Army bows to Hamas-linked CAIR, rescinds evangelist's invitation to prayer service

"...about his description of Islam as an evil religion....

Earlier Thursday, Graham stuck by his remarks about Islam, including that Muslims are "enslaved" by their religion"

True on both counts. And he's getting shot down for telling the truth about Islam. Gee, what else is new? As Pamela Geller has said, "Truth is the new hate speech."

"I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching."

100% true. Hey Army - what about this:

"Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them. Lie in wait and ambush them, seize and capture them using every stratagem of war." - Qur'an 9:5

And this:

"Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah's." - Qur'an 8:40

Ahem:

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in his cause and slay and are slain." - Qur'an 9:111

Those are "Islamic teachings," just as Graham described.

The Army. The American Army. The Army that's supposed to protect us. Submitting to CAIR. But, as I saw commented on another thread: "Justice" now is anything that appeases Muslims." (paraphrase) How Orwellian - "Animal Farm."

... the potential to harm unit cohesion and morale through the promotion of distorted, intolerant and divisive views within military ranks.

You mean views like those of former Army Sergeant (now busted down to Private) Hasan Karim Akbar, who killed two officers and wounded 14 other servicemen in Kuwait in March 2003? Or of Army Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 servicemen and wounded 32 at Fort Hood, Texas in November?

Oh, wait ... Akbar was a Muslim who said, after his arrest, "You guys are coming into our countries, and you're going to rape our women and kill our children," and Hasan was a Muslim who said, "Maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor."

So who is really promoting "distorted, intolerant and divisive views within military ranks"?

"Mikey Weinstein, president of the foundation, said the invitation offended Muslim employees at the Pentagon..."

Mr. Weinstein, I believe you're Jewish. How do you feel about this:

“When judgment day arrives, Allah will give every Muslim a Jew or Christian to kill so that the Muslim will not enter into hell fire.” — Mohammed (Mishkat Al-Messabih, vol. 2, no. 5552.)

I feel "offended" - don't you?

In addition, did you know that Jews are the worst enemies of the Muslims, according to Qur'an 5:82?

How 'bout these, Mr. Weinstein:

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (The Qur'an, 5:51)"

"The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'" -- Mohamet, from the Hadiths

Nice, huh, Mr. Weinstein? Franklin Graham is right, as anyone with firing neurons can ascertain.

The Pentagon - which was attacked on 9/11 by Muslims, killing 125 "Infidels." And now Muslims are calling the shots at the Pentagon?

The shame of this post-9/11 submission to Mohammedans in America is almost too much to bear.

And don't forget the oldie but goodie -

47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter, either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."

This doesn't remind me of any religion I know. It does remind me of Nazism, Communism, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, the Roman Empire, Sargon or any other petty dictator.

The MRFF is not complying with its own 'mission' by doing this.

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/our-mission/

"No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy."

(Except when appeasing Muslims, presumably).

GRRRRRRRRR!

As a soldier, I resent this afront to the US Constitution. I also resent the moral cowardice this appears to demonstrate.

As a Christian, I resent this afront to the US Constitution. All religions should be treated (or ignored) with equal rigor under the Constitution. Those religions that violate certain aspects of our legal code must adapt their practices to conform or face prosecution for criminal acts.

I think that the Army commanders may not have had another option. It is their sworn duty to follow orders from higher commanders (as long as it is Not against the US Contitution).

And I still believe the current "Commander in Chief" is a Muslim..

I'm glad Franklin Graham didn't apologize for what he said as it is the truth. Shame on the Pentagon for taking advice from CAIR.

Of course, before there was any Israel of modern times, any zionism as a 'threat' as claimed by the muslims, there was the reality:
"...Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:   
… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

And.... as another poster noted: with the pentagon bombed by 'muslims' with the WTC destroyed by 'muslims', with threats of homicidal attacks upon some 30 plus nations
including newspapers, artists and TV shows for daring to even show a picture of mohammmed, why the idea that we have to protect the 'feelings' of muslims or keep them from being aroused into their 'anger' is an insult to human intelligence, and moral dignity.

Per this CENTCOM procedure however, forcing non-Muslim military personnel (read: very nearly the entire force) to don clean, white gloves before handling a Gitmo detainee's taxpayer provided Qur'an is just dandy:

Gonzo Gitmo Charade
by Diana West
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/09/20050609-092940-3178r/

"According to Army policy, the standard operating procedure is: "Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.""

If you have the time, read the entire article. About two minutes.

P.S. Thank you for your service Annie Oakley!

PRCS
USN (Ret)

The irony here is just staggering. Something that the preacher said years ago can keep from the event. How many people does oba-mao have some where on his staff that has said or done something so egregious it should have kept him/her from joining the administration. Of course we all know that America bashing is OK but hands off the islamic death cult!!

God Bless America and Israel

Just exactly when did the US military morph from a fighting machine into a club for 'girlie men'? Sometimes I wonder if the clowns at the top even shave...You never have to take a hairless dog in for a trim...While the hero's are in the field, dealing with life and death issues, the 'girlie men' are busy in their air conditioned offices, trying hard to come up with new ways to bow to PC and diversity...These weak kneed cowards have no trouble rejecting a Christian with valid views and complaints about Islam, but they also have no problem following the orders of an unqualified usurper with an agenda. And when an officer does question it, and refuses, the 'girlie men' try to hang him...I'm all for going back to a military, where men were men, and anyone who even resembles a 'girlie man' was thrown out on their ear...I'm not talking about gays, I'm talking about 'girlie men'...Where is John Wayne when you need him?

Clearly the Christian minister's constitutional rights of of free speech and to criticise were used against him to muzzle him from speaking at a "governmental agency forum", be it private or not, whereas many Muslim mullahs, imams and community leaders who have similarly criticized (even preached hate and shown support for terrorism, an ideology that has killed the very audience members of such "forums", and is highly offensive to the majority voters of all political parties!) were allowed and are still being invited by these governmental agencies to be present and to speak at such functions.

This is a double standard, a GROSS violation of any "equal treatment" policy and discrimination, plain and simple, unless I am missing something.

Where the F*&# is ACLU when you need them? Why do Muslims have more rights than Christians or any other religion anywhere in the world, including Saudi Arabia. Why don't our politicians protest, scream and prosecute when "persecution" is so evident on our behalf right here in the USA.

America is failing in protecting its constitutional responsibilities!

Even though there is a separation of Church and state, the religious issues and the need for military chaplains has always been available in the US Military. Church in the military has always been there and the US Supreme court has never addressed the issue simply because of the nature of the military.

The chaplaincy does present something of a paradox. The government pays the chaplains' salaries. The government also pays for the places of worship and even for the worship materials themselves. So the chaplaincy does appear to be an oddity under the Establishment Clause.

The reason that the chaplaincy is "likely constitutional", despite the Establishment Clause restrictions has to do with THE PRINCIPAL OF RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION. While the Establishment Clause generally prohibits the government from funding and sponsoring religious activities, there is one important exception to this rule and that is the need for accommodation. Over the past 30 year groups like the ACLU have tried to quash this accommodation rule and the political correct military has quite frankly ended up accommodating every outside entity at the expense of their own soldiers accommodation rights.

Ministries and chaplains have never been told what should be said in their sermons when they address soldiers (freedom of religious expression under the US Constitution) thus the rejection of Franklin Graham to preach to the military should be considered a constitutional violation against the establishment clause when it comes to this unique need for accommodation.

It is a sad commentary on what has happened to the military and its outrageous diversity programs that fail to recognize they are there to fight against enemies of America who threaten its constitutional rights---political correction be dammed --bar none!!

RELIGIOUS ACCOMmODATION cont:

Essentially what the military is doing in the case of Reverend Graham is censoring him and denying military personal to hear what Franklin Graham says as a Christian Preacher. This is a blatant violation THE PRINCIPAL OF RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION that has been respected by the highest court in the land for centuries. This exception is in place because military personal could be quartered in many places where there is no normal religious accommodation available IE: Iraq,Afghanistan,aboard navy ships, Etc.

Aside from other considerations (justice, right, decency, stuff like that) that militate against this craven decision, there is one more: morale, both military and civilian. The American miiltary has spent seven years of squandering of its time, of its men, of its money, of its everything, on what was an act of messianic sentimentalism, first envisioned as a Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project, then becoming a mission to "bring freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, then to leave the country intact, and "prosperous" through tens of billions of dollars in American aid, much of it diverted to their own ends by various well-placed Iraqis and none of it necessary in any case because Iraq could, with its gigantic oil reserves, have borrowed against future oil revenues, but of course that would never do as long as the American government was willing to keep shelling out money, as it does for Pakistan, for Afghanistan, for Egypt, for Jordan, for the "Palestinians" -- in short, for any Muslim country that needs to be kept from becoming too much of a problem not because of the effect of Islam, but because it is not drowning in cash, like the states of the Gulf, to buy -- so it is apparently believed -- enough diversions from Islam to keep things calm.

And many of the same observations apply to Afghanistan, where the result, as in Iraq, will mean almost no difference in the world-wide and variegated and many-pronged assault of the forces of Islam on the forces of non-Islam, an assault that does not depend on what those non-Muslims do, but on the fact, as has been true for the past 1350 years, of those non-Muslims being non-Muslims. End of story.

Now, in a most public way, at the Pentagon, the son of the most famous Protestant public preacher and revivalist in modern America (remember those gigantic meetings, sometimes with Ethel Waters belting out a song?), whose observations on Islam were correct and should not have been the cause of any embarrassment whatsoever, finds an invitation to him is rescinded at the behest of a sinister Muslim group, a number of whose officials have had, to put it mildly, legal troubles(some are in jail, with long sentences, some have been deported, some have simply left the country before they could be jailed or deported).

Surely many in the American military are now over that belief that "the surge worked" in Iraq or that "we have to deny Al Qaeda use of Afghanistan by staying there ourselves" or, almost as futile, and almost as expensive, "building up the Afghani military to the point where it can take care of things itself." Never explained is how, in the end, either Iraq or Afghanistan will look, or how that will contribute to stopping the onward march of Muslims within the countries of Western Europe -- the main theatre of war, far more important than Iraq or Afghanistan. Never has General Petraeus, or anyone else, dared to discuss or hint at a world-wide strategy to combat the forces of Islam -- for example, by seizing the southern Sudan and holding it, until a real referendum, not something like the recent farce that was a preliminary version of the larger farce to come when the "vote on independence" is to be held, can be held. Nowhere in the Pentagon, I suspect, are there rooms devoted to different Muslim threats on different continents, with people intelligently figuring out what can be done, using what methods -- sometimes the method of Kutuzov, that of deliberate pulling-back to allow natural forces to work their magic, sometimes the method of quick strikes, and sometimes, an office of war information that will not seek to "win Muslim hearts and minds" but to support and raise the morale of those being attacked, and undermined, in a hundred different ways, by aggressive Muslims. And instead of vainly attempting to "win Muslim hearts and minds" why not a campaign to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam? Why not, through articles, through translations of important books by apostates, by spreading the word in every way, let the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs come to understand all the ways in which Islam has been and remains a vehicle for Arab supremacism, and linguistic, cultural, and other forms of imperialism? And why not make clear to all Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, that we understand, and are quite capable of explaining, that the political despotisms that are the natural condition of Muslim societies, and the economic backwardness that is the natural condition of Muslim societies (the oil-revenues provide the illusion of modern economies, but have been unable to create them), and the social and intellectual and moral failings of Muslim societies, with their institutionalized mistreatment of women and of non-Muslims, are to be found in Islam itself.

Nearly two milliopn Americans have served in Iraq and now Afghanistan. Many of them have not wished to think too deeply about the value, or the sense, of the enterprise they were involved in. Some no doubt believe in "
the mission" or force themselves to believe in it, despite the evidence of their senses, not least when they are told to think that "if the mission were to fail than the deaths of (Frank, John, Bill, Jose, Lacey)would "have been in vain." The deaths of some then become, in the minds of the living, further reason for supporting a policy that, surely, the most thoughtful soldiers have come, quickly or slowly, to realize does not make much sense -- and how much more indignant they would be if they were aware of what is going on, for example, in Western Europe, where through deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa and, above of the deaths of soldiers to cause -- " some quickly and some slowly, how idiotic are these missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, how pointless in the end the goals sought are, and in some cases how they represent exactly the wrong goals, how empty all this hustle and bustle when intelligent Kutuzov-like withdrawal, allowing nature in Muslim lands to take its natural course (i.e., allowing, where they exist, and in Iraq they exist in spades, sectarian and ethnic rivalries to develop in the atmosphere of non-compromise, of perceived Victor/Vanquished polarities, of aggression and violence, that are the natural conditions of Muslim societies not under the rule of a despot with an army and a secret police or, in the alternative, vast oil revenues to buy temporary quiet.

Now comes the American government, and rescinds an invitation extended to the famous son of a famous father, famous for his evangelism, for the Billy Graham Crusades for Christ (sometimes with Ethel Waters in attendance, and even singing). Many soldiers and many Marines find solace and support in their tasks, from what Franklin Graham, and others like him, offer. They are now being told that their missions to help Muslims in Muslim lands -- for some of them, missions they have already been questioning, missions about which they been doubting the efficacy, must continue, but in their own country, a country not only overwhelmingly Christian but with its legal and political institutions created by, rooted in, impossible to conceive of otherwise than connected to, Christianity or, to be more fair at a late, but never-too-late, date, Judeo-Christianity. Islam had no role in the creation of these political and legal institutions. In letter and spirit, the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, flatly contradicts the letter and spirit of the American Constitution. This is not hard to demonstrate, and those who claim otherwise can be shown up, shown up starting with the very different political theories of the advanced West, and of Islam, and continuing on with such things as the free speech (see the latest contretempts and death threats involving "South Park") clause and the guarantee of religious freedom.

The effect of rescinding this invitation is to cause members of the American military, in the same way as civilians, to wonder what exactly is going on, and what we are expected to do in order, in our own countries, not to offend Muslims. Should Franklin Graham not have had an opinion about the treatment of women in Islam? Should he have been allowed to have an opinion, but only if it were favorable, only if he endorsed the treatment of women, in Islam? Is everyone to refrain from criticizing the Total Belief-System of Islam, in this aspect or that, because to do so will then render you persona non grata in your very own country?

What is going on? And how long will this be going on? And what will be the effect on those disenchanted with, tired of, fed up with, the squandering of men, money materiel, and morale, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, dappertutto, in the Muslim lands where hearts and minds are never to be won, because of what Islam itself inculcates.

Here is the Army Facebook page.

http://www.facebook.com/USarmy

Fire away...

Graham's disinvitation to the National Day of Prayer is an absolute outrage, and disgraces the Army leadership. So what if Graham's remarks might have offended a few Muslim soldiers? It's an all-volunteer Army, and no one held a gun to their heads when they enlisted. And yes, despite what the mushy-headed Left believe and would have us to believe, we ARE at war with Islam, and have been ever since they renewed their 1350 year war with, not only us, but against humanity in general.

With regard to Graham, what about the vast majority of non-Muslim soldiers who happen to agree with him, and who will now be offended by this cravenly action by the Army brass? Or are the opinions of the many of less value than the opinions of the few if these few happen to be Muslim? It appears so.

If there is a silver lining in this, it is that this story is all over the news channels today, and will further help to stoke the outrage that is slowly building against the cowardliness exhibited by our "leaders" when confronted by the Muslim termites eating away at the foundations of Western culture. Perhaps another silver lining is that, like an inoculation that introduces a small number of disease germs into a body to allow the building up of antibodies to the point where permanent immunity to the disease is developed, the present period of excessive deference to Islam in the West will have the inadvertent (to those who are promoting it) result of building up of enough anti-toxins to effectively immunize us over the long run. I can only hope this will be the case. Sometimes inoculations go awry and kill the patient.

Agreed.

Isn't "Army Intelligence" a famous oxymoron?

All the Christian military chaplains should take note and decide if they want to be a part of a government aparatus that controls their theology. It is unconcionable that the US government can control theological beliefs in our volunteer armed services.

It is offensive for someone to point out that a certain 'text' calls for death to Christians and Jews. They have no right to criticize.

Graham is bigoted for not accepting those who hope to kill him.
///

Would the Army permit Jewish and Christian soldiers to pray for the deaths of muslins?

Is not a book that calls for the death of others Hate Speech? How could it NOT be Hate Speech?

Maybe at some inter-faith prayer session a soldier could stand up and read in English the text that Jane Smith quotes. Wouldn't a rational person be offended and threatened?

Saying that someone would have to be crazy to believe that stuff should not be a sufficient murder defense.

Yet, even mass murder is not a wake up call...

"I want them to know that they don't have to die in a car bomb, don't have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God. But it's through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone," Graham said.
Don't care much for religion,but this is a brilliant angle
put forth by Mr. Graham.

Whats next? Calls to drop the Marine Corp Hymm, as it may offend some followers of islam?

Military focus, from nation building, to mowing the lawn.

Focus on the mowing.

Either the Army accepts all religions, and all of their teachings, or it should accept none. Or, it is put in the position of actually understanding the religions it lets on base.

Graham is not even asking that another religion be precluded - he simply wants to preach his own religion, which also happens to include the view that certain other religions have evil teachings.

BUT, what do they do if one of those religions calls for murder, or even the destruction of the US - isn't that a violation of the Army oath?

I wish this was just a theoretical theology discussion; sadly mass murder in the military, by soldiers, is our reality.

Reality is a harsh master.

Heads should roll at all levels of the military. Our defense department has lost sight or never understood who the enemy is. We are going to loose this war!

I know they were taught that to win a war you need to know who the enemy is. Who in the hell do they think is our enemy in this war? Just a bunch of criminals? Maybe like the mofia? Or maybe they are extremists? Who have hijacked a religion of peace? It is all important and will determine the outcome of this war to determine WHO THE ENEMY IS.

IDIOTS!!!!

IS ANYONE HERE INVOLVED IN THE TEA PARTY? IF SO, PLEASE PASS THE INFO ON THE DENIAL OF FRANKLIN GRAHAM ALONG. I AM CONTACTING MY PASTOR TO SEE IF OUR CHURCH CAN HAVE SOME SORT OF PROTEST AGAINST THIS. I ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME THING. WE NEED A GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT. PLEASE POST IDEAS. I WISH SOME OF THESE MEGA-CHURCHS WOULD GET INVOLVED. LIKE JOEL OSTEEN. IF HE GETS HIS CONGREGATION INVOLVED, SOMEONE MIGHT NOTICE. I MIGHT SEND JOEL A DOLLAR IF HE WOULD DO SOME GOOD. CATHOLICS, SEE IF YOUR PRIESTS HAVE THE GUTS TO GET INVOLVED.

I forgot to add.

I would sooner have the military not have any service in dealing with the Day of Pray that put up a shame ceremony that they are considering.

foreign

My comment continued...

Folks do not for one second interpret this action by the DoD as an anomaly or a strecth in any way. This particular decision is a disturbing watermark of how impotent, vulnerable, easily susceptible to ethical corruption and blackmail our armed force's leadership is today.

The leadership must have a clear vision. A fair, strong, constitutionally correct, ethically sound decision making power on their own.
They simply can not and should not outsource this power to any religious or otheir organization, much less CAIR, a Hamas front group. This in a way proves our armed forces are weaker, less "cohesive unit" than Ataturk's Turkish armed forces who, inspite being Muslims, had a clear vision to push religion to the side and focus on Turkey first and Islam last to complete their mission as a unified entity. Their leaders, unlike Obama and the Pentagon were not consumed by political correctness.

When your military leadership pussies out from taking bold leadeaship decisions, you have lost a battle before it even begins - victims of moral confusion and trust!

From the commander-in-chief, all the way to a one star general, there is not a ball or a brain among them all.

The only ones with brass, brawn and brain are the beloved troops who continues to die for our freedom (which is so cheaply and easily squandered!) even in peacetime at the hands of Islamic Jihadist in Iraq and Afghanistan, God bless them.

Steely eyed Bill O'Reilly and his hard hitting panel agreed that Graham shoulda been given a break cuz he made the statement in the heat of the moment just after 9/11.

*** 33:21 ***

The Ayatollah was wrong, there is fun in Islam. If I had to put a label on it, I'd call it black comedy.

What you said, graven.

*** 92:8 ***

Pamela Geller has said, "Truth is the new hate speech."

True.

Our government and military leaders have been lying to us, now they are intimidating clerical leaders, and they are subverting the truth right out in the open in front of our very eyes. They are mischaracterizing our worst enemy for reasons that only they know. They may well be delusional. Delusional military leaders cannot be trusted to win wars and delusional governments end up on the scrap heap of history.

Be it noted that Barack Obama is not and cannot be a Muslim. Adherence to Islam would require worship of something other than the true object of his veneration: Barack Obama.

Hello US Military; America was founded on Judao/Christian values and not Islamic values and that is an undisputed fact.

So I am told the face Mohammed adorns the top arch of the US Superior Court,but how can that be if it is a blasphemous sin to make an image of Mohammmed?

Franklin Graham has made it clear on how he stands on the teachings of Islam by the simple fact that the teachings in the Qu'ran are there for all to see and the prophet Mohammed's words are considered pure for all time.

It was good to see that even Sean Hannity has apparently done some homework on Islam. He brought up the subject last night and today on his radio show, having Bridget Gabriel on the line and a Muslim who tried to defend the indefensible by speaking in confusing riddles as if to say that its just the way those areas in the middle east are and you can't change them. Hannity was in one of his pit bull attack moods as he banged away at the way women where treated in Islam and strapping bombs on little children. Bridget Gabriel pleaded for people to wake up to the threat that is Islam and talked about how Muslims are entrenched in our military and government. She brought up the case in the Pentagon where an assistant named Hesham Islam to the 2nd in command David England was able to influence the firing of a major who had written an excellent thesis on the threat that is Islam. At least the good thing is that this story got legs at least for a while.

The Pentagon has got to quit playing with fire when it comes to their diversity programs in the military. Islam is not just a religion it is totalitarian ideology that respects no other ideology, just ask Major Nadal Hassan.

How many of us will have to be mass-murdered before the majority of us wake up (for if the majority of us wake up, our governments and media will follow as sure as night follows day)?

50,000?

100,000?

A million?

Two million?

Do I hear ten million...?

More gifts from Red Hussein, Traitor in Chief.

Wouldn't want our enemies to be discomforted.

I'd call him a coward if I thought he was on our side.

Maybe one key-element causing this army-decision is the PCMC-view that it is extreme to view Islam as evil, dangerous, detrimental to our democratic societies, rules, values, and to "tar all Muslims with the same brush", demonizing, stigmatizing, discriminating against them etc.

But that is only the extreme on the one side. The extreme assumption on the other side is that Islam deserves the status of religion, that freedom of religion must be absolute. That Islam must of necessity be exonerated and protected at all cost. A conclusion reached BEFORE proper independent investigation.

But the proper handling of the controversy between Democracy and Islam lies somewhere in between the TWO extremes. Now the PCMC Army only exchanges one extreme position with its opposite.

If certainty about Islam's guilt or innocence is very much in doubt, it should be labelled "potentially dangerous and detrimental". And to a potential danger there must be always adequate reaction. If people don't react, it is "dereliction of duty". Once Islam becomes "potentially dangerous for democratic rules and values" and this is honestly broadcasted in the whole world, the whole Western policy could and would be changed.

And speakers like Franklin Graham who know and take to task Islam, but who still love Muslims, will be very welcome as those who can shed light upon the "possible" Islamic danger and an appropriate worldwide policy in response.

Shame, shame, shame on you , you fools!

Everyone should go listen to Allen West on YouTube.

"Weinstein said the invitation would endanger American troops by stirring up Muslim extremists....

Yes, "Muslim extremists" will be downright chummy as long as Franklin Graham stays away."

Yes, I so agree with Roberts response here. When we expose Islamic teachings, sayings by its own leaders, in power in Islamic countries and probable connections between violence by Muslims and Islam, we get: Do not antagonize them (even more), do not provoke them, your opposition will even strengthen them in their opposition to you (will galvanize it).

But when people like Bush and Blair AND Obama and many others emphatically declare the West is not at war with Islam, guess what Islamic clerics in Yemen and Saudi Arabia and Iran and all over the Islamic world are saying? That "the West, or Americans, is/ are at war with Islam!

It seems that only trying to be nice and respectful does yield no appreciable positive response from the Muslim top people, whereas the vast majority of Muslims still remain disinterested and faithful to Islam and Muslim leaders who are anti-Western, Anti-America.

But, when there is strong opposition, like from Jihad Watch and many courageous others, then Muslims still respond very negatively to THEM, BUT at the same time try to woo the now "moderate" Westerners.

They accuse their fiercest opponents of being HATERS and Islamophobes. Despite the fact that the arguments of the Islam-critics are about EXPOSING real anti-democratic teachings, goals and acts by Muslims and holding them accountable for doing or supporting them. Yes, there are fear and hate involved in what Islam-critics say, but I think it should be the arguments that count, they can come from healthy fears for and logical hatred of evil, stupid teachings, goals, acts.

Muslims accuse opponents of Islamophobia and hatred in order to placate the only dimly interested, silent majority of Westerners together with their own supporters, who might see the rationality in the arguments of the Islam-opposition, showing that these DO have a good impact.

So hate-speech and Islamophobia serve a very worthwhile purpose in Understanding Islam, and promoting dialogue. Which is the Mission of CAIR!

Allah is the devil, and mohammed is his prophet!

Guess the guy that the military kept promoting and then blowing up the base would be welcome just proves we are in the end times remember Judeo/Christian God is ONLY One who can tell end from beginning it's called prophecy 100% of the time Isaiah 46:10 maranatha

Who do we contact to right this wrong! Muslims account for what 1% of the population. Have we no voice? Thats what the enemy wants. This needs to be changed and I for one what to know who to contact to change this injustic.

Is there anyone out there that knows the right e-mails, phone numbers names? There are more Christian men and women in the armed service than Muslims.

I think we need to start fighting back with a campaign to let those who are in authority know this is wrong and this does not speak for the majority of Americans!

Where are the protests over this and Ft. Hood. By our silence WE are condemed. We will be judged by our silence.

All it takes for evil to florish is for good men to do nothing. We have done nothing for too long.

Aprilyn

Yes unit Cohesion like Mr. Nadal Hassan, 14 dead, his mission for unit morale went real well. Where is CAIR on this issue? Probably advocating he is innocent. Thank God for the NRA and Militias, when this issues hit the core of our military who are suppose to be loyal, it is scary. If our Military is infiltrated by these Jihadi bastards what do we have left, Its time the pc cultural sensitivity in this country end. We should get organized and start a petition to keep Muslims out of the military, reading sura 9:5 and our own Constitution which these soldiers are suppose to defend, its is a clear and compelling conflict of interest.

After the Hassan incident I will never serve in the US military, I had depression as a kid and wanted to join after college as an officer, but the military said I failed the screening process, years later when the military was desperate they tried to recruit me for an enlisted position. I turned it down. Funny how these screening standards don't apply to Muslims that shoot 14 people but are bent for the special islamic class ( Islam is a choice, a bad one) not a race or another biological trait that can't be altered. Funny how political correctness screws this up.
I really don't like the idea of owning a gun, but when our own military can't defend itself or us from the trojan horse of the jihadists, I guess you have to take your self preservation and defense in your own hands. Gee I wonder why there is a rise of militia activity, I don't blame others for being scared. Our government has lost perspective completely.

Jesus warned about "false" prophets. In the sixth century after Jesus, Mohamed rewrote the Bible, saying Christians and Jews were in error, and replaced Jesus with himself as the main character. Under Islamic (Shariah) law, the only infidels that MAY be tolerated are those who support Islam. Under Sharia law, infidels are either converted, killed, or have to pay the infidel tax and be subjugated to Islam (Islam means submission), called dhimmitude. In order to operate in Islamic countries, our politicians and military leaders have decided to come under Islamic dhimmitude. Our soldiers are indoctrinated with a false perspective of Islam (i.e. that Islam is "parallel" to Christianity, that Muslims are the victims of Christianity, that Islam is superior to Christianity, etc.), our soldiers must live as dhimmis while in Muslim countries (i.e. women are not equal, Bibles cannot be read, etc.), and our policies are even phrased to avoid appearing to conflict with Islam. This cowardice only serves to make our soldiers security guards for the favorite Muslim warlord of the month. Little do we realize that our soldiers are just being picked off in pre-Mahdi power skirmishes. Eventually, when global jihad has enough power behind it, Islam will unite under their "Mahdi" (Obama?) and (they hope) our country will be completely under Islamic dhimmitude.