by Swami Vivekananda in London on 18th Nov 1896. This has been published in ‘Practical Vedanta’ part 4. Pages 352-353 of volume 2 of the previous book]
“One religion may ordain something very hideous. For instance, the Mohammedan (Islam) religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in the Koran, “Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans.” They must be put to fire and sword. Now if we tell a Mohammedan that this is wrong, he will naturally ask, “How do you know that? How do you know it is not good? My book says it is.” [The speech given in London on 17th November, 1896. “Practical Vedanta’ Part III. Page 335; vol. 2 of the previous book]
“In this line the Mohammedans were the best off; every step forward was made with the word the Koran in the one hand and the sword in the other” Take the Koran, or you must die; there is no alternative”.[The speech in the Universalist Church, Pasadena, California, USA, on 28th January, 1890. It is published as “The way to the realization of a universal religion in the book “Jnana-Yoga” (The yoga of knowledge). Pp 369-370 of the previous book).
“Mohammedans talks of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Why anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into this brotherhood; he will more likely to have his throat cut.” [ibid P 380]
Regarding the Muslim invasion and atrocities in India, Swami further observed;
“When the Mohammedans first came to India, we were said – I think on the authority of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan historian – to have been six hundred millions of Hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions. And then every man going out of the Hindu fold is not only a man less, but an enemy the more.” [ibid.vol.5 , page 233. An interview of Swami Vivekananda, published in Prabuddha Bharat. April, 1899 and compiled under heading ‘On the Bounds of Hinduism’]
Rishi Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950):
“You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration, but how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is ‘I will not tolerate you’? How are you going to have unity with these people (Muslims)? Certainly Hindu – Muslim unity can not be arrived at on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus while the Hindus should not convert any Mohammedan.”
“..You can’t build unity on such a basis. Perhaps, the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them loose their fanatic faith in their religion.” [Rishi Sri Aurobindo said on July 23,1923. Evening talks with Sri Aurobindo; recorded by A.B.Puram, published by Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1995, page 291]
On April 18, 1923 Sri Aurobindo told in reply to a question of a disciple:
“I am sorry they (Pandit Madan Mohan Malavya and Chakravorty Rajagoplachari – two contemporary politicians in India under British rule) are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use to ignore facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindus has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve their problem. Otherwise we are lured into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.” [ibid. P 289]
Guru Nanak Dev (1469-1539):
“Syed Sheikh, Mughols, Pathans all had become very cruel and were torturing Hindus, They have their bodies thrown to vultures. Many (Hindus) were killed by driving nails in their bodies; many other were flayed alive and still others were allowed to be bitten to death by dogs. Those who did not agree to conversion to Islam were tortured in several ways. “Yajana” and “Havan” were forbidden. Beautiful women were abducted and forcibly kept in Muslim homes. The judges took bribe and converted truth into falsehood with their judgments”. [Nanak Prakash, quoted in page 80 of ‘Pan-Islamism Rolling back’, by Prem Nath Joshi, Delhi, 1998]
Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar (1891-1956):
“To the Muslims a Hindu (or any non-Muslim) is a kaffir. A kaffir (non believer in Islam) is not worthy of respect. He is a low born and without status. That is why a country ruled by the kaffir (non-Muslim) is a ‘Dar-ul-Harb’ (i.e. the land of war) to a Muslim, which must be conquered, by any means for the Muslims and turned into ‘Dar-ul-Islam’ (i.e. land of Muslims alone). Given this, no further evidence seems necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu (or for that matter any non – Muslim) Government”. [‘Pakistan or ‘The partition of India’ by B.R.Ambedkar, page 301, Vol.8, Complete works of Ambedkar, Govt. of Maharastra publication]
Ambedkar observed elsewhere:
“Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslim and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating. … The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to the Muslims alone. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self government and is incompatible with local self government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. ..... Whenever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mohomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to the buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.”
“It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment, aim and policy with the Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no difference between the two and that the Nationalist Muslim inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims.” [ibid. 330-331]
“The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But, they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. But they were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The successive invasions have deposited their ‘shilt’ more there than anywhere else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick in Northern India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak”. [ibid.P.65]
“The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsters have become a settled part of their strategy in politics.” [ibid. P 269]
“But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count towards these murders. The murderers paid the penalty of law where law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. As an illustration of this attitude, one may refer to Mr. Barkat Ali, a Barrister of Lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum,. He went to the length of saying that Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Koran. This attitude of the Muslims is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr.Gandhi.” [ibid.P 157].
“From a spiritual point of view, Hindus and Musalmans are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species.” [ibid.P 193].
Some of the most uninformed people are those representing us in government. In fact, this condition exists not only in our government but in many other western governments as well. It really is hard to believe they all seem to believe Islam to be a 'religion of peace'. Sometimes I think they are just liars that simply can't stop, sort of like a drunk who just can't stop drinking.
The only solution to relieve ourselves of the Islamic problem is to round 'em up and move 'em out. Send them back where they can enjoy Islamic life to the full.
heres a good one on distortion
Off point
Here is an ABC piece on a part number for a gun sight
ABC attributes the part number shown after the serial #, as reference to a Bible cite and raises concerns that military action in Muslim countries is a "Crusade". This is an amazing piece.
"At the end of the serial number on Trijicon's ACOG gun sight, you can read "JN8:12", a reference to the New Testament book of John, Chapter 8, Verse 12, which reads: "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
read it here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794
"and how terrorists distort the Islamic faith to promote violence"
Looks like "Lover-man" could use some education on the texts and tenets of Islam. I'm disappointed. He's really ignorant. I had thought better of him.
No need to be surprised: at least 97% of all Western politicians, reporters, analysts, teachers, businessmen, artists and entertainers believe the same thing. What would surprise -- yea, astound -- would be Lieberman going against the grain which, nowadays, is as much Midwestern as it is East and Left Coasts.
Spirit of 1683 -
Thank you for that series of excellent insights from non-dhimmified Indians.
I have copied them into my e-file of 'Famous Quotes'.
I was struck by the complaint of Nanak Prakesh who stated, as one of the examples of Muslim cruelty and injustice, that - "Beautiful women were abducted and forcibly kept in Muslim homes".
Any Copt, any Assyrian Christian, many Jews who fled from Muslim lands, and the Hindus and Sikhs and Christians of Pakistan and Bangladesh today, and indeed, *any* population of non-Muslims forced to live in Muslim lands, or even merely living in proximity to large, aggressive Mohammedan colonies in non-Muslim lands, can tell the same terrible tale as Nanak Prakesh, of the kidnapping and raping of women.
A beautiful Iraqi Jewish girl, newly-married, one Hannah Menashe, was snatched by her lustful Muslim neighbour, only a short while before she and her husband and her parents and siblings were due to make aliyah to Israel..*in 1953*. She lived as that fiendish Muslim adulterer's slave-'wife' for some FIFTY years, presumably so crushed by his threats that she dared not even try to communicate with her family to let them know she was still alive; only after his death, and in the upheaval after the Gulf War, was she able to escape her prison, flee to another country, find an Israeli embassy, and begin her long journey Home.
I understand that many, many other Jewish girls from the community in Iraq - before the Jews of Iraq were driven out altogether by the hateful cruelty of the Muslims - were similarly stolen; there would be Iraqi Arabised Muslims today who descend from Jewish female 'possessions of the right hand'...snatched from their families and even, like Hannah Menashe, from their rightful *husbands* (for despicable, horrible, ghastly Islam teaches that a Muslim man can have sex with a female captive whose husband remains alive, and that this is not adultery!!).
Spirit of 1683
Thanks for the dated quotes. They have been enlightening and temporarily saddening. I have also copied them into my Islam file.
These Muhams have been practicing the same or similar tactics for at least the 'over 100 year period' mentioned. The Hindus of those time periods are basically repeating what we read here in Robert's articles. They have become professionals at it. I have been aware of the fact that Muham original source materials in the Koran, Hadiths and biography of Muham have been the source of terror or terror manuals but we are seeing a definite updated plan of attack, persistence and follow through orchestrated in front of our eyes. This appears to be a consistent plan. I am missing full awareness of all the details of this plan. I would like to read the writers that have outlined the Islamic terror tactics; political manipulations; the demanding that the law obey Islam, not Islam obey the law; etc, to gain more insight into how these morons are as successful as they are with such a barbaric religion. With more awareness of the tactics we can predict and then thwart these moves before they take root. Apparently gangs of criminals and/or barbarians that are willing to be ruthless have succeeded where nobles have not.
It's so depressing, it seems like political correctness and the issue of what's jokingly known as "islamophobia" has created two different universes. One of westerners who have virtually no power over policy that can see the islamic situation for exactly what it is and another parallel world where a bunch of idiots who can (more than likely) also see this issue for exactly how it is, however they refuse to believe it and insist on leading us all into a world of stupidity.
How many more attacks will it take?
I seriously believe there will be a total civil war in every western country one day if they don't recognise that Islam teaches muslims to "slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); - Qur'an Sura 9:5"
And I don't like being called a pagan thank you!!!