55 seconds of truth from Geert Wilders

You are quite right.
Obama made clear who he sides with in the book that was written for him by his terrorist buddy Ayers...

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction..."

Things are gettin' ugly for sure.

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

AlaskanInfidel, you have quoted the Obama book incorrectly. Did you do that on purpose? Or are you a dupe?

If we spread lies, we actually hurt our own efforts to resist Islamization. You actually help Islam by bringing disrepute on the anti-Islam movement and giving it a reputation for lying and glaring inaccuracy. You should find out what the actual quotation is (a ten-second search on the internet can get one the correct quote, and another minute or so should allow one to verify it by an actual search online through the Obama book). The impression that results from Obama's actual words in the book is very different from the lie that you, perhaps unintentionally, have helped to spread here.

You don't get the distinction perhaps because you have insufficient contact with Muslims. I hate Islam, but I love a couple of Muslims I've known. One of them is Sufi, and the other claims to be and seems to be not very religious. Having come to know them some, I feel some love for them, even though I hate Islam. That is the sort of thing Wilders is referring to. That is I think also part of what Spencer is referring to when he distinguishes between Muslims and Islam.

Really, the point seems fairly simple: We would love to see Islam as a doctrine turned to ashes. We wouldn't love to see all human beings of Muslim background turned to ashes. We want to kill a doctrine. The human beings we want to redeem, if possible, and kill only those we must kill if killing is necessary to defend ourselves. We want to save every individual we possibly can, because every individual is an image of God and has within a divine spark. The same is not true of Islam.

A son of a founder of Hamas converted to Christianity. He, the convert, says that Muslim human beings, even the terrorists, have more morality than the Qur'an and the God it portrays. The son of a Hamas terrorist thus makes the same distinction: the one between Muslim human beings and Islam itself. Islam itself is monstrous. Even the worst terrorist Muslim cannot entirely suppress all humanity within himself.

And many Muslims feel themselves Muslims in terms of family identification, much more than in terms of Islamic doctrine, which they may barely know. The family members the Muslim loves and is loved by are generally all Muslims. That love is expressed in the context of various Islamic rituals, festivals, traditions. To some Muslims, that is all they know of Islam.

Really, isn't group guilt a crucial part of what we are fighting when we resist Islamization? Aren't we fighting for the Western reverence for the individual, as revealed in Athens and Jerusalem? Your difficulty in understanding the distinction between particular Muslim human beings on the one hand and the doctrine of Islam on the other is a difficulty in understanding that in the West, we don't judge individuals merely as members of groups.

As soon as you do think only in terms of groups, you are, at least at that moment, not a Westerner in spirit. You've missed the point. Might as well join the Communists, the Nazis, or Islam if you start thinking in terms of collective guilt.

Anyone who chooses to be a Muslim should be held accountable in some way for that choice, should be asked to publicly disavow and reject the jihad and sharia aspects of Islam and Muhammad. So there is at least that collective responsibility, I think. But it seems clear that Muslims are not to be treated quite the same way as Islam, and the distinction Geert and Spencer makes is valid.

Pray for his wife, too. I'm sure she must be tremendously proud of him, but she must surely also be just as frightened as if he were going out into a field of battle every day...because he *is*. Every day she must wonder whether she's going to hear he's been shot, or blown up by some mad Muslim murder-'martyr'.

And it must all put a tremendous strain on their marriage; pray they can just keep on keeping on.

Very good traeh, I know that were I to try to articulate the difference between being against Islam, but not against Muslims, to our own ally darcy, I would get a big headache, so difficult it would be for me. Thank you very much for doing it for me.

Muslims are complex human beings, with many excellent genes and qualities, I respect and love a lot of them deeply. They should never on account of those genes be discriminated in any way. But yes, they should be held accountable for their loyalty to that damned religion.

They make the mistake of mixing love and loyalty for and to their loved ones and community with love and loyalty to that damned religion, man-made totalitarian system, brainwashed from childhood as they are. Threathened with violence and shunning and loneliness if they leave it. Promised an imaginary heaven if they believe and an imaginary hell if they don't.

Failing to make the distinction of being against Islam but not against Muslims, that is the biggest fault of the Political Correct People, like Labour's Wouter Bos, who steadfastly refuse to accept this of Wilders.

And they are the ones who, together with the Muslims themselves, are endless exonerating Islam of all bad influence, shielding it in a stupid way, because the evidence in writings and declarations of self-confessed Muslims is there for all to see.

Stupid too, because these helpers of Islam are often people who themselves must recognize that Islam is not DIVINELY ordained, but just manmade. And these apologists attack and debunk so much that is manmade, including the Freedom Party, but they obey the Muslims in the prohibition of giving Islam a special "Divine" treatment.

Yet, with the beliefsystem of Islam in tatters, or at least comprehensively relegated only to private life of people, firmly subordinated to modern Democratic rules, with acguiescence of that by the majority of Muslims worldwide, there would be an end to the current controversy. And it would not kill Islam, but Islam reigning supreme would kill Democracy!

Very good points, Traeh.

"A son of a founder of Hamas converted to Christianity. He, the convert, says that Muslim human beings, even the terrorists, have more morality than the Qur'an and the God it portrays. The son of a Hamas terrorist thus makes the same distinction: the one between Muslim human beings and Islam itself. Islam itself is monstrous. Even the worst terrorist Muslim cannot entirely suppress all humanity within himself."

I'm 150% certain that it wasn't a pack of yobs shouting "Raghead!" who convinced the Hamas founder's son to abandon Islam.

"And many Muslims feel themselves Muslims in terms of family identification, much more than in terms of Islamic doctrine, which they may barely know. The family members the Muslim loves and is loved by are generally all Muslims. That love is expressed in the context of various Islamic rituals, festivals, traditions. To some Muslims, that is all they know of Islam."

Isn't that so, so true of almost and group?

I frankly and freely admit that for me, 9/11 and Jihadi resurgence should have been a wake-up call that life itself is a holy war waged by the Messiah for the City of Mansoul (title of one of the lesser-known works of John Bunyan). Something like Islam cannot be defeated by bombs; nor can it be defeated by expelling immigrant communities (whom modern legal culture can't distinguish except by countries of origin). After all, I understand that even the impeccably English Bertrand Russell had a brother who converted to Islam.

While I am a the sort of Christian who accepts the "just war" doctrine, I cannot but stress that the most fundamentalist Christian view of the holy war is that its weapons are spiritual--prayer, preaching, ethical living, etc. Further, one of the hardest tactics out there is letting Muslims know that the Gospel is a door through which they are invited to enter, not a club held over their heads.

And, since we have Muslim immigration to historically Christian areas, is it not a good time to loudly and plainly ask why this is so? Is it not a tacit admission by Muslims themselves that the lands where their tradition is dominant have little to show, while those where Bible-oriented Christianity was allowed to take root and flourish got blessed? And, if they scorn the Hollywood anti-culture, would it not be right to say that it--like the Islamic way of life in which Sodomy and all other vices are so prevalent--is a rebellion against Jesus, the Anointed of God, as he is presented in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments?

So, I pray too for Mynheer Wilders, that he would know the light of Christ and be all the better a defender of the civilization he loves.

"You don't get the distinction perhaps because you have insufficient contact with Muslims."

I don't want any contact with Muslims, thank you. I also don't want any contact with Fascists and Nazis.

No, you join the Communists or Nazis, and keep your stupid political correctness to yourself.

"Very good traeh, I know that were I to try to articulate the difference between being against Islam, but not against Muslims, to our own ally darcy, I would get a big headache, so difficult it would be for me. Thank you very much for doing it for me."

Bugger off, you PC Idiot. You ARE a headache. I'm *so* glad you didn't "articulate" - I was saved that nonsense. Thank You!

Darcy, chill out and don't get so angry. It's a discussion. You can disagree without turning purple and thumping people into the ground. Why not just calmly disagree?

Someone made the point that it's the people following PC who can't distinguish between Islam and Muslims. If you say Islam is monstrous, the PC types say you are saying that all Muslims are monstrous. So in that, you seem to agree with the PC types: you refuse to distinguish between Islam and Muslims.

And no, what I'm saying is not PC, and it is not a mere political tactic, as someone else suggested: it's a core value that emerges from ancient Greece and from the Judeo-Christian tradition, i.e., from what we call the West: the West doesn't judge individuals as nothing more than members of groups, except when the West either betrays its own values, or when the West, in order to survive, must compromise those values. Those values are central to who we are, they are not some mere tactic, or some cowardly, conformist, political correctness.

The individual is sacred to us, because made, as the Bible puts it, "in the image" of God, a God Who, when asked "his" name, called himself "I Am." I Am. That is roughly the meaning of Yahwey, or Jehovah. God in other traditions is not named "I Am." More to the point, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the "I Am" is believed by many to have incarnated in a human being two thousand years ago. Thus the individual is sacred with us, sacred first of all to the Judeo-Christian tradition, even though Jews and Christians have so often failed and betrayed that tradition. In other cultures, the individual was far less recognized. Groups were what counted.

In fact the whole concept of individual, unrepeatable history comes mainly out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Prior to that, time worldwide was treated more or less as a circle, and individuals were treated more or less as just repetitions of one or another eternal pattern or archetype. Events themselves were considered more or less as repetitions of eternal, cyclical patterns. When an event or a person deviated from those patterns, that was generally considered a fall, a meaningless error. The Jews more or less discovered unique, unrepeatable, individual history as a value in itself, though the discovery had also been elsewhere emerging very partially and gradually over the course of eons.

In the West, thinking mainly in terms of groups is what fervent adherents of Nazism, Communism, and Islam do. By contrast, when those with Western values treat individuals as nothing more than members of collectives, it's one of two things: a failure, or an unavoidable compromise.

For example, it might make sense to use some kind of security profiling at airports, even though that would tend to treat Muslims as a group. The situation is sufficiently extreme that maybe profiling is an unavoidable compromise between our values and our need to protect our future and survive. One could say the same about immigration restrictions. Finding ways to keep Muslims from coming to the West would compromise our values, but maybe some such restrictions are necessary to save those very values, which are under increasing threat, particularly now in Europe, where Muslims look to become a majority within a generation or two. No Muslim-majority nation is particularly good at respecting individual conscience, and most Muslim-majority nations are horrific in that respect. So the West seems within its rights to do more to prevent that developing here.

I expected that kind of insulting reply from you.

No, you don't turn purple and thump people into the ground. Why can't you just calmly disagree? So, chill out and don't get so angry, k?

On the Geert Wilders thread before this one, I posted:

"I can't agree with Geert on his "Islam no/Muslims yes" platform."

To which "Alarmed Pig Farmer" replied:

"Wilders is a profound disappointment. His half-assed protest is baked in fear of what the consequences would be for Infidels if he or some other public figure would dare to tell the whole truth, which is the real truth.

*** 33:21 ***

He does not represent hope; he represents only a somewhat slower slide into the Hell that has been sucking us down for 1,399 years now."

Now, I would appreciate that you traeh not reply to me anymore as we obviously disagree 100% so there's no point. I'm not interested in your political correctness. Neither is the poster I quoted above, plus many others. If you can't help yourself but to reply with more insults and PC'ness, that's your problem.

Thank you PJG,

Perhaps a key reason why I understand Geert Wilders's stand on being against the evil ideology Islam but not against Muslims per se, is the conversion of what we are against to what we are FOR.

And that basically is all the great Democratic values and rules, Golden Rule, Human Rights, our Western heritage.

The Muslims call us Kuffar, in a sense saying that we "miss the incredibly valuable message from Allah". Well, if we focus on what we are for, then we can turn the tables on them: Muslims miss much of the better values and rules of the Western society, due to their infatuation and addiction and submission to their 7th century manmade totalitarian mythical beliefsystem.

It is not what Muslims have that I hate, but it is what they miss, what I like them to give. And what we already have, that is what I like to defend.

Very good traeh, I agree with your assessment, that Wilder's position that we should neutralize Islam, while not be against Muslim persons per se is true. In yours:

"A son of a founder of Hamas converted to Christianity. He, the convert, says that Muslim human beings, even the terrorists, have more morality than the Qur'an and the God it portrays. The son of a Hamas terrorist thus makes the same distinction: the one between Muslim human beings and Islam itself. Islam itself is monstrous. Even the worst terrorist Muslim cannot entirely suppress all humanity within himself."

That is the saving grace for ALL human beings, that we have the brains which when used properly can help us change our errors in ways that make us more a part of humanity. This is even true for Muslims, though they wallow in the fog of their vicious Mohammadan doctrines, they are not beyond saving as human beings. It is regrettable that we sometimes are so blinded by our fears that we lose sight of this important fact: ALL human beings are capable of a higher order of thinking, which is what makes us human in the first place. Abandoning fellow human beings to the regressive ideology of Islam is not an option. All need to be helped out of that vicious cycle of hatred and fear, of the cult that worships death. From Magdi Allam to Mosab Hassan Yousef, there is hope.

George,
How do we know which Muslims will defect and which ones will not?
Many well known folks who are speaking out against Islam were themselves once Muslims.
To mention a few...Gabriela,forgot her last name, Wafa Sultan, Oriana Fallici(mispelled), the Son of Hamas guy, forgot his name, and there are many, many others who really know the evil of Islam...here is one whom many here know...Rifqa Bary. I must apologise for my failing memory on names...the arabic language is difficult for me to remember, and names are especially rough for me.
These precious people were once the enemy. So, how can we just hate all Muslims hands down because they are Islamic? There will be many more Muslims who will come out of Islam and they will be some of the strongest and most informed opponents of it.
So, we CAN distinguish between the Muslim and Islam...for all we know, any one of them could at any time give serious thot to what their religion has been and is teaching, and realize how evil it is, and step forth up and out of the quagmire that is Islam.

The spread of Islam in the West is often compared to the Black Plague, and rightly so. That's called figurative language, it's not literal, like your example of a person who literally has Aids. Comparing the ideology of Islam to a human being with AIDS is not an analogy.

Figuratively speaking, Islam is a malevolent virus infecting the West. That's why Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician, has decided to take a stand against it. Before his country is inexorably consumed by the pernicious virus of Islam.

Many things in this world deserve to be hated and despised: Fascism, Nazism, Islam, as examples. It's a good thing we can hate - otherwise we could only like or love Fascism, Nazism, and Islam. And then we'd be in a sorry, sorry, state.

"Gabriela,(sic)forgot her last name"

Brigitte Gabriel is a Lebanese Christian. She has never been a Muslim.

"Oriana Fallici(mispelled)"

Oriana Fallaci is an Italian Catholic from Florence. She was never a Muslim. (Riposa in Pace).

Of course there are individuals who will recognize the horror of Islam and become Apostates. But here we are generally speaking - there are millions upon millions who will not. They are our enemy.

Hi Bronish,

I surely think you're right about people who've "seen the light," and defected from islam. Kudos to them! I would have to ask, though, if these aren't the exceptions? And if they are the exceptions, is that a fair tradeoff for the damage that thousands, millions, of muslim immigrants can wreak on host-cultures?

My answer to that is: NO!

G

George and Darcy,
Thanks for the corrections, Darcy. I honestly thot those folks were ex-Muslims. I guess the only one I got right is Rifqa. But I KNOW there are many more.

And to George,
Well, I think we'd here in America should drop the PC and really begin serious profiling, and I like the way Geert Wilders thinks...the whole world needs to wake up to the growing monster of Islam.

Apparently, the numbers of Muslims are increasing dramatically around the world, and that troubles me greatly...while at the same time, populations seem to be on the wane in other countries....very troubling.

Eventually, Lincoln's wise approach proved the best way.

Wellington, I think you momentarily forgot a couple of little details, like the Civil War (one of the top ten most horrible wars in modern history) and consequent upon that the Reconstruction by which the American government basically occupied the South for years and forced social and institutional change there. I.e., unavoidable factors got in the way of Lincoln's wise approach and in fact unavoidably compelled an approach monstrously different -- that of war and occupation (not to mention his own directly related assassination by a cell of South-sympathizing terrorists).

bronish wrote:

So, we CAN distinguish between the Muslim and Islam...for all we know, any one of them could at any time give serious thot to what their religion has been and is teaching, and realize how evil it is, and step forth up and out of the quagmire that is Islam.

Unfortunately, there's a flip side to this formula: for all we know, any one of them could also be a stealth jihadist or a sudden violent jihadist. At this juncture, I would invoke a nice phrase that dumbledoresarmy used (not sure if she coined it), which captures the problem with this in a nutshell:

I don't want to play Muslim Roulette.

And when this Muslim Roulette endangers not only my life, but also the lives of my friends, loved ones, neighbors and fellow citizens, then I take offense to those promoting rhetoric and even possibly various policy measures that will tend to make that deadly game all the deadlier.

"Oriana Fallaci is an Italian Catholic from Florence. She was never a Muslim. (Riposa in Pace)."

Fallaci was an atheist most of her life, though culturally she grew up a Catholic (this, by the way, being precisely the kind of socio-psychological phenomenon of secularization which has become so common in the modern West, which starry-eyed sentimentalists erroneously think must also pertain to the Muslim world as well because, hey, we're all the same at heart, right?).

Toward the end of her life, when the problem of Islam in its full magnitude dawned on her, Fallaci developed a paradoxical way of describing herself as a "Catholic Atheist".

PJG,

Sounds good to me!

I'm not interested in your political correctness. Neither is the poster I quoted above, plus many others.

I don't know how "many others", I am afraid too few. In any case do count me in, Darcy.

The PC jingle "I hate Islam, but love (some) Muzzlems" is not only silly and useless, but it sabotages and disrupts the effort to repel islam's invasion of our world.

Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, Don Juan of Austria, or Richard Lionheart could perhaps afford the jingle because it would not interfere with their business of stopping the invasion through killing moslems on the battlefield.
But today Islams strategy is not military conquest, but through swamping our world with “peaceful”, “charming” or “tax paying” and dialogue seeking, fast – very fast, breeding moslems. The battle field has spread to every small nook of our world and our life. The soldiers of islam don’t kill us anymore - they fool us. Making a westerner blabber about charming, sweet moslems is to make him vacillate and lose the true picture of the situation. A, not so small, victory for islam.

"The soldiers of islam don’t kill us anymore - they fool us. "

Thomas, you articulate well the problem of the stealth/demographic jihad, but in doing so you minimize the continuing danger of deadly attacks from Muslims. Muslims are still killing us, and still plotting to kill us.

Stealth Jihad is not at odds with Violent Jihad: they work together symbiotically. And PC MC further facilitates this, because every time a Muslim has exploded, the West has become more accommodating and apologetic toward Muslims, not less as one would do if one were rational.

"The soldiers of islam don’t kill us anymore - they fool us. "

Thomas, you articulate well the problem of the stealth/demographic jihad, but in doing so you minimize the continuing danger of deadly attacks from Muslims. Muslims are still killing us, and still plotting to kill us.

Stealth Jihad is not at odds with Violent Jihad: they work together symbiotically. And PC MC further facilitates this, because every time a Muslim has exploded, the West has become more accommodating and apologetic toward Muslims, not less as one would do if one were rational.

"The PC jingle "I hate Islam, but love (some) Muzzlems" is not only silly and useless, but it sabotages and disrupts the effort to repel islam's invasion of our world."

Agree, Thomas.

And Hesp, thanks for your comments about me, which are correct. I draw no distinction between Muzlims and Islam. They are the same. Yes, I know about Oriana and her "Catholic atheist," but in the end I believe she would choose "Catholic" much more than "atheist."

"Even darcy might feel this way about, say, the Muslim CEO and founder of the women's outreach organization, Women for Women International, Zainab Salbi, particularly if darcy met her and talked with her, as Salbi from her writings and her life's work of helping women around the world seems to be a wonderful person --"

I have never met or talked with Zainab. I only donate - for over 3 years now. The organization helps MANY different kinds of oppressed women, such as rape victims in the Congo, to starving poverty-stricken women in the Sudan. I don't know her views on Islam, but I do know that my money helps third-world women around the world. That's what I care about.

Thomas_h: Speaking as someone who is a bit "hard-edged" about his religious beliefs (the Reformed wing of Protestantism), I can understand the "PeeCee" jingle of hating Islam but loving Muslims. Jesus Christ so loved various Pharisees and Amme ha-Aretz (while hating the extra traditions of the one and the carelessness of the other) that he made disciples of some of them, and through them spread his word throughout the world. Apparently, this same Jesus for whom Islam is anathema also loves Muslims enough to have called a fair number of them out of their error: Walid SHoebat, Mosab Hussein Yussef, Rifqa Bary and a few lesser people in our own days and people such as Abdul Haqq (the father of Billy Graham's Indian associate), Said Kurdistani, Mansur Sang, and numerous others in times past.

And so I can respect Mynheer Wilders' statements and see more sincerity than is usual in politicians.

Read your posts, Hesperado. Sorry, but I disagree with you for two reasons. First, I would argue that Wilders right now is pushing the envelope on what is politically feasible at the moment. We sit in cloistered rooms and opine without consequences. Wilders functions in a brutal arena where compromises must be made to survive and win. He's going for 75% and you want him to go for 100%. Not possible right now. He's the realist here.

Second, if Islam is to eventually be put on the trash heap of history, it is imperative that not only the bulk of non-Muslims see the evil which is in Islam, but also that a large number of Muslims recognize this. Desertion of Islam by multitudes of Muslims is an almost absolute necessity for eventual victory over this malevolent ideology. Describe all Muslims as the enemy and you will push many of them who would in the long run leave their warped faith back upon it and thereafter be only emotional in assessing it, thus assuring that few Muslims will abandon their religion. Think long term here and think in a super practical way. It's Abraham Lincoln versus William Lloyd Garrison all over again. And who was the wiser of these two?

thomas,

I wrote: Stealth Jihad is not at odds with Violent Jihad: they work together symbiotically."

You responded:

Correct, but to a point. To work together symbiotically requires very fine tuning and balancing act in terms of timing, intensity, assessment of current political domestic and global situation and so on. It needs a lot of intelligent control, which is almost impossible in absence of unified Islamic strategic centre regulating and coordinating the actions of some “fighting structure” as it has been in the time of the cold war.

You didn't factor in what I wrote about PC MC.

PC MC makes all the difference in the world here. With PC MC in play in the West, Stealth Jihad and Violent Jihad have, in fact, been working hand in glove quite effectively. Every time a Muslim explodes, the West bends over backwards to placate Muslims more, not less (as rationality would normally dictate).

Muslims may be intellectually challenged in many ways, but they are not stupid when it comes to figuring out ways to advance their obsessive fanaticism. It is reasonable to assume that years ago they noticed how PC MC facilitates their project both in Stealth terms and in Violent terms -- and how the latter in a perversely paradoxical way, given the stupidity of PC MC in the West, actually serves to facilitate the former.

Of course, there is a limit, even when dealing with stupid PC MCs, on how much violence Muslims can get away with. I am convinced that Muslims know this, and are calibrating how many attacks -- and what degree of attacks -- they can perpetrate and still faciliate their agenda. Tragicomically, they obviously can get away with far more than should be tolerable -- and they know that.

Wellington,

First, I would argue that Wilders right now is pushing the envelope on what is politically feasible at the moment. We sit in cloistered rooms and opine without consequences. Wilders functions in a brutal arena where compromises must be made to survive and win. He's going for 75% and you want him to go for 100%. Not possible right now. He's the realist here.

I never said he shouldn't be doing what he's doing. I have only been pointing out that what he's doing is intellectually incoherent. Perhaps in dysfunctional Third World societies, one can pursue incoherent policies and rationales forever, but in the West, the chickens of incoherency will come home to roost at some point. In one of my posts (perhaps you didn't see this one) I conceded that the Wilders strategy may be "as good as it gets" -- for now -- and may help to facilitate the long-term process of evolving from incoherence-from-necessity to coherence. I also added that if that process of evolution is going to happen, we need people to actually think and believe it in the meantime. It's not going to pop into existence on its own. (I.e., we need a little good cop/bad cop tactics of our own.)

"Second, if Islam is to eventually be put on the trash heap of history..."

Putting Islam on the trash heap of history is not my goal. I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald that the most reasonable expectation we can have is to optimally manage Islam. To superimpose the stupendous serendipity of the collapse of the U.S.S.R. onto the Muslim world, and hope for a similar collapse there, is reckless and ignorant of the profoundly fanatical, historically rich underpinnings of Islamic sociology and psychology.

Desertion of Islam by multitudes of Muslims is an almost absolute necessity for eventual victory over this malevolent ideology.

It depends on how you define "victory". I see victory as management. Deport all Muslims. Enforce their geographical delimitation behind a line giving them a vast swath of land from Indonesia to Morocco. Cut them off from all trade with the outside world. In 100 years, they will still be there, but in a horrible state of disarray and disorganization, due to the normative factors of Islamic societies without outside help. At that point, if the Free World saw fit, it could stride in and conquer. Or it could just leave it alone and maintain the global quarantine.

But to expect Muslims in numbers sufficient to make a difference to our self-defense needs to change? I can't agree that is possible. And furthermore, the expectation itself is reckless, counterproductive, and dangerous for us, insofar is it may ever inform policy.

Describe all Muslims as the enemy and you will push many of them...

So merely "describing" them is going to make them mass-murder us and countenance mass-murder of us? If so, they are not to be trusted as a human resource to help us solve the problem of their Islam. You sorely, grievously underestimate the unique fanaticism of Muslims. You just haven't gotten the epiphany yet, apparently, of the utter Otherness of Muslims.

darcy,

I have never met or talked with Zainab. I only donate - for over 3 years now. The organization helps MANY different kinds of oppressed women, such as rape victims in the Congo, to starving poverty-stricken women in the Sudan. I don't know her views on Islam, but I do know that my money helps third-world women around the world. That's what I care about.

If you read my previous post about Zainab's organization (the link to it is above), you would realize that your dollars are, in part, going to support Islamic agendas. With all your strong language against Muslims, I can't understand why you are supporting an organization that is run by a Muslim who believes in advancing Muslim causes and who is piggy-backing Islamic agendas onto the broader humanitarian projects pursued by her organization.

Hesp, I'm thinking in terms of "women," Not "Islam," when I donate.

As I said, raped women benefit, starving women benefit. These have nothing to do with Islam.

"But to expect Muslims in numbers sufficient to make a difference to our self-defense needs to change? I can't agree that is possible. And furthermore, the expectation itself is reckless, counterproductive, and dangerous for us, insofar is it may ever inform policy." - Hesp

Agree with that completely. 99.9% of Muslims will NEVER leave Islam. I think your "management" idea is realistic, but I don't think "global quarantine" will happen - there's too many scattered everywhere. Even in Iceland, for God's sake.

darcy

first, please don't exaggerate. There are, at present, 1.3 billion Muslims. One billion is not 'billions'.

There are some FIVE billion non-Muslims. *We* are currently 'billions', not they.

Secondly: You have, in various past postings, identified yourself as a Christian. So: is YHWH big enough to deal with Islam...or isn't He?

Can Jesus cast a demon out of a Muslim...or is the demon inside a Muslim too powerful even for Jesus?

Remember: Our Lord told His followers he was giving them authority to raise the dead, heal the sick, *and cast out demons*. Do you believe Him, or not?

Is not the conversion of a Muslim tantamount to raising the dead and freeing the demon-possessed?

Do you think that even people like Wafa Sultan or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who currently identify as atheists, made it out of Islam all by themselves? I don't. I wouldn't be surprised to discover one day - perhaps in eternity - that they had Help; Help invoked by someone, somewhere, who prayed for them. Indeed I think that every bona fide apostate is probably free because a Christian, somewhere, actually had enough faith to believe that God was big enough to overcome Islam, and prayed accordingly.

Make a list of the five mosques nearest to you. Pray against the spiritual strongholds. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood..." - was St Paul just talking gibberish when he said that?

On the practical, political level I think separation is necessary; in order to buy some time and to maintain an Islam-free zone to which genuine defectors from the Ummah can flee.

During the Cold War, had the Communists attempted the Muslim hegira tactic, do you think Western Christians would have looked with equanimity at floods of card-carrying Communist Party members coming out of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia, into the Free World? So I support a halt to Muslim immigration.

However: the same Christians who supported their homelands' military defence against the Communists, didn't 'write off' all Communists as irredeemable and any evangelism of Communists as a total waste of time. Christian radio stations broadcast daily into China and the USSR, and Christians prayed, and smuggled bibles, and basically did whatever they could to get the message across.

I would argue that on the spiritual warfare side of things, every Christian in the free world should be actively supporting 1. charities like Barnabas Fund (and there are others, too) that specifically assist the persecuted Christians within the Muslim world (if there are charities that support ANY and ALL non-Muslims trapped in dar al Islam, they need to be flagged here, too) and 2. ministries like Fr Zakaria Botros, or the Gospel radio that broadcasts out of Monte Carlo into North Africa, which are aimed at deprogramming Muslims.

"Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"

"With God, all things are possible".

Either those Biblical sentences are meaningless gibberish, or they are true.

If they are true -and you and I, being Christians, are bound to believe that they *are* - then in the long run, Islam cannot and will not prevail; and many people who were once Muslims, will be freed.

Kepha,
Yes, Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, but I would not be reminded of it by my other enemy - the PC mob. Jesus also said something about turning the other cheek. I encourage you to do so with your OWN cheek if you wish so, but what I do with mine is between me and Jesus.
This is war and Jesus doesn’t fight our wars - we do. And in time of war whatever Jesus said becomes a booby trap when emitted from a PC throat.
If you want to join the fight, and I don’t doubt you do, then I‘d ask you to keep your love of muzzlems to yourself - or more generally, let’s all follow the “don’t ask - don’t tell” mode of dealing with our inclinations.

Yes, I know I am a bad Christian and I promise to improve after the Islamic invasion is stopped and reversed and muzzlems deported in numbers big enough to ensure that the remaining few are not a political, social, cultural and demographic factor. Once they are confined to their lands I may consider revising my attitudes toward them.
Islam will always be our enemy because it defines itself as such. We have no choice. But muzzlems are only our enemy because they are here. Let’s get rid of them first, so we may try loving them after. I am sure Jesus would not object.

"There are, at present, 1.3 billion Muslims."

Whoa. That is still way too much. 1400 years of polygamy, child brides, and treating females as baby factories.

"So: is YHWH big enough to deal with Islam...or isn't He?"

Yes, and nearly every night I ask Jesus in prayer to save us from the Mohammedans. However, when I think of 6 million Jews exterminated over a 12-year-period, 1933 -1945, we don't want 6 million "Infidels" to have that same fate in the 21st century. Therefore, we're going to trust Jesus, but also close the barn door. I.e. Take action ourselves, which, of course, Jesus wants us to do - fight back against Evil.

"So I support a halt to Muslim immigration."

Oh definitely. Without a doubt. Do it today. Can't come soon enough.

"...then in the long run, Islam cannot and will not prevail; and many people who were once Muslims, will be freed."

Hope so. But then, who would have ever thought that people would be rounded up, put into ovens, and burned? God works in mysterious ways.

"GOD moves in a mysterious way,
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm." - William Cowper, English poet

Olney Hymns (1779)--"Light Shining out of Darkness"

So, I hope so, but I can't speak for Jesus as to what His plans are.

"Yes, Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, but I would not be reminded of it by my other enemy - the PC mob. Jesus also said something about turning the other cheek. I encourage you to do so with your OWN cheek if you wish so, but what I do with mine is between me and Jesus.
This is war and Jesus doesn’t fight our wars - we do. And in time of war whatever Jesus said becomes a booby trap when emitted from a PC throat."

Good reply. Concerning your last sentence, yeah, I hate that. Like as Christians we should just lie back and let the Muslims trample us because we have to "turn the other cheek." That's BS. The last thing Jesus is is a wimp.

Did you know that after WW2 Gandhi opined that the Jews should have just let themselves be slaughtered by the Nazis and not fight back?

I'm not kidding. Appreciate someone finding that reference. I lost all respect for Gandhi after learning of that.

"Islam will always be our enemy because it defines itself as such."

Right, and we MUST fight back.

… after WW2 Gandhi opined that the Jews should have just let themselves be slaughtered by the Nazis and not fight back…

Darcy, here is a link to George Orwell’s essay on Gandhi where Orwell brings up the subject of Gandhi’s amazing and, yes, irresponsible naivety.

http://www.readprint.com/work-1260/Reflections-On-Gandhi-George-Orwell

Can you imagine the harm the guy would have caused us had he lived today?

Re. Geert looking tired. I am sure he is.

Like you, I pray for him, regularly and often and with great fervor (and for his wife and family - I don't think he and his wife have children, but am sure he must have some family, e.g. a parent or parents, cousins, brother or sister perhaps - and for his friends and colleagues). Just as I pray for Mr Spencer and Mr Fitzgerald, and for Bat Yeor and David Littmann and *their* family (children and grandchildren) and for so many, many others who are right out on the front lines with great big targets painted on their shirts.

I pray for his physical *and spiritual* protection; not only for protection from assassins, but for deliverance from despair, confusion and fear. I take Muslim curses seriously. I bet there are occult curses being hurled at him from just about every mosque in Europe, not to mention elsewhere. Perhaps St Nicholas of Myra, patron saint of the Netherlands, can walk beside Geert and hold out that big crozier and ward off the darkness.

It has been intensely interesting watching Geert's political and spiritual journey, watching him change and grow since he first came onto the radar screen here at jihadwatch.

I think he is growing into his job. As he does, it's like you can *see* a great weight steadily coming down on his shoulders. And curiously enough, as he accepts that weight, and just keeps going, obeying the vocation, what I'm seeing besides the tiredness is a real beauty developing in his face. Three, four years ago, I wouldn't have called him a beautiful man. But he is, now.

Just let's all of us who are Christians - and the Jews, too - keep on praying for him. I don't want him to be assassinated like Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh were. It would be shattering. He's the third Dutchman who's stepped forward into the line of fire, after those two fell.

Something to bear in mind, from Bat Yeor (from her essay, 'Persecution of Jews and Christians: Testimony Versus Silence', in Spencer's "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance", p. 258):
"...the meaning of testimony is to stand up against a tyrant, to denounce injustice, and to proclaim the dignity of all humanity...

"...Testifying is no easy task, as it also brings persecution, loneliness and despair.

"Challenging 'evil', unveiling it from behind its ubiquitous masks, is dangerous, and an unending life struggle".

That is what Geert is doing. He is testifying. He is challenging evil; an evil that is deeply entrenched, masked, camouflaged, shapeshifting. He needs all the spiritual covering fire we can give him; and our donations to his legal defence fund, as well! (God bless and guide his lawyer!).

You know what I'd like to see happen? I'd like to see Pope Benedict XVI invite Geert to a private audience (just as he, Benedict, did before her death for the lady Geert so much admires and has learned much from, Oriana Fallaci): and my prayer is that after that audience Benedict will simply lay hands on him and bless him (Catholic atheist though he, Geert, is!).