Allen West: "Ever since Muhammad left Mecca and took his Hijrah to Medina there was a violent turn to this faith that is called Islam. And we must confront that and we must understand that"

Exactly. That is the truth that must not be spoken (except we do anyway): Muslims who undertake violent jihad to advance the cause of Islam do so following the example of its founder. On so many issues, from jihadist warfare to antisemitism to child marriage, the heart of the resistance to reform is the example of Muhammad himself.

Denial is not reform.

No matter what measures are taken to repackage Muhammad for Western consumption and Islamic dawah, these issues remain after the sugar coating melts off, leaving a bitter center that is too unpalatable for the politically correct to stomach.

"Congressman Allen West says 9/11 lessons unlearned, sees threat from radical Islam," by Anthony Man for the Sun-Sentinel, September 8:

Congressman Allen West said Wednesday the nation hasn't learned the lessons from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks largely because political correctness is hobbling political leaders from confronting the threat he sees from Islamic extremists.
West, a Republican who represents Broward and Palm Beach counties, made his comments at a Washington, D.C., event at which he hosted the screening of a conservative Christian group's film "Sacrificed Survivors: The Untold Story of the Ground Zero Mega Mosque."
"My fear is that maybe we could end up forgetting what happened on 9/11 because of certain things like political correctness or this desire to be a multicultural America. But in being a multicultural America, we must never forget the fundamental principles and values that made us great," West said.

Also under assault is the very notion that America was ever great or even a force for good.

"Have we really learned a lesson from 9/11? I don't think we have. I think we are so anxious with this fast food type of mentality that we can quickly move beyond something that were not willing to sit back and really assess what is really happening in and around us," he said.
West said the political correctness intimidates people from saying what he believes is true about Islam.
"If we continue down this road, as I call it multiculturalism on steroids, then we're going to present a gap by which we can get exploited time and time again. So I think that we have to start kind of like in baseball the umpire calls a ball a ball and a strike as strike and it's time that we start calling some strikes out there."
"I am not sitting up here and condemning people who call themselves Muslims," West said. "Now is the time we have to challenge this ideology. If we are to peacefully coexist they have to come into the 21st Century and push aside a lot of these 7th Century ideas they still hold."
West said he thinks that makes Islam a particular threat.
"We have to understand that the major religions of the world, Judaism and Christianity did go through reformations. Now when you look at this next major religion, I call it a theocratic political construct ideology, they need to go through a reform of the process as well.
"Ever since Muhammad left Mecca and took his Hijrah to Medina there was a violent turn to this faith that is called Islam. And we must confront that and we must understand that….

As daunting as the prospects for a substantive, meaningful, fundamental, pervasive, and permanent reformation are, reform needs a problem to motivate it. As long as Islamic groups see themselves as gaining by acting as they do, there will be scant need for thoughts of reform, whether on the individual, group, or institutional level, let alone the global one.

"We have to continue to challenge them. Because once again if we continue to give and give and cede and cede and give ground we're not going to be respected."
He said potentially dangerous elements are using America's freedoms in a way that ultimately will undermine the country and those freedoms. "There is something that is the anathema of what we believe in that is using our constitutional rights and freedoms, that is using the First Amendment to try to get within this country and try to establish a foothold and take this country down."
West said the nation is "very blessed that we have not had a catastrophic event," since Sept. 11. He said that isn't for lack of trying by those who would pose a threat, such as the bombing in Times Square and the Christmas Day shoe bombing....
| 69 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

69 Comments

| Leave a comment

This is the guy I wish was running for President. Allen West "gets it" about Islam more than any Republican Presidential candidate (though, to be fair, Gingrich, Santorum and Bachmann semi-get it; Ron Paul, by contrast, remains clueless here) and, of course, he's light years ahead of the Anointed One, and not just on Islam but basically on everything.

I can see CAIR clown Nezar Hamze, in response to this dose of truth about mahoundianism, go like this again: "Are you ashamed that you insulted iz-lam in front of all these people?" Yep, that's all he could ever try to say in response.

What a refreshing dose of truth syrum. Now to watch the taqiyya fly in response!

Yes, Wellington. I would be so happy if he ran for president.

WEST FOR PRESIDENT. At least we would have a chance of turning this situation around.

Lt. Col. Allen West is one of the two politicians I trust in Washington (the other being Sue Myrick).

I fear that if Allen West were to become a legitimate contender for POTUS, he might end up like Robert Kennedy, arguably the first victim of islamonazi terrorism in the USA.

Go West! You are very correct.

How can he be persuaded to run for Prez?

Islam as a religion was an abject failure. In 13 years of Mohammad's proseltyzing he gained only 150'ish followers.

When he was forced out of Mecca, he changed tactics and started to preach to the misfits and degenerates of society in Medina. When he promised and delivered booty to those low on the societal totem pole, he became popular (a modern day version of a progressive lefty, a rich hating, jealous individual who wanted to take from the haves and give to have-nots in society). When he preached jihad, he became successful. In other words, when Islam became politicized, that's when he gained followers and quickly grew in strength.

Islam as we know it is not a relgion, it is a political ideology cloaked in religion. It is a trojan horse designed to destroy a society from within. In it's true nature, it is subversive to its host society and will ultimately succeed unless the host society treats it like the disease it is.

Colonel Allen West is 'Da Man! How about West as CIC and Herman Cain as VP to implement corrective measures boost the US economy?

you are correct. he says it the way it should be said. period.
m

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we may have found the American Churchill. Right now West doesn't make ripples because the American public is focused in the economy but wait until America wakes up to three nuclear attacks on American cities and America will turn to West.

Churchill preached for a decade against Nazism and his message was not heeded in Britain. After the true colors of Nazism came out with invasions of Czechoslovakia/Albania/Poland, the British public turned to Churchill to lead the charge against Nazism. Unfortunately, that's how things work in a democracy. We don't see danger until we have in our face.

I've been an Allen West supporter. I supported West's victory over Congressman Ron Klein. West really disappointed me in a recent interview he did with Herb Keinon (Jerusalem Post) while he was in Israel with a Congressional delegation:

Keinon: Do you support two states for two peoples?

West: "I think that you have to first of all support the modern-day state of Israel. I think you have to support Israel post the ’67 borders. Now, I am not going to sit here and dictate to Israel what their polices should be, but my perspective on it is that I have never seen a Palestinian state, and I think before that ever gets talked about, there are some concessions that have to be made on their side: the recognition of Israel and the renouncing of terrorism.

And once again it comes back to those very important words: a credible peace partner.

I think the last thing you need to have is an erosion of your state of security. Look at what is going on right now. You gave back Gaza and the only thing you got in return were Kassam rockets and 220-millimeter [mortar shells]. You pulled out of southern Lebanon, and what did you get? You got a more militant Hezbollah, which during the Second Lebanon War rained down rockets and missiles.

So I think the other side needs to come to the table and show they are a credible partner before we continue to say to Israel, “This is what you must do, and that you must believe in a two-state solution.....”

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=235491

"I am not going to sit here and dictate to Israel what their polices should be..." is a cop out. Since George W. Bush, the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel is a formal goal of U.S. policy. Bush pursued it. Obama is pursuing the Bush "vision" for Israel's destruction with a vengeance!

What is Congressman West talking about, he's not going to dictate what Israel's policies should be? Obama is twisting Netanyahu's arm behind his back; issuing all kinds of veiled threats. West knows it. Everyone knows it. Why didn't West simply state what he as a Christian believes or what he professes to believe? Why didn't he say, "NO, I do not believe there should be a Muslim-enemy state in the Holy Land.....the land of Israel belongs to Israel; not to the ummah." (?) Instead, West said, "if the other side (the jihadists) come to the table and show they are a credible partner," then I will support a Muslim enemy state in Israel.

What kind of rubbish is that?

What is Congressman West talking about,...

if the other side (the jihadists) come to the table and show they are a credible partner," then I will support a Muslim enemy state in Israel.

What kind of rubbish is that?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In West's defense, what are the chances of the Islamo-fascist doing that???


zero.

I understand the argument. A Jerusalem post reader argued much the same. He argued West was being polite or diplomatic. That is why I am not a diplomat. I believe in being straight forward and honest. West wrote in an e-mail to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she is a despicable and vile human being. That's not diplomatic. Why wasn't he as straight forward while visiting Israel?

In West's defense, what are the chances of the Islamo-fascist doing that???

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Also there is taqiyya. The late Yasser Arafat was expert at saying one thing to a western audience and quite another to an Arab or a Muslim audience. So is ground zero imam Rauf.

If this guy was President, then you could really say that Islam versus the Free World was East versus West!

When he was forced out of Mecca, he changed tactics and started to preach to the misfits and degenerates of society in Medina.

Spot on! ... and it shows in the contradictions in Mein Koranpf:

"...later violent verses of the Koran contradict and 'abrogate' (cancel and annul) earlier peaceful verses. The peaceful cancelled verses are left in the Koran, but their only purpose is for Taqiyya (holy deception) whereby Muslims quote them to gullible non-Muslims to lull them into a false sense of security. The Muslims themselves know that such early verses as 'There is no compulsion in religion' and 'If you kill one person it is as if you killed the whole of humanity' are null, void and abrogated by the later 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them'.

The reason for the systematic cancellation of earlier peaceful verses by later violent ones is not, as modern Muslims claim, that a fickle Allah changed his mind (a proposition fraught with theological absurdities), but that Mohammed adapted the Koran to his changed circumstances. In other words, he made it up as he went along.

Mohammed started his career as a cult leader in his hometown of Mecca, preaching a garbled mixture of Christianity and Judaism. However he didn't get many converts, possibly because the Meccans preferred the genuine articles, or maybe the people who he had grown up with knew he was a conman, pervert and nutjob.

Anyway, getting angry at making no progress in Mecca, Mohammed packed up and went to Medina, where he tried a change of strategy. Instead of of the fluffy 'peace and love' message, he went into hellfire and brimstone mode, cursing those who rejected his cult with persecution in this life and damnation in the next. He recruited a bunch of thugs, rapists, gangsters and psychopaths and promised them rape and pillage in the here-and-now, and virgins in the afterlife. He then went on a rampage of raiding, raping and extortion - establishing a tradition of predation, parasitism and general criminality that continue to today wherever Muslims come into contact with non-Muslims. The peaceful verses date from his unsuccessful efforts in Mecca, and the violent verses from his successes in Medina.

There are other instances of Mohammed making up his 'revelations' as he went along, to suit his own purposes, such as when he disowned his adopted son because he wanted to screw his daughter-in-law....
http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/abrogation-of-koran-koranic.html

Allen West: "Ever since Muhammad left Mecca and took his Hijrah to Medina there was a violent turn to this faith that is called Islam. And we must confront that and we must understand that"
.....................................

Wow—to find a Congressman who both *knows this* and is *not afraid to say it* is amazingly inspiring.

Like so many here, I wish Allen West were running for president. God knows he'd have my vote.

The more I hear, see, and read about this man, the more I admire him. His constituents are very lucky to have him, and if he could be persuaded to run for President, would make a much better job of it than the ghastly obama.

I only wish there was anyone comparable to him in the UK. Sigh.

Truly sad we don't have West running against the imPOTUS.

It's not too often one hears any politician say the unadulterated, unsanitized truth about islam.

Lt co. West gets it. I wish he was running for president but in 2008. Islam was and is a political ideology wrapped in a religion. This country and the world needs to be protected by leaders who get it otherwise we all go down in flames.

wildjew quoted Allen West:

West: "I think that you have to first of all support the modern-day state of Israel. I think you have to support Israel post the ’67 borders. Now, I am not going to sit here and dictate to Israel what their polices should be, but my perspective on it is that I have never seen a Palestinian state, and I think before that ever gets talked about, there are some concessions that have to be made on their side: the recognition of Israel and the renouncing of terrorism."

Wildjew then goes on to blathering about the weakness of every politician who doesn't support Israel enough in his estimation.

The problem is the first quote by Allen West. It is a full-stop to the second part that wildjew took offense to, which does not arrive in the absence of fullfillment of the first part.

Wildjew doth protest too much in my estimation. His conspiracy theories like...

"Since George W. Bush, the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel is a formal goal of U.S. policy."

...is the only rubbish on this thread.

Wildjew has never put forth a shred of substantiating evidence to support his slanderous assertion that Bush actively worked against Israel to support a Muslim enemy state within Israel's borders. Never.

Lord knows there are clueless apologists on both sides of the isle, but for all those in the anti-Jihad who insist that there is no difference between the parties in how they perceive Islam, I ask...show me a Democrat who speaks like Allen West.

Republicans are an eclectic group with both good and bad. Democrats are to a man the party of multiculturalism and fiscal profligacy.

I'm not a Republican, I'm an anti-Democrat. I'll be voting straight Republican next year, just like I did in 2008, 2004, etc.

I am a big fan of JihadWatch. However, in this post, Marisol links to another post by Robert Spencer which has a major error. Link is at:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/10/havin-fun-killin-apostates-and-missionaries.html

Robert quotes from Sidiqqi's "Methodology of Dawah" in which Sidiqqi describes dawah conducted "without the revolutionary aspect" in a "concocted or abbreviated form". Robert's quote is mostly accurate, except for the last sentence, which omits several words, thereby changing the meaning of the sentence. Here is the actual last sentence: "The revolutionary aspect of Islam is rarely brought before the new converts, as in most of the cases the Da'ee himself is not conversant with it." (Apparently "Da'ee" means the person doing the proselytizing.) So Sidiqqi is saying that because the one doing the proselytizing is not aware of the revolutionary aspects, he does not bring them up. This does not describe a case of intentional deception.

Robert's quote occurs in Sidiqqi's chapter called "Survey of Present Dawah Activities…." So Sidiqqi is describing how things are conducted currently, but he does not recommend this approach. In fact, he apparently finds it deplorable. Here are a few additional quotes:

"[The disunity of the Muslim community which results from this Dawah approach] is really a great tragedy. It has rendered the entire Muslim community of America as an ineffective force. Had they been properly taught and educated with the meaning and the concept of the Kalimah-La-Ilaha Illallah and what it demands from one who accepts it as the predominant faith of his life, it could bring the revolution which Allah (SWT) wants from us. It would have enabled the Muslims to play the revolutionary role in this society that only Muslims can do."

"The Dawah work which is being conducted by these communities is haphazard, irregular and without any planning The objective of Dawah Ilallah which should be uppermost in the mind of the Da'ee is perhaps missing altogether."

Now, is Sidiqqi a great big liar? Probably. However, this book is no smoking gun, and the quote Robert uses cannot justify his conclusion.

I have also emailed this correction in to Jihad Watch and hope they correct it. There is plenty of true information to rely on without getting into misrepresentations. We have the truth on our side, we don't need anything else.

You really aren't worth a man's time. You've done everything in your power to discredit me, since at least October 2008.

1992 Republican Party Platform

"We oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Nor will we support the creation of any political entity that would jeopardize Israel's security...."

Only days after the 9/11/2001 Muslim-terror attacks in New York and Washington. This was President George W. Bush's most significant response to Islamic terrorism:

October 2, 2001 Posted: 1:49 PM EDT (1749 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that a Palestinian state was always "part of a vision" if Israel's right to exist is respected. He said the two parties needed to get to work "on the Mitchell process" which he said provides a clear path to solving the crisis in the Middle East.....

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25847

CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS
Israel and the U.S. Involved in a Public Spat
Aired October 6, 2001 - 09:21 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I call on the western democracy, and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States, do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient, temporary solution.

CNN'S JOHN KING: What angered Washington most was Sharon's comparison to Europe ceding parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, suggesting that in its aggressive effort to court Arab nations for the coalition against terrorism, the United States was turning its back on Israel's security.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel can have no better or stronger friend than the United States, and better friend than President Bush.

KING: Secretary of State Colin called Sharon once to voice the president's (Hot) displeasure, then again later, after the prime minister agreed to issue a conciliatory statement.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/06/smn.06.html

2004 National Republican Party Platform

"We support President Bush's vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side..... (in peace B.S. and security B.S.....)

"Republicans agree with President Bush that Israel's plan to remove all settlements from Gaza and several settlements from the West Bank is a courageous step toward peace in the face of continuing terrorist violence. This initiative can stimulate progress toward peace as laid out in the Road Map launched by President Bush.

"Republicans commend the government of Israel for its desire to pursue peace, even in the face of continuing terrorist attacks.....

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25850#one

No question you are right Cornelius. I am a forty year registered Republican; former eight year party activist. I expect better from our side. But you are right, since Obama I can't imagine anyone voting for a Democrat. As far as I am concerned the Democrat party is the party of B. Hussein Obama. They will never shake this evil image that they have supported and established.

Wildjew has never put forth a shred of substantiating evidence to support his slanderous assertion that Bush actively worked against Israel to support a Muslim enemy state within Israel's borders. Never.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JUDY WOODRUFF: John, the White House, the State Department saying this has always been U.S. policy.

But in fact, they haven't gone out of their way to stress it and to emphasize it.

JOHN KING: There has always been U.S. policy that the parties should negotiate, that they should make the decisions; and that, yes, logic would tell you the only way to get the Palestinians to stop fighting would be for them to get some of their demands, a key one of course being autonomy, a state, a government and borders of its own.

The United States has also said that that is probably what would happen at the end, but that the Israelis and the Palestinians should negotiate that. For the administration to say, we believe this should be one of the end games, one of the end pieces of this puzzle, is the administration, imposing if you will, in the view of the Israelis, something.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/05/lt.02.html

CNN LIVE TODAY
Target: Terrorism - U.S./Israeli Friction
Aired October 5, 2001 - 12:06 ET

"Bush plugs for human rights — in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere — and renews his call for an independent Palestinian state. (Bush is the first president to make such a state a goal of U.S. policy.) He outlines his vision of a free and prospering Middle East, with terror and tyranny tamed — and says he has “no doubt” that the region’s people will make this vision a reality."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258316/george-w-bush-egypt-jay-nordlinger

wildjew quoted an unsourced CNN article, which I sourced below, when he quoted:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that a Palestinian state was always "part of a vision" if Israel's right to exist is respected. He said the two parties needed to get to work "on the Mitchell process" which he said provides a clear path to solving the crisis in the Middle East.....

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-02/us/gen.mideast.us_1_palestinian-state-israeli-palestinian-conflict-arab-support?_s=PM:US

That is hardly an affirmation of a desire to establish a Muslim-terrorist state within Israel.

On the contrary, it was more of the typical two-state peace, BS, as you would put it that FIRST requires concession of Israel's right to exist. I never said Bush was sharp on Islam, however, but it all seems like lip-service as the premise of Israel's existence is a non-starter to Muslims.

Here is a better, in-depth (sourced) analysis of the tenure of Bush in regards to Israel:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer246/bush-jerusalem

Sirhan Sirhan is not a Muslim.

I believe that the "first victim of islamonazi terrorism in the USA" would have been one of the seamen whose ships were attacked by the Barbary pirates in the Eighteenth Century.

And of course the "first victim" anywhere (not in the U.S.A.) was in the Seventh Century.

I suppose you could even make the case that Muhammed himself was the first victim.

"That is hardly an affirmation of a desire to establish a Muslim-terrorist state within Israel."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Exactly what do you think will be the end result of a Muslim state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem, other than a jihad state or a terror state dedicated to the annihilation of the tiny coastal strip that remains of Israel?


awake: Here is a better, in-depth (sourced) analysis of the tenure of Bush in regards to Israel:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer246/bush-jerusalem

This writer, Josh Ruebner, is far more hostile to Israel than was Bush.

He wrote: "More to the point, when Bush mentions an “end to the occupation,” he clearly does not mean that Israel must completely relinquish (all -- wj) the territories it conquered in 1967 (as a result of a defensive war -- wj), as required by UN resolutions and international law.

"....(The) “major Israeli population centers” are the illegal settlement blocs that nearly surround East Jerusalem and jut deep into the West Bank. After an “end to the occupation,” in other words, these colonies would be allowed to stand."

Colonies? One does not colonize ones own land. By "occupation" Ruebner is pushing the case that Israel illegally (or as Hillary Clinton says, "illegitimately") occupies Muslim land according to international law. I do not deny the United Nations has passed resolutions condemning Israel for "illegally occupying" Muslim-Arab land but how does Israel's presence in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, etc., violate international law in light of the League of Nations Mandate that "Palestine" from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan River was to constitute the National Home for the Jewish people? How are Israeli (Jewish) communities in Israel's undivided capital a violation of international law, notwithstanding United Nations resolutions which violate international law?

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 states the following in part:

(a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.—

(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and

(3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

If Ruebner is right, isn't US law a violation of international law?

Ruebner's position is well-known. That said, his hope that Bush would actually push, beyond mere rhetoric, for the abdication of "occupied teritories" were unfullfilled. First because they were dependent upon a premise that is akin to waiting for a unicorn. The legitimate and genuine acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist in the eyes of the Palestinians, and by extension, all Muslims.

Now, I'm not defending Ruebner at all. In fact I disagree whole-heartedly with him. That said, his analysis, not his desire, was more in depth in that piece than snippets from "Republican Party Platforms" and commentary from a hack at CNN, like John King.

The US has, was and will be Israel's strongest ally. To try to bring in the UN at this point is a red herring. The US does not bow to international law, nor does the disposition of the UN on Israel have any place in this discourse. You said:

"Since George W. Bush, the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel is a formal goal of U.S. policy. Bush pursued it. Obama is pursuing the Bush "vision" for Israel's destruction with a vengeance!"

That's a pretty bold statement. US policy since 2000 is the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel? Hogwash. Even Obama, in his absurd statements about a return to the 1967 borders in exchange for peace is just another empty gesture. He'll do nothing about Israel and we both know it. It's just more bullshit in this disingenuous effort of US policy to work towards peace in the Middle East.

You're a one-trick pony wildjew, with only one consideration that guides all your commentary.

It's a shame that we cannot vote for Congressman West unless we live in his district.

"That's a pretty bold statement. US policy since 2000 is the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel?"

It is not a pretty bold statement. It is true statement, recognized by scholars and so-called Middle East "peace processors." It's not been U.S. policy since 2000, but since early October 2001, in keeping with a pledge Bush made to then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, late August 2001 in a two page letter Bush sent to Abdullah.

When then First Lady Hillary Clinton made public her desire for a Palestinian state in Israel, the Clinton administration quickly distanced itself from her policy comment as (your source) Reubner pointed out in his piece. This push for a Muslim-enemy state in Israel's strategic heartland has proceeded apace incrementally, as you can see from our 1992 Republican party platform (language I posted above) whereby Republicans pledged, "We oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Nor will we support the creation of any political entity that would jeopardize Israel's security...."

Only after Bush came to office - following the 9/11/2001 attacks - did President Bush and the Republican party jettison decades of policy in favor of Bush's vision for a Muslim-enemy state in Israel. There is no distance now between Democrats and Republicans on Israel; only the pace such a terror state will be established.

I followed Bush administration tactics closely as I was in touch with Texas delegate to the 2004 national Republican platform writing committee, Cathie Adams. Adams fought the Bush people but she was out-voted by the full Committee because Bush-Rove pushed the language through into our party platform late August, 2004.

Thus the reason for Congressman West's dodge with Jerusalem Post journalist / columnist Herb Keinon. West knows a Muslim-enemy state in Israel is a formal goal of not only U.S. policy but Republican party policy.

You call me a "one trick pony." I call you dishonest.

West knows (or he should know) a Muslim-enemy state in Israel is a formal goal of not only U.S. policy but Republican party policy.

When Mohammed lived in Mecca he was under the protection of his grandfather, the venerated Abd al Mutallib -- a man who played a significant role in preventing the Ka'aba from being destroyed by Abraha, the Abyssinian governor of Yemen, in the year 570

This was the reason Muhammad was able to preach his religion in Mecca in the first place; otherwise, he would would have been assasinated immediatly. Of course, even with his grandfather's patronage, Mohammed was obliged to tone it down with "Let there be no compulsion in religion" statememts. In essence, he was practicing "taqiyyah" on the Meccans.

When Abdul Muttalib died, Muhammad's place in Mecca became completetly untenable, and he was obliged to beat it out of Mecca one step ahead of the assasin's dagger. Then, as he consolidated his power position in Medina, his less tolerant message came to the fore. That's the reason the Medinan verses abrogate the Meccan -- it's the true message that Mohammed couldn't reveal, lest he be assasinated.

West: "If we continue down this road, as I call it multiculturalism on steroids, then we're going to present a gap by which we can get exploited time and time again.”

“Multiculturalism” is a laughably meaningless term. It was adopted by European leftist politicians (if that’s not a redundancy) as a “polite” code word meant to impress upon their malleable publics that they were not allowed to try to assimilate the massive wave of Muslim immigrants those same politicians were letting stream into their countries. The politicians didn’t think they could get away with telling the public the truth – that the politicians had entered into a disastrous series of immigration agreements with the Arab League that promised both massive Muslim immigration into Europe and the non-assimilation of those Muslim immigrants, so instead they conjured this ridiculous quasi-concept of “multiculturalism,” and propagandistically pounded it into their publics’ heads through Europe’s largely state-run media outlets. True Big Brother-ism.

We need to start calling this term what it is -- nonsense.

Allen West for president?
I believe he will run, if not this time then the next,
but he will run.
He himself said that for now he is too new and inexperienced
but that when the right time comes..... and he left it dangling.
He is learning the ropes for now.
As somebody stated above, he is our Chuchill.
His time also came and there was no one better,
at the right time.

sorry, should read Churchill

Yes, Col. West looks like a very credible leader.

Then again, had the Arabs accepted the 1947 partition plan, we'd have had a real Arab Spring decades ago, and wouldn't have wasted decades in a deadly spiral of deranged violence.

wildjew wrote:

"West knows (or he should know) a Muslim-enemy state in Israel is a formal goal of not only U.S. policy but Republican party policy."

Wow. You've touched all bases on a global conspiracy here. First, the US official policy, since Bush, is intent on the destruction of Israel via proxy of the implementation of a Muslim-terrorist state within her borders.

Second, the destruction of Israel is not only an overt US political platform, but a stated platform of the Republican party since Bush assumed the Presidency, as elaborated in 2004.

Third, Hillary made similar claims, according to you, and Josh Ruebner, who supports that position as well, was "distanced" by the Clinton administration, affirms that both the official positions of Democrats and Republicans, support the destruction of Israel by proxy of the implentation of a Muslim-terrorist state within Israel's borders. When was that exactly, regarding the Democratic party specifically?

Interesting.

Fourth, the procalamation by you, that both the Democratic and Republican parties both share a common goal, the destruction of Israel, by proxy by the implementation of a Muslim-terrorist state within the borders of Israel, is shared by both parties, regardless of the time that the Dems signed on to this global conspiracy, aside.

In your estimation, America, governed by a two-party system is irrelevant. Both equally hate Israel and both have set as policy, the destruction of Israel via proxy of...yada, yada, yada.

And you still call yourself a Republican Jew from Florida, Steve? Oh that, and I guess West is a liar since he is a Republican, and his words hold no merit since ultimately he, a republican, simply wants to see Israel destroyed, according to official US policy, no?

Most interesting.

In the eternal and pertinent words of Cathie Adams, (again unsourced and unsubstantiated), (full disclosure, I didn't bother to look her up yet), why do you still live in a country that hates you and your cause so much?

Besides your inherent skill of taking a relevant topic off-thread so quickly, do you actually serve a purpose here at JW?

Just wondering.

I have my answer already...


wildjew wrote, replying to Awake:

"That is hardly an affirmation of a desire to establish a Muslim-terrorist state within Israel."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Exactly what do you think will be the end result of a Muslim state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem, other than a jihad state or a terror state dedicated to the annihilation of the tiny coastal strip that remains of Israel?
..............................

I agree with you that that this *would* be the end result. wildjew—but that is *not* the same thing as this being the intended, desired, and planned result.

Republicans have been almost as willfully clueless as Democrats when it come to the "Palestinians". This is appalling and indefensible—but it *does not mean* that Republican presidents have been actively seeking the destruction of Israel.

Full disclosure: when I was first in college, I learned about the "two-state solution". I thought it was great!

I was incredibly, embarrassingly naïve—but did I want to see Israel's destruction? Far from it. I actually thought that it would *protect* Israel, and stop the violence.

Now, leaders of the most powerful country on earth have far less excuse for this hopeful silliness than I did as a 17-year-old kid—but to assume they are being knowingly evil is entirely off base, and completely underestimates the witlessness of those who should know better.

There are Israeli leaders making the same boneheaded error—and with even less excuse. Now, some of them feel pushed into supporting the idea of a "Palestinian state", and some—*very* few—are self-hating Jews who actually *want* to see Israel destroyed.

But most of them are just these Americans—hopeful and uninformed and just as gullible as can be.

Thank you, gravenimage.

Lennie, you are partly correct. After the death of Mutalib, Mohammed was protected by his maternal uncle Abu Talib. Abu Talib also introduced Mohammed to trading and especially trading with Syria. Abu Talib also introduced Mohammed to the family of Ummayah. Ummayah was a rich business family and three of his grandchildren (Al Hakim, Abu Sufyan (who became a mulsim to save his life but apostated after death of mohammed) and Uthman who became a muslim and also the 3rd Caliph.

Abu Talib also introduced MOhammed to Abu Baker a friend of Khadija (Mohamemds first wife). Khadija was a very powerful rich woman and Mohammed was her third husband.

So it was Abu talib and Khadija who protected Mohammed till 622 AD. Once they were dead Mohammed cut a deal with 2 pirate tribes of Medina (Qas and Khajraj). Thus after 623 AD Mohammed became a pirate leader and justified all piracy with purported revealation from Allah. That is how looting, capturing slaves, concubines, sharing booty, raiding caravan etc became the standard feature of number of ayah's of Quran. The latest example is of the Somali pirates. The leader of Somali pirates is modern day mohammed.

Also note that Mohammeds cousins ie Utham's brotehr family killed all known descendants of Mohammed and became rulers of Islam. Therefore you will find no written record of Islam from 610AD to 745 AD because the family of Abu Sufyan never became muslims and thus discouraged any propogation of islam. They called themselves vice regents of god. It was only after Abbasids takeover of the caliphate in 745 AD that furious record keeping began in Islam. This period 745AD to 958 AD saw the writting of the Quran, Biography of mohammed, Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, Tarikh of Tabari, Hadiths of Hanbal, Hanaf, Malik and Shafi (last four became Sharia).

Thus the Islam is a religion of the Abbassid and what they permitted to be written. And thus like all religions plainly a story told by fallible men. But unlike other religions Islam still remains dangerous.


wildjew says:

"West knows (or he should know) a Muslim-enemy state in Israel is a formal goal of not only U.S. policy but Republican party policy."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it's semantics. Both Democrats and Republicans are going with the "two state" solution for whatever reasons.

Now, wildjew knowing more than the average politician about jihad knows that on of them will probably be a terrorist state. Therefore wildjew equates the stated policy of both parties to be "the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state in Israel".

In my opinion, that "solution" has more to do with ignorance on the part of the politicians going for the peace and love, why can't we all get along mantra than with a nefarious purpose in establishing a terrorist state within the land of Israel. Anyway, if they get away with it, the end result is a terrorist state but what do they know?

For political reasons, we have to go with the "yeah it would be nice to have two states side by side living in peace and harmony forever" but with the caveat that they will not be able to satisfy given their nature: recognition of the right of israel to exist, repudiation to terrorism. I would add a couple of favorites but I know I am asking for too much: The Banu Quraiza memorial synagogue in Medina would be one. A Cathedral in Makkah for sure.

As I've written before to wildjew, gravenimage, most every proposal by American politicians (and certainly the one by Bush when he was President) for an independent Palestinian state is invariably accompanied by the requirements that such a state be a true democracy, fully recognize Israel (no games with language), live in peace with Israel and not even have a conventional military. I have also indicated to wildjew that a very large majority of Israeli Jews would be prepared to accept such a state WERE ALL THESE CONDITIONS MET (plus no "right of return").

But the chances that such conditions would be met are essentially zero and I'm certain Bush was aware of this but engaged in the proposal for diplomatic reasons which wildjew refuses to acknowledge or even see. As I quoted to him once before from Robert Middlekauff's excellent work on the American Revolution, The Glorious Cause, "Face-saving fiction is often more acceptable than fact in foreign relations." I think this is what Bush and most other American politicians have been up to. I'm also reminded here of that great line from that great film, The Lion in Winter, where a specific diplomatic proposal is made by Henry II and his young mistress expresses astonishment that he would have made such a proposal and his reply is, "Good God, you don't think I meant it?" Ah, if only wildjew could see things from such a perspective.

Israel is the fundamental issue of our times. Whilst i have my reservations on the actions of some right wing jews I have no doubt that defence of Israel, to exist as a jewish state, is paramount.

What actually stands in the way of Congressman Allen West becoming President? Real (as in not rhetorical) question!

Multiculti is NOT a problem if you leave Moslems out. Cause Jews, Hindus, Sikhs dont kill people and they are not trouble makers.

Take out Pakistan and Saudi and you will see Moslems leaving Islam in droves. Moslems are coerced upon by its own adherents to follow Sharia. Its a Mafioso religion.

You wrote: "Now, leaders of the most powerful country on earth have far less excuse for this hopeful silliness than I did as a 17-year-old kid—but to assume they are being knowingly evil is entirely off base, and completely underestimates the witlessness of those who should know better."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

gravenimage, do you think Congressman West is also in the dark? Why would he indicate to the Jerusalem Post if the Muslims are more forthcoming; if "there are some concessions made on their (the Muslim's) side: the recognition of Israel and the renouncing of terrorism (we know these are all meaningless; don't we?), then West could conceivably support "two states for two peoples in Israel?" Why didn't West simply state there is no room for another Muslim state in the region, much less in this tiny nation? I am well aware of delusional Israelis who support the phony peace process. Many of them are corrupt. I am talking about America leaders and American policy. I've not seen American policy change much from one administration to the next. In fact, after the 9/11 Muslim terror attacks, Bush ratcheted up the pressure on Israel. Why?


"But the chances that such conditions would be met are essentially zero and I'm certain Bush was aware of this but engaged in the proposal for diplomatic reasons which wildjew refuses to acknowledge or even see."


Let's explore this. What are the diplomatic reasons? What would happen to the United State in you view, if it did not pursue this charade? Is Obama also pushing for a Muslim state in Israel for diplomatic reasons with no prospect or desire to see the vision of "two states for two peoples" fulfilled?

Posters on Politico (many) have tag lines. One conservative poster has the following tag line:

“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity”

"There are Israeli leaders making the same boneheaded error—and with even less excuse. Now, some of them feel pushed into supporting the idea of a "Palestinian state", and some—*very* few—are self-hating Jews who actually *want* to see Israel destroyed."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In politics, a man of principle, seeks out and allies himself with people holding similar moral principles. There are plenty of principled Jews in Israel; even in Israel's government though they are few. On the other hand, there is no shortage of unprincipled-traitors out there. The unprincipled who support U.S. policy as it now stands inform me, "There are Israeli leaders making the same boneheaded error. I mean gosh, what can American leaders do?"

If the US under Bush hadn't engaged in this particular diplomatic game, wildjew, it is very likely that the Saudis and OPEC in general would have threatened an oil production slowdown or something along these lines. Yeah, the Saudis (repulsive bunch to be sure) pretty much despise the so-called Palestinian Arabs but they've got to play games too. Just the threat alone would roil markets worldwide, from the Nikkei to the NYSE. Another reason is that moderate Arab regimes like that of Jordan (yes, I know that there really aren't any true moderate Arab nations but, let's face it, Jordan and, say Tunisia before this past Spring, are indeed moderate relative to countries like Libya under Qaddafi and Syria under Assad) would be in danger of being overthrown and any intelligence we receive from them would be jeopardized. And on and on along these lines. That's why Bush did the kabuki dance about a Palestinian state. He probably thought there was a 2% chance or something like this that his conditions would be met but I'm certain he thought it highly likely that the Palestinians would not fail to disappoint again. But you see, then he could say to the Saudis and the mediocrities running European nations and to others, hey, I gave it a shot.

As for Obama, unlike Bush, whom, by the way, I think is definitely smarter than the Anointed One even though the conventional wisdom maintains the opposite, he probably does believe that a two-state solution really is a distinct possibility. He's that naive or complicit (I think it more likely the former than the latter). But even Obama understands full well that the Israelis are not going to go through with all this if they don't get particular conditions met first. Netanyahu's "dressing down" of Obama in the White House earlier this year (which personally I greatly enjoyed) served as yet another reminder of this.

I think you worry too much about a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It ain't gonna' happen unless the Palestinians really do want to live in peace with the Israelis (which I think is impossible precisely because the vast majority of these pathetic people are Muslim) or the Israelis collectively lose their mind, also only a highly remote possibility. Meanwhile, the diplomatic games will continue. Yep, the kabuki theater performances will continue to run for some time to come. So, relax a bit. Long live Israel.

OK, you gave me an honest answer and the answer I expected.

Who gave these bedouins a state in Arabia following the first world war?

Nonetheless, American policy in the region is based, not on what is right or just, but of fear; the fear of the prospect (born in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur war) of the "oil weapon."

100% agree with you. spot on.

On the matter of Arab nations, wildjew, I'm in complete agreement with you. But for European intervention and the Ottomans being on the losing side in WWI, there's no reason to think that the Arabs, indolent, nonproductive and generally all around pathetic, would have done didly to achieve their independence from the Turks on their own. They certainly didn't for centuries. And what did they do with this land for all these centuries? Very little. Arabs are the ultimate in hypocrisy when they claim that Jews were given a country. Hell, they were given something like twenty and they still languish to this day in a collective torpor that should cause them shame but, of course, it's not in their make-up to engagae in an honest self-evaluation. If the Arabs aren't the most dysfunctional major people on earth, I don't know what people are.

Wellington says:

"If the Arabs aren't the most dysfunctional major people on earth, I don't know what people are. "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have to disagree with the statement. The Arabs in general, are great people, very chivalrous, able to survive one of the harshest places in the world, hospitable, lovers of poetry, generous. Then came Mohammed and messed it up. So I would blame it on Mohammed if they are dysfunctional.

For better proof, see the trajectory of two countries with basically the same cultural and genetic background: India and Pakistan...

I rest my case.

I respectfully disagree with you. The Arab code of chivalry is often plain stupid, wrapped up as it often is with the importance of tribal honor and revenge. It's really petty stuff masquerading as something honorable. As for surviving in an inhospitable environment, loads of peoples do this, from Innuit to central Africans to Russians and Americans, the last of whom have the most amount of wild weather of any nation on earth. Love of poetry? Big deal. And, by your own admission, Mohammed messed things up. Holy hell, a people who can't get their act together for over 1400 years because of one guy are a people quite ready-made to be called dysfunctional in the extreme.

I rest my case.

wildjew wrote:

The unprincipled who support U.S. policy as it now stands inform me, "There are Israeli leaders making the same boneheaded error. I mean gosh, what can American leaders do?"
..................................

I *do not* support U.S policy as it stands now, as I have made clear many times—I consider it in many ways fantasy-based, and very dangerous—to ourselves, to Israel, and to the rest of the free world.

But to mistake well-meaning naïvite for *actual evil* represents a deep sort of foolishness itself.

And just because you have literally misquoted me does not mean I am "unprincipled".

You have a great knack for alienating supporters. You might ask yourself if this is really useful.

It does not affect my standing strong for Israel, though.

At what point does well-meaning naivete become complicity?

Are you going to make the bumper stickers, or should I ?


Israel's borders should be the Latani river, the Jordon river, the Suez canal...PERIOD. Sinai, Gaza, "the left bank".....forget about it!!!!!!

Do We Only Need More 'Security Measures'
Or More 'Common Sense'?

On Christmas day, a man identified as a young wealthy elite Nigerian Muslim (Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab), with possible links to Islamic Radical groups, set off an explosive device in a failed terrorist attack on a Northwest Airlines plane as it was landing in Detroit, Michigan, federal officials said.11
The White House called the act an attempted act of terror. If the mission of this man had succeeded more than 270 people on board would have been killed and both tourism and airline industries in US could have been seriously affected.
It is vital to emphasize that it was just mostly luck that prevented the explosion. Otherwise, Christmas day in the US would have turned into a disaster.
The profile of Abdulmutallab adds another piece of evidence to support the view that lack of education and poverty are not the main cause of terrorism as some suggest. Abdulmutallab is from a wealthy family and is highly educated which fits with the pattern of many other Islamic Jihadists.

The question that we need to address is, do we only need more security measures or do we predominantly need more logic and more common sense in addressing the phenomenon of Islamic Radicalism.
It will be erroneous if we could not see this terror attempt in the context of the other recent terror plots such as Fort Hood massacre and the increasing home grown Islamic Radicalism in the US. Inability to see these atrocities linked together by a common ideological thread is like failure to identify the underlying disease that causes the patient's symptoms. In such a situation, treatment would be incorrectly directed to treat the symptoms rather than to treat the underlying disorder or the true cause of the problem. The same can happen if we only focused on treating terrorism and ignore treating the underlying factor, namely the ideology behind Radical Islam. Failure to address this ideological component and consequently failure to treat it effectively is disastrous.

Addressing the contribution of the religious ideology is crucial, as if Al-Qaeda adopted a new approach to attack Metro passengers, cinemas, sport stadiums and other big gathering areas in USA, it would be very difficult and extremely inconvenient to do a security check for every individual at these places.
If our only approach to terrorism is to increase security measures for individuals, the terrorists can in fact paralyze our life if they shifted their target from attacking airplanes to attacking the formerly mentioned places.

Our policy should move from only symptomatic treatment of the problem to include defeating the ideology behind it. It is vital in this situation to develop a complete comprehensive strategy to treat the cause of the problem at the psycho- behavioral and ideological levels rather than only working at the security front.
This is particularly significant when we realize that the phenomenon of Islamic Radicalism is using several fronts both tactically and geographically. At the tactical level terrorists planned to attack airplanes, buildings and shopping moles. At the geographical front new fronts for terror, include Yemen and possibly Somalia. Defeating Al-Qaeda at the military level in Afghanistan will not end the problem, as new fronts for terror will develop as long as the radical ideology exists. On the contrary, defeating Islamism at the ideological level can add a needed and fundamental component to the current antiterrorism approach.

CNN quoted President Obama as saying that America would continue to "keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country," asserting that the US is doing everything in its power to stop terror. This statement raises an important issue. If all previous US efforts intended to defeat terror, including expenditures of billions of dollars, have failed into today to eradicate this problem, then America MUST adopt new approaches and strategies. Previous measures, including President Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, were not very successful until today. This does not mean that these approaches must be stopped but significant improvement for their quality is needed.

In short, using military and security approaches to defeat terror without addressing the ideology behind it is not sufficient. We certainly need to improve our security measures and technology to protect civilians, however, we also need more 'common sense' to see the common factor or the Ideology behind terrorism and treat it.
by Dr. T. Hamid
----
We need to understand that the syptoms are not the cause of the problem.
Example: If you or I kept getting flat tires on our car (the symptom). Would buying more tires end or correct the problem?
Or should we pick-up he nails in our driveway (the cause)?

The world has to understand the ideology behind terrorism before it can be effective against it. This includes the U.S.A.'s, legislators, the military, and the Dept. of Justice.
Because until we understand the cause we can not deal effectively with the problem.


"Exactly what do you think will be the end result of a Muslim state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem, other than a jihad state or a terror state dedicated to the annihilation of the tiny coastal strip that remains of Israel"?

The annihilation of Israel is not the goal of radical Muslims. The ideology is that Islam will not rest until the entire world is Muslim or pay the jizzia and be a dhimmie, or be killed.

They have been telling use that for 3 decades. So when will we get it.? When we fully understand the ideology of Islam that's when we'll get it.?

There is only one answer. The world has to wake-up and learn the ideology of Islam if it wants to be effective.

When I speak of the "annihilation" of Israel, I am speaking of the annihilation of the Jewish state; not the annihilation of every Jew. In order to subjugate Israel's Jews under the thumb of Islam, it will necessarily involve a mass-slaughter of Jews because the Jews will not willingly submit to the authority of Islam.

....The last problem intrinsic to the US’s War on Terror is the persistent and powerful strain of appeasement that guides so much of US policy towards the Muslim world.

This appeasement is multifaceted and pervades nearly every aspect of the US’s relations with the Islamic world.

The urge to appeasement caused the US to divorce the Islamic jihad against the US from the Islamic jihad against Israel from the outset.

Appeasement has been the chief motivating factor informing the US’s intense support for Palestinian statehood and its refusal to reassess this policy in the face of Palestinian terrorism, jihadism and close ties with Iran.

Appeasement provoked the US to embrace radical Islamic religious leaders and terror operatives such as Sami Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi as credible leaders in the US Muslim community. It stood behind the decisions of both the Bush and Obama administrations to embrace US affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood as legitimate leaders of the American Muslim community and to court the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to the detriment of US ally former president Hosni Mubarak.

Appeasement stood behind the US’s bid to try to entice Iran to end its nuclear weapons programs with grand bargains.

It motivated US’s decision not to confront Syria on its known support for al-Qaida and Hezbollah as well as Palestinian terror groups; its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; or its involvement in facilitating the insurgency in Iraq.

It is what has compelled the US not to seek the dismantlement of Hezbollah in Lebanon and indeed to fund and arm the Hezbollah-controlled government and army of Lebanon.

The urge to appease has motivated the US’s decision to take no action to stem the advance of Iran and its terror allies and proxies in al-Qaida and Hezbollah in Latin America.

WHEN A nation engages in appeasement at the same time it wages war, its appeasement efforts always undermine its war efforts. This is particularly the case, however, in long-term wars of containment such as the one the US is fighting against Islamic terrorism.

The logic guiding a containment strategy is that an enemy force will eventually collapse if kept off balance for long enough. Given that militarily the forces of Islamic jihad are weaker than the US, it is reasonable to assume that if applied consistently for long enough, a policy of containment can indeed cause the forces of global jihad to collapse.

The chronic instability of the Iranian regime and the current unrest in Syria demonstrate the structural weakness of these regimes. The dependence of terror groups such as Hezbollah, al-Qaida and Hamas on the support of governments make clear that containment could potentially defeat them as well by drying out their support structure at its roots.

The problem is that the US’s moves to appease its enemies empower them to keep fighting.

Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are far stronger militarily today than they were on September 11, 2001. Hamas controls Gaza and would likely win any Palestinian elections.

Hezbollah controls Lebanon.

Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons and is poised to become the predominant power in Iraq. Its Egyptian nemesis Hosni Mubarak is gone.

Ten years ago Iran and its terror allies and proxies could have only dreamed of having the presence on the Western Hemisphere they enjoy today.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=237237

wildjew wrote:

Appeasement has been the chief motivating factor informing the US’s intense support for Palestinian statehood and its refusal to reassess this policy in the face of Palestinian terrorism, jihadism and close ties with Iran.

Appeasement provoked the US to embrace radical Islamic religious leaders and terror operatives such as Sami Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi as credible leaders in the US Muslim community...
............................

wildjew, I don't believe that—even now—many Americans, including those in power, truly understand the over-arching Jihad threat.

Appeasement *is* a factor in some of these actions, but I do not believe has ever been the main one.

Many Americans who should damn well know better consider "Middle East peace" and "the War on Terror" (or whatever they are calling it these days) to be entirely separate matters.

As for the appalling Western propensity of embracing "moderates" that turn out to be anything but, I believe that this, too, is mostly wishful thinking rather than deliberate appeasement or calculated evil.

You and I will *never* agree on this, so there is no point in arguing further.

I can tell you one thing, though—were I you, believing that I was surrounded by craven appeasers who were *deliberately* and consistently enabling Jihadists while plotting the destruction of the Jewish state, I *would never remain*.

I would put my affairs in order, update my passport and make Aliyah.

I might be able to live among the clueless and the willfully naïve, but could not abide in such a nest of vipers as you imagine the United States to be.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter