Because there is no reliable way to distinguish an "extremist" from a "moderate," and no sect or school of Islam has renounced and rejected jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, this kind of attack will just keep on happening. "Afghan soldier attacks, kills 3 British troops," by Rahim Faiez and Kay Johnson for Associated Press, July 13 (thanks to all who sent this in):
KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan soldier fired a rocket-propelled grenade into a military base control room early Tuesday, killing three British troops and wounding four more before fleeing, officials said.It was the second time in eight months that an Afghan turned against British troops partnering with local security forces. In November, an Afghan policeman killed five British soldiers at a checkpoint -- also in southern Helmand province, where Tuesday's attack happened.
Afghan police in the past have also attacked American soldiers and their own police stations. While such intentional attacks are rare, they emphasize the difficulties in rapidly expanding the Afghan forces to take over responsibility for security from international troops....
Yeah, they do. But not in the way that AP thinks.
Gunned down as they slept: Rogue Afghan soldier shoots dead three British troops inside military compound
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1294293/Renegade-Afghan-soldier-shoots-dead-British-troops-joint-patrol.html#ixzz0tZUkz2O1
Because there is no reliable way to distinguish an "extremist" from a "moderate," and no sect or school of Islam has renounced and rejected jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, this kind of attack will just keep on happening.
That's so correct, it glows...But the dhimmi's and incompetent in charge wear really dark sunglasses, even at night, so that glowing truths are invisible to them...Besides to know that doesn't fit the Afghan agenda which is...Uh...Well...HMMM
Well somebody knows, and when the time is right, I'm sure Rasool Obama will tell us all about it...
I thought the Ahmadi Muslims rejected violent jihad, along with the doctrine of abrogation. Oh, I forgot: they're considred heretics and persecuted. Never mind....
I don't give a flying F*** about these people or those in Iraq or Somalia or elsewhere.
Here in the UK we harbour "asylum seekers" who fled the regimes in "fear". For a few, particularly non-muslims, that may be true but for the majority it is just an excuse to gorge on western benevolence and create problems "within" as the Koran and hadith dictate.
Having said that then fleeing is cowardice in the extreme. If those who oppose the regimes flee then who will oppose?
History tells us that eventually the oppressed rise up and defeat the oppression.
WE should withdraw troops immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan and just leave them to it - having eradicated the poppy fields just before harvest time. Let them fight it out betweem themselves.
Under Bush:quagmire
Under Obama:difficulties
This is ridiculous to blame Islam because an Afghan solider killed three British troops - it has more to do with nationalism than in anything else.
Imagine for one second that right now the US was being "temporarily occupied" by China. Now imagine that you hear some news that 20 fellow Americans were killed by a Chinese drone, but that the Chinese soldiers felt this was acceptable collateral damage.
If an American solider who was working along side the Chinese could no longer handle witnessing the sight of his nation in ruins, and his people being killed by some foreign Chinese drones, would it shock you to find out he did what this Afghan solider did?
This website is slowly turning into a hate website because it blames Islam when Islam has nothing to do with it. Frankly, the blame should be on Obama who has betrayed guys like me. I am a young American, an atheist, and damn against the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan. Obama PROMISED us we would be out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Gitmo would be closed. He ran as an agnostic because I've heard his anti-religion speeches. But he's a turncoat.
He is just the same as Bush - except Bush was honest. But that doesn't excuse Spencer for being a bigoted ignorant hate monger but I expect nothing less from religious people on all sides.
If only your loyalty was to America and humanity before some pathetic desert god things would be better.
I feel for our troops and their two main choices, which are tragically simple:
1 - follow the pc path, remain silent whilst privately on edge that they will be among the next target of ostensibly friendly Muslims given positions of trust, access to weapons and troops, and the opportunity to turn against Allied forces. In this case, the odds are in their favour not to be murdered, or at least not by a 'friendly' Muslim, and return home at the end of their tour to get on with their life.
2 - make it known to superiors that they are not comfortable around the people that distant politicians find a need to trust from the safety of back home, and would rather not have their life compromised on the say so of a dusty moon good...in this case the almost certain outcome is a court martial followed by dishonourable discharge and end of career, social leprosy, and a host of other penalties and stigma culminating in a tattered life. Simply because they dared to voice the honest fear of what all but fools and politicians fear.
Which is preferable?
" But that doesn't excuse Spencer for being a bigoted ignorant hate monger but I expect nothing less from religious people on all sides. "
It seems to me that Spencer backs up everything that he says with facts. Ignorant ? Spencer is an authority on Islam.
" If only your loyalty was to America and humanity before some pathetic desert god things would be better ".
Where is Spencer being disloyal to America ? Or to humanity ? Guess what - that pathetic desert god has gotten a whole lot of people killed. Illustrating facts does not make one a "hate monger". You have it completely backwards.
"But that doesn't excuse Spencer for being a bigoted ignorant hate monger"
LOL! YOU Mohammedans are the bigots and haters. And you're ignorant and brainwashed by evil Islam as all-get-out. Oh, and let's not forget - you Mass-Murderers.
"If only your loyalty was to America and humanity before some pathetic desert god things would be better."
Great you're speaking about "allah" that way! "allah" - a pathetic Arabian moon god of the desert! Just like pathetic bedouin Mo of the desert! "allah" doesn't exist, the pagan idol!
"I don't give a flying F*** about these people or those in Iraq or Somalia or elsewhere."
Right on. Let the Islam-following mass-murdering Barbarians annihilate each other. Good Riddance.
"This website is slowly turning into a hate website because it blames Islam when Islam has nothing to do with it."
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL (Etc)
Islam has EVERYTHING to do with Hate, you deluded brainwashed pathetic Mohammedan Barbarian.
Islam - the Religion of Hate. The Religion of Mass-Murder.
Stop murdering innocent people you savage Barbarians. Savages.
It's obvious that you don't have a clue about Islam. Islam commands followers to kill and/or subjugate non-Muslims. These kind of attacks happen every day across the globe, in any area where Islam is in control. It has nothing to do with whether a land is "occupied" or not. Islamists will consider their lands "occupied" if there are any non-Muslims living there that are not actively paying jizya.
Yeah, blame America for 1400 years of jihad, like the good little politically correct multiculturalist that you are. People like you are on the side of the enemy.
Do us all a favor, write out, in detail, how Spencer is a "bigoted ignorant hate monger." Go ahead. He has written many books and even more articles, so it should be easy for you to find something to support your claim. We can wait. I won't hold my breath, though. Muslims and their leftist allies will try and discredit their opponents and make sweeping generalizations, but they can't support anything they say with evidence.
Brilliant, bumpkin.
Excuse me, "Channe" is a Muslim. Troll. It's completely obvious.
" Do us all a favor, write out, in detail, how Spencer is a bigoted ignorant hate monger".
Perfect, Allah Snackbar. I asked Channe how Spencer is being disloyal to America earlier, but there has been no reply. Looks to me like just another drive by.
No, it's not. It doesn't matter anyway, PC/MC's are no better.
Let's see.....I hear the word "Islamic troll" and "Muslim" thrown against people, often for no reason at all. I was called a "Muhammedan" on another thread simply because I pointed out the FACT that the Rambam uses "allah" to refer to God in his Moreh Nevukhim (Guide to the Perplexed), and that Arabic-speaking Jews AND Christians use "Allah" to refer to God. Okay. Fine. Call me a Muhammedan. I'm not.
Now, on a more pertinent note, the question is to Robert:
Has anyone gotten any word on all the Afghani Muslims who disappeared from the defense language institute on the base in Texas?
I've met military personel from Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bahrein, Iraq, etc.) as well as female Afghanis who were brought to train our Marines at Camp Wilson here in 29 Palms Combat Center. I really hate to think of ANY of these people being AWOL and turning on us.
The lady Afghanis, by the way, really liked the Arabic "Lan Astaslam" t-shirt I was wearing and asked where they could get one. Good thing that they are living in the states now, as I'd hate to think what WOULD happen to them if they wore such a slogan on any street in any Arab country.
If you could let me know IF you've heard anything about those AWOL Afghanis I would appreciate it, Robert.
Thanks
An Afghan soldier fired a rocket-propelled grenade into a military base control room early Tuesday, killing...
Upon hearing this news, Sgt. Hassan Akbar must be pumping his fist in Islamic pride down in that prison cell of his.
*** Tabari 9:69 ***
I wonder if Sgt. Hassan Akbar was able to text a celebratory message from his prison cell to Major Nidal Malik Hasan's prison cell.
Quoting Channe: "I am a young American, an atheist, and damn against the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan. Obama PROMISED us we would be out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Gitmo would be closed."
Coward! Crybaby! Fool!
While the subjugation of the rank-and-file Iraqi and Afghanis to these seventh-century, murdering thugs and their criminal way of life is tragic, is it OUR tragedy?
Will continued Western military presence in either place stop terrorism -- here, there or anywhere? Will it elevate either place out of its (largely) self-inflicted misery? Why ARE we still in either festering crap hole, again?
Stop the bleeding. Bring the soldiers home, and let the environmentalists and other do-gooders go in, if they need to suffer that much. I don't see any other way.
RSI
The 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles were in Helmand province two years ago with Prince Harry.
Good reply to Channe, Allah Snackbar!
I don't know what Channe's real beliefs and motivations are, but even if he is a Muslim he is either deceiving us in his post or very ignorant about Islam.
His analysis sticks to a soon to be obsolete reflex: "Do not blame Islam for what individual Muslims do". "These Islamic perpetrators must have ANOTHER motivation than something coming from Islam". Even although his whole mind from birth was impregnated with it's teachings, in one variation or another. I mean, the perpetrator may not even be conscious of his very probable Islamic motivation or that of his loved ones, or his imam, who still influence him.
The answer to what caused the evil actions of Muslims, is to study Islam and monitor declarations and deeds by Muslims leaders and followers, as Robert Spencer does so well.
Once the assertion that Islam, at least in part, at least among a substantial part of the Muslims, can cause Muslims to be a threat, to, oh, .... democracy, freedom, the lives of innocent people, even to peace, prosperity and more, is taking into serious consideration, then the situation changes.
Instead of giving Muslims the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that EVERY Muslim must be innocent and harmless until proven guilty, as this Afghan soldier, the Islamic threat must be faced with adequate reactions.
Instead, presumably out of either love for Islam or almost complete ignorance of Islam, people like Channe tell us "not to worry about Islam". Saying that because it is a religion, albeit largely unknown to him apparently, IT MUST BE HARMLESS. This is tantamount to misleading fellow citizens and in politicians to criminal negligence, potentially causing much misery.
The hate Channe sees is coming from research and monitoring of Islam and Muslims, which he does not know or acknowledge. But which nonetheless is mostly irrefutable,
And the completely natural reaction to it; Accountable-holding of Muslims for being in such a faith (knowingly or unknowingly), criticism on teachings, declarations, practices of Muslims, exposure of this and protest against this.
But because of the efforts of Robert Spencer and many like him, information about Islam and Muslims and their threat to secular democracy and even life, peace and prosperity, is getting ever more widespread.
And this shifts the burden of proof more and more from people like Robert Spencer (who provides ample proof and logic) to people like Channe, who seemingly arrogantly ignorantly provide almost no proof or logic. But instead only soon to be obsolete prejudice, namely that: All religions MUST be innocent, and that emotional exposure of the followers of a religion MUST be because of original hatred. Instead of emotional dislike following real facts, and their very probable causes.
'I am a young American, an atheist...'
How did you learn to become an atheist?
Before you completely morph into an old and stupid atheist...Take some time to study up on Islam...There are lots of atheists you can talk to who have done just that...They will all tell you the same thing...'Islam is a lie, and the truth is killing it'...
These particular British soldiers were Gurkhas.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/13/2952748.htm?section=justin
Renegade Afghan soldier kills Gurkhas
"A renegade Afghan soldier killed three British army Gurkha soldiers during a joint patrol on Tuesday in southern Helmand province, officials said."
Gurkhas have fought against Islam for centuries, both before and during the British Raj, and today as well.
God bless the Gurkhas! My deepest condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of these brave Gurkha soldiers, so treacherously murdered by a Muslim 'ally' who bided his time, a smiler with a knife under the cloak, until he got the opportunity to act out the hate which his religion inculcates toward all who are not Muslim.
There is a famous book of military memoirs by one John Masters, called "Bugles and a Tiger: My Life in the Gurkha Regiment". It deals with war against Muslim jihad raiders in Afghanistan/ the North West Frontier, during the days of the British Raj. A poster here, some years ago, who had read it, brought it to our attention and provided a brief review. He noted - "it was the Gurkhas that made the Afghanis run, and the Gurkhas did it without the barbarity that is associated with Islam and its culture."
It is quite clear, from the core Muslim texts, which are dinned into young Muslims over and over again (indeed, physically *beaten* into them - see Ayaan Hirsi Ali's accounts, in 'Nomad' and 'Infidel', of how it is done), especially in places like Afghanistan, that Muslims are not supposed to form real friendships or permanent alliances with non-Muslims. Tthe Qur’an several times (e.g. in Surah 3:117; Surah 5:49, 5:56 and 5:57) expressly forbids Muslims to befriend, or to ally themselves with, unbelievers, with Jews or with Christians (or any other kind of non-Muslim).
A Muslim's sole and overriding loyalty is supposed to be to fellow Muslims, to the Ummah, over and against all non-Muslims. And not only are they supposed to be loyal to fellow Muslims ONLY (of course, any Muslim deemed-insufficiently-Islamic, or declared to be so, is another matter altogether...lawful prey), but they are supposed to *actively* harbour, express, and if able, enact, hatred toward non-Muslims.
Surah 48: 29 of the Quran:
"Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another”.
And two texts from the canonical Sira, or Life of Muhammad, by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume:
Ishaq: 204 - “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?’ ‘Yes. **In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.** {my emphasis - dda}.’”
Ishaq: 231 - “Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders.”
Muslims are taught to practise al-wala wa al-bara, 'loyalty and enmity', that is, loyalty toward fellow Muslims, *enmity* toward non-Muslims.
Here is a very typical Muslim discussion of that principle:
http://salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/wala_wal_bara/Alee_Imran.htm
If you click on that link and read, you will encounter, as part of the discussion, an account of taqiyya - which may involve *feigning* friendship with non-Muslims, temporarily, for the advantage of the Muslim doing the sham.
And in that connection, here is something that appeared at jihadwatch awhile ago, and which I copied, and kept, in a file I call "Smilers With Knives":
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/06/i-could-be-joking-and-smiling-and-then-cutting-their-throats-in-the-next-second.html
Click on the link. Read the article. It's an eye-opener.
Then there is this, a comment by a jihadwatch commenter, 'Benjamin', which was posted in this thread:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/11/fitzgerald-hashemite-dreams-iraqi-schemes.html
Benjamin | November 10, 2005 9:01 PM
"Speaking of "moderate" Muslims, I know Hindus from India who lived during the bloody partition in 1947.
"They said that *lifelong* {my emphasis - dda} Muslims friends and neighbors suddenly turned crazy.
"Similar stories emanated during the Yugoslav war.
"Not that they are all prone to this, but you never know.
"There is always the feeling of Muslim vs. non-Muslim {that is: the dar al Islam vs. dar al Harb paradigm - dda}. It's intrinsic to the religion. The raison-d'etre."
When I heard the report, this morning, on the radio, about this Afghan Muslim soldier killing his three British colleagues, I wasn't in the least surprised. I knew why he had done it. I knew how he could do it. I knew the mind of Islam...because I've read the Quran, and a good deal else besides.
I was not surprised by the Fort Hood jihad raid, either.
What really surprises *me*, is that there have not yet been many, many more such attacks by Muslims upon their non-Muslim allies or their non-Muslim colleagues, whether in Afghanistan and Iraq, or even within the non-Muslim lands wherever there are Muslims embedded in our military and our police force.
While the subjugation of the rank-and-file Iraqi and Afghanis to these seventh-century, murdering thugs and their criminal way of life is tragic, is it OUR tragedy?
They choose to be subjugated. They believe everyone on the planet should live like them. William Eaton, the US Consul to Tunis, pegged these way back in 1799 with the following:
Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives… The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…
I was watching the events unfold on Sky News yesterday, then decided to turn it off because it totally frustrated me. How can the Brits and the Americans really think they're winning in Afghanistan? How many more soldiers, young sons, daughters, brothers, husbands, wives have to be murdered, and blown up?
Why don't both governments wake up and realise (and I think Robert Spencer will agree) that these Muslims are allowed to pretend to be allies yet hate us in their hearts? It's Islam, stupid!
Even more astounding was when I asked my Member of Parliament (who, incidentally was a government minister before the election) when were we bringing the boys home, as we were obviously not winning in Afghanistan. He said we were winning, in fact.... and wait for it.....there were NO TALIBAN in Afghanistan! I said, OK, then who is blowing up our soldiers? He said "insurgents". OK, I said, so if insurgents are blowing our soldiers up it's OK, as long as it isn't Taliban? No answer... surprise surprise......
I'm surprised at Channe's comments - frankly I think he/she's a put up job - the same old same old Muslim come back when us infidels dare to criticise Islam. Channe - if this isn't so - then is this your first time commenting on Jihad Watch? Robert Spencer is an authority on the cult of Islam - haven't you read any of the stuff he's put out? Does the word Al Takkeya ring any bells for you? I suggest you find out for yourself, if you don't believe me.
I'd be interested to know how you feel about the proposed Mega Mosque at Ground Zero? Judging by your original post you'd probably regard any opposition to it as Islamophobia.
You're an absolute gift to the Islamists - that is if you really are as gullible and naive as you seem to be, and not a plant....
Very interesting Dumbledores but it doesn't explain the Muslim v Muslim conflicts like Sunnis against Shias in Iraq or Turks against Kurds and Somalians killing Ugandans or Taliban murdering Hazaras. What is going on here?
Channe, I don't know what you are, what you believe, or why you are here but you present yourself as very ignorant when you say things like:
"This website is slowly turning into a hate website because it blames Islam when Islam has nothing to do with it. Frankly, the blame should be on Obama who has betrayed guys like me. I am a young American, an atheist, and damn against the war in Iraq and now Afghanistan. Obama PROMISED us we would be out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Gitmo would be closed. He ran as an agnostic because I've heard his anti-religion speeches. But he's a turncoat."
Don't despair, Obama is everything you want him to be but fortunately, the president does not have infinite power. Our system of government was designed with checks and balances to prevent megalomaniacs like Obama from destroying the country, although he's doing a good job of that with help from his commie friends in Congress.
Obama is a good public speaker when he has a teleprompter and a script but campaign promises are made to be broken; didn't you know that?! How old are you? He inspired millions of people who didn't look beneath the surface because they wanted to believe he was some kind of superman, messiah. He suckered you in, didn't he? I detest Marxism, collectivism, progressivism, socialism, cultural Marxism, moral relativism, and all the other 'isms Obama embraces with a fervent passion. Obama is the most radical, dangerous, anti-American president in this country's history and when you add his inexperience, naivete, hubris, and hangups from his childhood (rejection by his father, abandonment by his mother, etc.) into the equation, he's downright terrifying.
You contend that this website blames islam for the actions of individual muslims when islam has nothing to do with them. Obviously you have not bothered to brush up on islamic doctrine, which dictates every aspect of a muslim's behavior and life down to the most personal, intimate details. Except when it is convenient to accomplish specific goals or influence public opinion, muslims are not nationalists. The umma is the muslim nation and it encompasses the entire world. Muslims believe that what is theirs is theirs and what is yours is also theirs as soon as they get around to conquering it because they believe that the whole world is allah's, thus belongs to muslims. Their vision of a peaceful world is a world ruled by islamic law where non-muslims are subjugated, their wealth seized, their cultures annihilated, and their history obliterated. Muslims believe that they are superior to non-muslims and are the rightful rulers of the world. They consider even self-defense on the part of non-muslims to be 'aggression against islam'. In other words, if you are attacked by a horde of jihadists who want to impose islam on you, you cannot resist them or you are attacking islam. How do you like that rationale?
I do not agree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan but my objections to them are antithetical to yours. I supported the initial attacks on the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and the mission to find and kill bin Laden and his associaties. We had every right to retailiate for 9/11 and that happened to be the epicenter of islamic terrorists at the time. There is no reason for us to still be there building mosques,roads, hospitals, schools, and 'winning hearts and minds' that are unwinnable and not worth the fruitless effort. The schools, roads, and hospitals will be blown up because these people are content to live like the tribal savages they are. If that's what they want, let them have it! You can't force modernity, progress, and beneficial technology on barbarians.
Since you are a proud atheist and you indicated that you were impressed by Obama's non-religious attitude, you should be especially concerned about islamic imperialism, past and present. If you take the time to study islamic history and the doctrine of islam, what you read in the comments section of this website will make perfect sense to you. If you choose to remain ignorant about what makes muslims tick, you'll just be another stupid apologist, useful idiot for the most deadly, formidable enemy we have ever faced.
"Channe, I don't know what you are, what you believe, or why you are here but you present yourself as very ignorant when you say things like:
"This website is slowly turning into a hate website because it blames Islam when Islam has nothing to do with it."
As I said earlier, "Channe" is a Muslim Troll. It's completely obvious.
Simple.
Islam inculcates a mindset of suspicion and aggression; it enshrines an 'honor-shame' mentality combined with a 'winner-takes-all' 'zero-sum-game' mentality.
The Ummah, considered as a gestalt, engages in jihad against the Other, that is, the non-Muslims, in order to 'purify' the world of the 'corruption' of things non-Islamic.
But it also engages in 'inner struggle' to 'purify' itself - and sharia appears to be so constituted as to make it virtually impossible to be perfectly 'pure', perfectly Islamic - so the ummah is highly prone to what we kafir, in our vulgar ignorant way, refer to as 'civil war'. And one must also remember that Sunni view Shiites as heretics, and vice versa; and that the Quran and Hadith assign to *Arab* Muslims a position superior to that of non-Arab Muslims, which leads to a situation in which Arab Muslims look down on non-Arab Muslims and mistreat them, often very badly indeed, while non-Arab Muslims desperately try to be 'more Arab than the Arabs'.
If you haven't read Nonie Darwish's book on the dynamics of sharia, 'Cruel and Usual Punishment', do. She goes into this topic extensively.
Muslims may *think* that they can split the world into two and compartmentalise what they do in one part, from what they do in the other; that they can be nice to one part while practising nastiness to another part (a la Surah 48: 29); but if you get into the habit of aggression, suspicion, deceit and cruelty, then you'll end up aggressive, deceitful and cruel...to everyone.
Here's something interesting from Jacques Ellul's foreword on Jihad, written for Bat Yeor's The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam.
"...a major, twofold fact transforms the jihad into something quite different from traditional wars, waged for ambition and self-interest, with limited objectives, where the "normal" situation is peace between peoples - war, in itself, constituting a dramatic event which must end in a return to peace.
"This twofold fact is, first, the religious nature [of the jihad]; then, secondly, the fact that war has become an institution (and no longer an "event").
"Jihad is generally translated as "holy war" (this term is not satisfactory); and this suggests both that this war is provoked by strong religious feeling, and then that its first object is not so much to conquer land as to Islamize the populations.
"This war is a religious duty.
"It will probably be said that every religion in its expanding phase carries the risks of war; that history records hundreds of religious wars and it is now a commonplace to make this connection. So, religious passion is thus sometimes expressed in this manner. But it is, in fact, "passion" - it concerns mainly a fact which it would be easy to demonstrate does not correspond to the fundamental message of the religion.
"That disjuncture is obvious for Christianity.
"**In Islam, on the contrary, jihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of the duties that the believer must fulfil; it is Islam's normal path to expansion. And this is found repeatedly, dozens of times in the Koran.
"Therefore, the believer is not denying the religious message. Quite the reverse, jihad is the way he best obeys it.
"And the facts - which are meticulously recorded and clearly analyzed [by Bat Ye’or] - show that the jihad is not a "spiritual war" but a real military war of conquest. It expresses the agreement between the "founding text" and the believers' practical strivings.
"But Bat Ye'or shows that things are not so simple.
"**Since the jihad is not solely an external war, it can break out within the Muslim world itself - and wars among Muslims have been numerous, but always with the same features** {my emphasis - dda}.
"Hence, the second important specific characteristic is that the jihad is an institution and not an event; that is to say, that it is part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world."
END.
HOW IS THE "WINNING THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF AFGHANS" COMING ALONG?
This failed and stupid policy that was adopted by bush harkens back to the Johnson/Nixon Vietnam era. there should never be such a policy. certainly not for an invading foreign force. If we go to another country after attaining victory we go as masters and conquerors. Like during WW2. we dictate the terms, smash their fascist ideology , and we rule this country until a friendly government is in place. Instead nowadays we have these college frats wasting precious American lives and costing billions to make friends with and help build up the country while their fascist ideology is permitted to rule over the country again. This afghan war and Iraq police action and nation building is the insane outcome of a totally wrong policy. The most we should have done was quickly end the threats of the enemy by bombing them back to the stone ages and than letting the survivors rebuild by them selves while letting them know that if they are a threat again we will cause even more devastation. and we do have the power to really bomb their sorry asses to the stone age.
Anyway back to wining hearts and minds, ok so we haven't even won the hearts and minds of the afghans who are supposed to be our closest friends and allies, the afghan army and the government. Can it be because of that five letter dirty word? that begins with I and ends with M?
Nah, according to the Bama it's something else. we have to spend billions more and get more American boys killed to find out.