Excuses, excuses. "'Access to Guns,' Not Jihad, to Blame for Ft. Hood, Says Noted Islamic Scholar," by Charles C. Johnson (no, not the libelblogger) at Big Government, February 8:
Imam Zaid Shakir came to speak at my school, Claremont McKenna, on December 9th to respond to the "tragedy of Ft. Hood." Rather than respond to the massacre of American servicemen, Shakir spent the evening indicting the United States - saying "we were born in genocide." The reason for the Ft. Hood Massacre, according to Shakir? Not jihad or Islamic fundamentalism, but the "pervasiveness of violence in our society" and because of Americans' "easy access to guns."For those wondering who Mr. Shakir is, he's the go-to expert on Islamic issues for the mainstream media. The New York Times describes him as a "leading intellectual light," while rap scholar, Cornel West says "he is one of the towering principle [sic] voices not only in contemporary Islam, but in American society," according to this biography. Most recently, he was described by John Esposito as one of the "500 Most Influential Muslims."
After comparing the massacres at Ft. Hood by Major Nidal Hassan to the Columbine killers and Maurice Clemmons, of Mike Huckabee pardon fame, Shakir said that the violence we have seen was not a "Muslim problem," but a problem for everyone. You never quite know when someone will "snap." [The following is extracted from a transcript from audio I took of the public lecture at my college.]
There is not a Muslim problem. Especially based on the number of Muslims who have done this particular act. It's not a Korean problem because the kid in Virginia tech was a Korean American. It's not a white American problem because the kids in Columbine or several other places were white Americans. That's not the common denominator, race is not the common denominator, religion is not the common denominator, gender-maybe, I would say they should just chill out. What is the common denominator. The common denominator is easy access to guns. The common denominator is that there are more guns in America than there are human beings. There are more guns in America than human beings, and they are easily had. And if someone tries to limit their accessibility, they're going to be challenged by the NRA, the National Rifle Association-one of the most powerful lobbies in this country. That's the common denominator. So if we are serious as a society about stopping this violence, it doesn't behoove us to demonize Muslims. We're here to talk about Muslims, I'm not trying to dodge that, but if behooves us to make it far, far, far more difficult for people to get their hands on a gun. And if we're not willing to do that, it's easy to go blame the Muslims. That's easy and that's why so many people do-it's a national sport. Vilify the Muslims, they're weak, they can't fight back.Of course left unsaid is why we should ban guns on a military base. Shouldn't Major Hassan, a U.S. Army officer, be carrying a gun on such a military base? And what of the quick thinking of the law enforcement personnel on the scene who were well armed?
But "the violence that permeates our society spills over to other shores," Zaid said. To prove his point, Shakir totally misrepresented history, claiming for instance that "the last time any Muslim country encroached upon a Christian country" was "300 years ago, the second Ottoman siege of Vienna," and utterly ignoring the Armenian genocide or the civil war in Lebanon, to name just two quick examples....
There is much more. Read it all.
"....but if behooves us to make it far, far, far more difficult for people to get their hands on a gun..."
It behooves us to ban Muslim Immigration and not allow the Muslims to use guns to gain honor and reconignition from their religious cohorts..
Sorry, he's a liar.
As an expert in military bad-guys; school and mall shooters; wannabe/actual jihadi knuckleheads and snotty, pissed-off Koreans, I can tell you the common denominator is hate.
Sometimes it rides through and is out of the AO in mere moments, sometimes it lingers for weeks or months.
But hate is the eternal elixir of Islam. It is their Gator-Ade and is injected, inhaled, imbibed, shat and spewed by a tribe so delusional and depraved that they think their hate is love and that their willing and fearful submission to the will of a perverse "god" is a/o will bring "peace".
Because Muslims hate, their Islamic hate is the problem.
Please everyone lock your toolboxes! Hammers may drive nails on their own and screwdrivers may cause all kids of havoc!
Guns are inanimate objects, it takes a damned nut or jihadist to kill people.
If I'm not mistaken, guns were banned on the base and the gun used was smuggled on to the base.
Statistically, gun crimes happem more in gun free zones like universities.
Clearly the problem is dim witted liberals trying to erode the Second Amendment.
Islamic scholar: Access to guns, not jihad, to blame for Fort Hood
........................
That explains why American military bases are cauldrons of violence and murder—uh, wait...
more:
"the last time any Muslim country encroached upon a Christian country" was "300 years ago, the second Ottoman siege of Vienna," and utterly ignoring the Armenian genocide or the civil war in Lebanon, to name just two quick examples....
........................
If you change that to "Muslims encroaching upon Christians", add Biafra in Nigeria, Eritrea in Ethiopia, southern Sudan, the southern Philippines, Bosnia, and Kosovo, as well as other parts of Europe and Africa. I'm sure there are more examples.
And if we change "Christians" to "non-Muslims", the list gets even longer...
Well said, undaunted.
"the last time any Muslim country encroached upon a Christian country" was "300 years ago, the second Ottoman siege of Vienna,"
Ziad Shakir, then, is by his wording choosing to ignore all the many attacks by Muslim states, directly or through support for terrorists, on Hindus, Jews, Buddhists in both Muslim-dominated lands and within lands (India, Israel, Thailand). But let's go back, and ask about Muslim countries encoraching upon Christian countries, and not only about Muslim attacks on Christians, as Robert notes above, in Turkey, against what might be considered a nascent state of Armenia, still-born, and in Lebanon against the Maronites for whom Lebanon had always been a refuge, and who have steadily been undermined, first by Sunni, and now by Shi'a, pressure and bullying.
How would Ziad Shakir describe the Sudan -- as one country, or, more properly, as two, with a Muslim North that was spatchcocked onto a largely Christian south, which south has been invaded by Muslims, who have killed nearly two million of those black African Christianists (and some animists).
Similarly, why should we consider the repeated attacks by Northern Musilms in a state created by the British, Nigeria, on the southern Christians, especially the more advanced and entrepreneurial and industrious Ibo, which led to the attempt by those southern Christians to breakaway and declare the indepedence of a state they called Biafra, not to be an example that Ziad Shakir should have to take into account?
And, of course, the attacks by Muslims have only been limited by their power. Until the last few decades they did not possess sufficient power to attack "Christian" countries.
Let's stop right there. Just look: here Ziad Shakir is exposing his Muslim worldview, one in which there are "Christian countries" and "Muslim countries." We, in the West, do not think in terms of "Christian countries" nor, until recently, as we have been forced to by Muslim words and deeds, did we think so much in terms of "Muslim countries." But the likes of Ziad Shakir are causing us to do so.
And we know the only reason Muslim countries did not, ever since the Ottomans were turned back at Vienna in 1683 and then steadily lost ground, especially to a more powerful Russia, is because they were militarily too weak, compared to the nations of Europe. It was not because Jihad, the doctrine and the duty, had disappeared, only that an inability to act upon it caused that doctrine to seem to fall into desuetude.
Now, in the past few decades, largely because of two develoopments. One of those developments is simply the vast transfer of wealth from oil-consuming states to the oil-producing countries of OPEC, with ten of its eleven members being Muslim or, in the case of Nigeria, Muslim-dominated. These Muslim states have taken in more than twelve trillion dollars since 1973 alone, not through an effort on their part but simply because of an accident of geology, and those vast sums have been used to pay for campaigns of Da'wa, the building of mosques and madrasas all over the world, including the non-Muslim part of that world, propganda, armies of Western hirelings, and of course, have also paid for trillions in armaments -- the Arab oil states consistently are the largest buyers of arms, far exceeding any other counries. The second development is the movement of millions of Muslims, unchecked by negligent governments convinced that these would turn out to be immigrants like any other, with some problems at first, no doubt, but soon -- like other immigrants -- woud successfully fit in. It did not end up that way, and anyone who had understood the ideology of Islam, an aggressive and violent ideology, and one which inculcates the idea that Muslims must engage, directly or indirectly, in the struggle or Jihad to make sure that Islam not only spreads, but dominates all over the world (for the world belongs to Allah, and to those who are his Believers), would have screamed to prevent such immigration. But there it is --it may be halted, it can even be reversed, but nonetheless, right now, those Muslims in those countries that Ziad Shakir would descrbe as "Christian countries" are finding that the Muslims in their midst cause all kinds of problems, challenge at every step the social arrangements, and the laws, and the political institutions, and the everyhing, of the countries that so generously gave them "refuge" although refuge from what, since they were Muslims hardly facing persecution in Musilm lands, remains entirely unclear.
No, it is not for want of desire, but merely for want of ability that Muslim states, during recent times -- compare Muslim behavior toward Christendom during the previous millennium, when they did what they could, and they often could do much, to conquer outright, or to harass through incessant raiding, up and down the coasts of Europe, kidnappoing Christians and enslaving them, looting, destroying, and later still, when that became impossible, continuing to raid Christian shipping in the Mediterranean, until the response of the young American Republic, that went to war against the Barbary Pirates, and then, when those Muslim privateers reneged on their promises and went back to raiding, the French conquest of Algeria in 1830 finally put paid to those Muslim attacks.
Of course, Ziad Shakir has asked his question as limitingly, with such cunning, that he would no doubt disallow my reply as not being about "countries." Sure enough, it isn't. Islam is a trans-national ideology, and transcends countries. But its adherents, whose loyalty is to islam and to fellow members of the Umma, are no less dangerous, and perhaps far more dangerous, than if they were merely agents of this or that country.
They represent something bigger, and something not dependent on who is in power in, say, Germany or Japan, or Italy. No, the threat exists because of what Islam inculcates, and what Islam inculcates can, in some cases, be ignored for a while, under certain conditions, by some Muslims, but the ideology, the texts, the tenets, remain uncreated, immutable, permanently threatening to all non-Muslims.
Oh Good Grief.
It's the Jihad Doctrine in Islam. End of story.
i have been around firearms all my life. as a matter of fact,since i was five years old.i never dreamed of shooting anyone. the tigger gets pulled for a reason...in this case it was jihad.only in our adoring multiculural society in which all is relative could anyone dare to justify this heinous act on an intangible object. get ready folks,this is just the beginning of what we may expect,particularily if israel strikes iran....fortunately,most americans don't buy into this woeful attempt to ascribe the cause of this slaughter to the avaliability of firearms. most see it as springing from the vey heart of the muslim faith.IT IS REALLY ON..... FACE IF YOU HOLD DEAR THE VALUES WE CHERISH AND WHICH WERE SECURED AT SUCH A HIGH COST
Be it noted that Zaid Shakir is an American convert whose original name was Ricky Mitchell. He studied for several years in Egypt, Syria and Morocco. He is a signatory to the "Common Word Between Us and You" document, which, as the Barnabas Fund points out, is "a classical example of Islamic da`wa (mission). It is a call to accept the Muslim concept of the unity of God (tawhid) and therefore to reject the incompatible Christian views of the Trinity and the deity of Christ." (This, in accordance with Qur'an 3:64.)
http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/text.php?ID_news_items=342
His proposal that it be made "far, far, far more difficult for people to get their hands on a gun" is an effort to impose upon Americans the disarmament clause of the Pact of Umar, under which the subjugated Christians of Syria agreed (on pain of slaughter) that, inter alia,
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html
It should in fact be made "far, far more difficult" for people such as Mitchell/Shakir to practice a religion that infringes on the rights of free men.
That's it!
Lets take the guns away! Lets neuter America just like the EUro-dhimmies have been neutered and Islam can continue on the victory jihad warpath....
The guy is a genius!
Ah yes, and then this:
"the last time any Muslim country encroached upon a Christian country" was "300 years ago, the second Ottoman siege of Vienna,"
Of course! Cyprus doesn't count, the Armenian genocide doesn't count, the attacks on America's merchant ships in the Mediterranean which caused Thomas Jefferson to build a navy, the Somali pirates, the ongoing wars in Africa, Asia, everywhere where Mohammedanism raised its ugly head do not count. If we allow this to go on, our Mohammedan detractors will wrap us up in pink pussy paper and swallow us whole like a kebab.
You gotta be a lefty loon to buy it.
Hugh Fitzgerald covered it well.
On another note: had a brief, but rather aggravating conversation with 2 Turks in a coffee shop this morning who told me that Germany now has 6 million Mohammedans. I said no more than four, and then the subject was changed to Israel and you can imagine what happened then.....
Papa W
you took the words right off of my keyboard!
I, as I read through the posted article, and as I read the words of sinister Mr Shakir, heard at once the echo of the Pact of Omar: the forbidding of dhimmis, non-Muslims, to have or bear arms. Which, of course, rendered them utterly defenceless.
The disarming of the dhimmis is even worse when combined with the throwaway final clause of the 'Pact' - that 'no dhimmi shall strike a Muslim' - note that this ban does NOT allow for use of force in self-defence. Bat Yeor's books are filled with horrifying historic examples of the fact that any Muslim could inflict upon any dhimmi (including the elderly, children and pregnant women) ANY act of violence whatever - rock-throwing, slapping, kicking, punching, slapping, spitting, pushing to the ground, beating, whipping, robbing - and the dhimmi was expected to submit to this violence, however fiendish, however life-threatening, however utterly unprovoked, without verbal complaint and without ANY attempt at active self-protection.
I would bet my bottom dollar that Mr Shakir fully intends to try to use those domestic non-Muslims who worry about how to regulate the sale and use of guns, and how to prevent events as the Columbine shooting, as a stalking-horse under which to impose, de facto, the Pact of Omar rule that says dhimmis must be weaponless. (Since Muslims would, of course, IGNORE any kafir regs that, with the best of intentions, were brought in to drastically limit gun ownership, use, etc - in fact, I'm willing to bet that if in ANY non-Muslim country today surprise searches were conducted, it would be discovered that many a mosque has an arsenal in the basement, and that many a Muslim household is stuffed with HIGHLY ILLEGAL high-powered weaponry - you would end up with a situation in which non-Muslims were mostly unarmed, and Muslims were armed).
We should not forget that in the UK Muslims use or have tried to use pre-existing local council noise regulations in order to impose the Pact of Omar ban upon the ringing of church bells and upon loud singing and praying in churches. Muslims, of course, themselves ignore such regs when installing mosque loudspeakers and blasting the azhan all over the neighbourhood...
I will add that, if I recall correctly, the Armenians had managed to scrounge up arms, in some places; but the Turkish Muslims mostly managed to deprive them of those arms, before unleashing the genocide. (The Armenian men of military age were targeted first, removed from their communities by various stratagems, before the women, children and elderly were either butchered straight out, in orgies of allahu-akbaring savagery, or killed indirectly by deliberately harsh treatment - starving, deprivation of water, forced marches through desert regions, etc.).
Thanks for the heads-up re. Mr Shakir's being one of the signatories to 'A Common Word'. I shall add him, and this article, to the dossier I am compiling on the members of that list of signatories.
And speaking of dossiers - if Mr Shakir 'was described by John Esposito as one of the "500 Most Influential Muslims.' - does anyone know whether that list of '500 Most Influential Muslims' is available for perusal? And does it comprise a list 'from all time' (e.g. a list featuring such historic figures as Alfarabi, Al-Rhazes, Avicenna, Averroes etc.) or is it like the annual 'Forbes 500', restricted to the here-and-now?
If it's a 'here-and-now' list of '500 Most Influential Muslims', featuring persons currently above ground and active, it might make for very interesting study, when examined in conjunction with, say, the MEMRI files. And it could perhaps reveal a great deal about Mr Esposito himself.
This talking zombie, Imam Zaid Shakir , almost had it right.
Insanity, madness and deeply suppressed hate are what in actuality tie all these murderers.
In one group you have a case of deranged, psychotic individuals who are driven to their dastardly acts by a biological abnormality where as the other,by far much larger group, is driven by the implanted teachings of the Koran, an ideology to which by definition every muslim adheres to, including the imam.. Imam Zaid Shakir is distracting everybody away from the real cause behind the many murders committed in the name of islam. His attempt at damage control is pathetically absurd .I’m unable to imagine anyone outside of islam believing his pure nonsense.
Gun access is the reason the Ft. Hood shootings were as bad as they were. The soldiers, trained and disciplined to use guns properly, were disarmed on their own military base by our own government. If even just the officers were carrying around their side arms the event would have been a non-starter with one dead crazed fanatical Muslim instead of dead soldiers.
So, yes, gun access is to blame for the magnitude of the event. But it surely isn't too much. The problem was too little access to weapons.
Of course, if the Muslim doctor soldier was a civilized person rather than a deluded boob trying to live by a 7th century creed of hatred there would have been no reason to notice the soldiers' lack of weapons.
{^_^}
{^_^}
The one thing i've come to notice when any Muslim gives a commentary in regards to any troubles is, it's always someone elses fault.
When will they, (Muslims), take responsibility for their own actions instead of passing the blame onto others.
This 'I'm the poor victim' card is wearing thin.
http://newstime.co.nz/2010/koran-declaration-of-open-ended-war-against-the-infidels.html
NOT A PROBLEM OF THE QURAN???
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks (BEHEADINGS OF UNBELIEVERS) and smite all their finger-tips off them."">008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
005.038
YUSUFALI: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.
I hope the school brings someone in to offer an opposing point of view.
I am so sick of Muslims pointing out disturbed individuals who commit murder as equivalents to Muslims who kill Kuffar in accordance with the duty of Islamic Jihad. Killing unbelievers is part of Islamic doctrine.
There is no comparison.
As far as guns go. Perhaps fewer people would have been killed if the guards had guns and people with the proper permits had their concealed weapons loaded and ready.
"The reason for the Ft. Hood Massacre, according to Shakir? Not jihad or Islamic fundamentalism, but the "pervasiveness of violence in our society" and because of Americans' "easy access to guns.""
And I suppose 9/11 was due to the easy availability of aircraft?
And the London Tube bombings were due to the easy availability of explosives?
A quick count of my firearms reveals 28 long guns and 5 handguns on premises. One of those handguns is on me as I sit here typing. The remaining overflow is stored in friends' gun safes.
Needless to say, I have an abundance of ammunition to feed all those firearms (except for the 9.4mm Dutch). I know how to use all of them, and as my board name would indicate, I ENJOY using them and am a pretty good marksman. Still, in spite of the ready access to firearms and ammunition on my property, I have never even been slightly tempted to go and slaughter people. Even while in Iraq at the height of the insurgency, I went out of my way to spare life, not take it. To this day, I hope my decisions to spare life (when I would have been legally justified in taking it) did not endanger my fellow soldiers.
What could possibly be the difference between me and the jihadists? Could it be that I am a law-abiding, American Christian as opposed to an islamist of any nationality? Could it be because I follow the teachings of Christ as opposed to the teachings of the pedophile muslim prophet? Not according to Imam Zaid Shakir!
BTW, anyone with some 9.4mm Dutch ammo for sale should contact me ASAP.......ROTFL!!!!
What is more dangerous, ability or motivation?
Police officers carry guns, they have the 'ability', but not the 'motivation' to do harm.
A criminal wants to harm someone, he has the 'motivation', but has only his hands, so little 'ability'.
Which one would you fear?
Now, US has nukes, but no intention to use them. Jihadists don't have the same abilities, but they sure use everything they get their hands on.
Muhammed Bear | February 10, 2010 8:04 PM | Reply
If I'm not mistaken, guns were banned on the base and the gun used was smuggled on to the base.
Correct Bear, which is why this cowardly pos "psychiatrist" opened up on unarmed military, instead of a group of duck hunters. "Guns Are The Problem!" (especially if you plan to shoot a lot of people, but those same people are all armed) This, of course, brings us to the famous "72 Virgins Theory" ... more on that later.
I knew it! I predicted that the Islamists would start after our guns. It's the only way they can assault America; they must first disarm us before they can rape us.
So now the Islamists will join with the Brady bunch to try to infringe on our 2A rights. Look for more of this kind of thing, lots of "concerned" Muslims crying about "gun violence" in America.
The dhimmedia will lie down and prostitute themselves to the Islamists, as usual. They will try to make law abiding gun owners look like criminals.
I am actually surprised it took so long for the Islamists to team up with the Bradys against civilization. Maybe they are developmentally delayed.
Everyone against firearm ownership is against civilization, since only personal firearms stand between us and tyranny. Anyone who denies this is simply denying reason.
Forewarned is forearmed.
"Maybe they [Islamists] are developmentally-delayed."
Maybe?
I suggest machetes, saws, knives and all other implements capable of beheading / dismembering a human be banned also.
"How would Ziad Shakir describe the Sudan -- as one country, or, more properly, as two, with a Muslim North that was spatchcocked onto a largely Christian south, which south has been invaded by Muslims, who have killed nearly two million of those black African Christianists (and some animists)."
spatch⋅cock [spach-kok] Show IPA
–noun
1. a fowl that has been dressed and split open for grilling.
–verb (used with object)
2. to prepare and roast (a fowl) in this manner.
3. to insert or interpolate, esp. in a forced or incongruous manner: Additional information has been spatchcocked into the occasional random footnote.
I had to look it up.
Innocents Betrayed - Gun Control History and Genocide - Part 1
Innocents Betrayed - Gun Control History and Genocide - Part 2
Innocents Betrayed - Gun Control History and Genocide - Part 3
Innocents Betrayed - Gun Control History and Genocide - Part 4
Innocents Betrayed - Gun Control History and Genocide - Part 5
"And I suppose 9/11 was due to the easy availability of aircraft?" Grimly amusing and oh-so-true.
Poor Maj. Hasan! He's a victim of cicumstance. He was merely in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The gun had everything under control. It didn't need Maj. Hasan to hold, aim, and fire it, right? Right?
New Delhi, Feb 11 (ANI): Delhi police has detained a 61-year old American national at the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) airport just before he was to was to board a Qatar- bound flight after a sharp object was found in his baggage.
Buzz up!The special cell of the Delhi police and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) is now questioning the man identified as Winston Marshall, who was also carrying a fake passport along with the sharp object.
Sources said Marshall is now being questioned by the investigating agencies and the American mission has been informed about the same.
Marshall is a convert from Christianity to Islam and had arrived in India for the first time a fortnight ago on a tourist visa. He has a tourist visa to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and arrived here from Pakistan.
Airport sources claimed that during the security check, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officials found the knife 'concealed between an herbal plant following which he was handed over to the police. (ANI)
The whole mess was a direct result of soldiers not having immediate access to guns.
Soldiers disarmed by their own government on their military base. Who has ever heard of something like that? Don't we have soldiers for defense purposes? How are they going to defend themselves without weapons?
If they carried their guns with them, there wouldn't have been any victims,except for that Jihad Doctor.
Oh my. I fear for America.
Come on, Zaid! You're peeing down our legs & trying to tell us it's raining!
Zaid, this is weak stuff from a "leading intellectual light!" If you weren't a muslim you should be ashamed! The only reason morons like you can stand up there & call-out Columbine & Virginia Tech is that in civilized societies these are the EXCEPTIONS! Violent lunatics can be found in every country, we have our share. Ahhh, but enter islam, where violent lunatic-ism is taught, preached, applauded and perpetrated in EVERY COUNTRY whose societies they despoil. Just business as usual for you folks, eh Zaid? Societies' inherent quantity of violent lunatics vs your
PRODUCTION-LINE of violent lunatics. Sorry, old buddy, that dog ain't gonna' hunt...
Oh, and Zaid...You think you're coming for our guns? God (the real one) grant that I be alive on that day!!
This BS reminds me of a talking head here that stated, "The abundance of guns in Anchorage is turning our children in to criminals."
Yeah...and flies cause garbage.
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
Guns don't kill people...people with a koran and a gun kill people.
Islam itself, the whole bloody, wonderfully diverse and unmonolithic mess, has been spatchcocked onto the world. The world has enough problems without this metastatically pulsating, obsessively voracious alien tumor clinging to it and trying at every opportunity to insinuate its tendrils and tentacles into it.
Exactly Hesperado, and as with the proper treatment and cure,some non-malignant tissue (dormant "moderate" muslim) has to be sacrificed to save the host.
No more muslim immigration, mosques are little fortifications for those who kill and add to the suffering of people of this nation.We need to keep informing the world so they can learn about the little terrorist book,the koran, and their invader, paedophile and murder "prophet".
Islam kills Americans, and will kill many many more,
it is at war with US, and I already, as a citizen of this country, in it's defence have declared war against it.
I'm at war with islam!
Live free or Die.
In my corner of the world, since independence Muslim Indonesia occupied:
- South Moluccas - Ambon and other islands (Christian) in 1949-1950
- West Papua (Christian and Animist) in 1963
- East Timor (Christian) in 1975
Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 (but Cyprus was 18% muslim)
I don't keep track of wars between African countries closely enough to know which of those was Muslim attacking Christian, but Somalia invaded Ethiopia in 1977.
In the 19th century, the Barbary states kept raiding Spain and Sardinia until 1830, Persia attacked Russia in 1803 and 1826.
As Hugh said, "Muslim country encroached upon a Christian country" is a careful wording designed to exclude invasions of India by Pakistan, Thailand by Malaysia, attacks on British Egypt, or other European colonies, the siezure of the Suez canal, and all the Muslim rebel movements trying to ethnically cleanse areas that were 20% Muslim (Phillipines, Thailand, Nigeria, ...).
Not surprising that Prof. John Esposito of Georgetown U. would think highly of this man. I read Prof. Esposito's book Understanding Islam, trying to get a handle on the 9/11 mentality. He does discuss the concept of Dar el Islam, the World of Islam, but nowhere in the book, the text, index or glossary, is there any mention of Dar el Harb, the World of War. Fortunately I was not relying on him for this information, but the friend who lent me the book was. If there was one piece of information the American public needed in order to "understand" why we were attacked, it was this deliberate omission.
Time to clean these guys out of our universities.
A couple of comments:
first: In Switzerland, almost every adult male citizen is a member of the Army, and has his weapon, an assault rifle, in his home. Yet I haven't heard of any "snapping" in Switzerland.
second: In the most atrocious cases, like 9-11 and the bombings of the London underground and the Madrid commuter train, guns weren't used at all. And these attacks were planned well in advance, and involved numerous attackers, so they were hardly cses of someone "snapping".