Obama Homeland Defense official: "I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam"

Miriam,

I disagree. We ARE at war with islam, and it with us, and the sooner we and the "powers that be" realize it, the better.

On another note, I heard on the radio that on December 7, flags (in the US) were flying at half-mast in remembrance of the 2,600-odd souls killed when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941. Why isn't the same thing done every year on 9/11? How come we're not kissing Japan's ass and being PC when dealing with them?

I still don't understand why Obama hasn't been impeached for treason........He is by far and away, the absolute worst POTUS the great country of the US has had the misfortune of running the country. He makes Jimmy Carter look good!

I could go on and on............

Ima

i know I was just trying to be funny!!!

I would dearly like to know what proportion of the literate adult population in what one might loosely call the 'western world', aged between (say) 18 and 70, has - in the past twenty years - picked up and read a translation of the Quran, together with one or more of the other major Islamic texts (whether ancient - the Life of Mohammed, and a sampling of the Hadiths - or modern, such as S K Malik's The Quranic Concept of War), and one or more of the available non-PC material about Islam, whether it be the writing of scholars such as Samuel Zwemer, or the testimonies of ex-Muslims, such as Ibn Warraq, Patrick Sookhdeo, 'Hannah Shah', Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Magdi Cristiano Allam, etc? Or have simply watched 'Fitna' or 'Submission' or 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Or just Raymond Ibrahim's Al Qaeda Reader. I

And what percentage of those, putting their reading together with this or that - Rushdie Rage or Cartoon Rage, or Pope Rage, or September 11 or Madrid or Bali or London or Moscow or Beslan or Mumbai, or assorted jihad assaults on Israel - have quietly drawn the correct conclusion: that Islam, or the Ummah considered as a gestalt, **is** at war with us - indeed, with everyone on the planet who is not Muslim - in accord with the instructions in the Islamic book/s?

I will note that it may only take one book or one video clip, for some folks possessed of basic smarts and commonsense to reach that conclusion. One of my brothers read just one book by Robert Spencer: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. It totally convinced him - and his wife - and his wife's father, to whom she lent the book. They didn't really need to read anything more. That was enough. And now they are warily watching the Muslims in Australia. I think if they saw a politician brave enough to declare a halt on Muslim immigration, that politician would get their vote.

I think the number of ordinary people, among the citizens of every free non-Muslim land, who KNOW there is a war on, started by the Muslims and driven by Islamic ideology (not by anything the rest of the world has done or not done) *is* increasing, slowly but steadily, every day. The fact that in the Netherlands Geert Wilders became electable, is telling.

As and when the Enemy emerges from the shadows or drops the mask, with a local habitation and a name, I think many non-Muslim governments and leaders may discover that a huge chunk of their citizenry knows exactly what's what.

Excellent, Domenick.

Paul, Thank's

It's better to make fun at adversity, rather than to bear it ! Today, there's plenty of it, to go around.

@ I think the number of ordinary people, among the citizens of every free non-Muslim land, who KNOW there is a war on, started by the Muslims and driven by Islamic ideology (not by anything the rest of the world has done or not done) *is* increasing, slowly but steadily, every day. The fact that in the Netherlands Geert Wilders became electable, is telling.

Yes, Dda, I think you nailed it, what is most important in this war against worldwide Jihad and Sharia Caliphate: Educate the people of the non-Muslim world. Whatever maneuvers we do now with stealth, or drones, it will all come to naught if the public is ignorant; but it will come together when a majority of the voting public understands what is really at stake with this world Islam phenomenon. You'll know we're there when it becomes common knowledge that the Moslem world had been lying all along, like now is known how Yasser Arafat lied (and got the Nobel Peace prize?!). People must read the Koran and all its violent context, spread the word; and then start reversing the tide of Moslems coming to our shores in America, Australia, Canada, or into the ancient historic, modern world of European civilization.

This is a very uneven war, first because they are so devious and willing to cult-like suicidal attacks; but second because they found willing ears of idiots who believe their lies. What will really turn the tide, and ultimately wipe out this Islamic Jihad altogether, is when men and women of intelligence (amply displayed on these blogs and elsewhere, increasingly evident) all come together and fight. Stop babying Islam, it is undeserving, and stop giving them money, that aid is perpetually unrequited. This is winnable, because we are so much more endowed with intelligence than their 7th century (amoral) compass can ever deliver to the Sharia driven Caliphate. We are better. Right now, we're at a 'stealth' stage while shooting. At some point, that will change. They called it, we will finish it.

As for the non-Muslim Muslims, like those human shields so favored by death-worshipping Jihadists, they will suffer cross-fire. Either renounce primitive Islam and come out of the closet, or suffer collateral damage. No matter what is said, or not said, this is a war.

I and many others, at least on other sites, hopefully here too, totally agree with your comment, and so far as I am concerned you nailed it, Ima and I enjoy Miriam, of course, no disrespect intended. With Sheriff J. Arpaio, Trump, Corsi, and numerous others, hopefully we'll find evidence to find the zero undergoing impeachment sooner, than later. His speech yesterday, was shocking, in its anti everything, and primarily free enterprize, basic to America. He must be removed, the sooner the better. He is certainly no American, nor does he have any belief in America. My opinion, see below for another.

We've been at war, with islam, since the American Navy and Marines went in to the Tripoli Barbary Coast Wars, and our forefathers, since the criminal mo started in on the world in 632 AD, to build an organized gang for his gain, self-aggrandizement, self-approval or validation.

Indeed, even with the Civil War, and its many dangers presented, we have never been in such peril as from one individual and his nefarious henchmen as these times, in so many ways. Including I think with the travail of the Great Depression and WW2, although that was peril for our delay in assisting Europe, in reality, against the nazi invasions.

This zero is no American, and no Patriot. I can't believe how far from the American Dream we have been drifting at his direct hand and irresponsibility.

I have no idea of the veracity of this following site, but it appears likely to be substantially if not fully valid, and seems worth considering-http://theulstermanreport.com/2011/12/05/white-house-insider-america-cant-survive-barack-obama/
e.g. The insider says: "2012 isn’t about Democrat vs Republican for me – for a lot of us. It’s about…I’m gonna come off as a bit off the rocker here…it’s about good vs evil. America vs something else. Barack Obama ain’t evil…he’s too stupid to be called that. But the ideas behind Barack Obama…the ones who created Barack Obama…I think they just might be. I used to think the Bush administration was the most corrupt, incompetent administration we’ve ever seen…oh my was I off on that. Obama? Sh-t…Bush got nothin’ on Barack Obama."

I don't necessarily agree with everything stated there, I believe hussein is not just stupid, for example, but worse I believe, by his large non-American past, and his anti-American, anti-West, and anti-Israel upbringing. And now all that has lead to the outrageous facts of the dhimmitude of our goverment today, as illustrated by the article above and so many more dangerous examples, we've seen pointed out here and elsewhere, with the evils of political correctness working to destroy us, in with the subversive mix, set in motion, from the top. WH iftar dinners, with a bunch of crooks, what a pathetic joke, along with bowing, scraping and apologizing, and so very much more.

@ Well, wake up, Mr. Stockton, and read the tea leaves: Islam is at war with us…
9:33
"It is He [allah] who sent His Messenger [Muhammad]
with guidance and the true faith [Islam]
in order to make it superior to other systems of belief …"

If it comes down to this, then all we can do is pray to a 7th century Moon-god-Allah and hope for the best. Of course, Allah was Mohammed's fevered acromegalic imagination, he couldn't care less. What a joke! And people die for this? Crazy sicko!!!

Part 1 of "The Eiderization of Young Ducks" is above. Part 2 continues thus:

REP. LUNGREN: You agree with the statement, as someone representing the Department of Hunting, after the recent hunting weekend, that it would be a greater tragedy to lose our program of duck diversity than what occurred with the killer Eiders?

MR. STOCKTON: Well, let me go back to something Secretary — Chairman King said. I was trained up by Senator Moynihan. There was nobody less politically correct than Senator Moynihan. I follow the truth wherever it takes me, and I strongly support the programs of the Department of Hunting that focus on Eider birds and behavioral indicators.

REP. LUNGREN: I appreciate it. I appreciate it.

MR. STOCKTON: This is not about political correctness. This is about defeating our adversary.

REP. LUNGREN: Well, sir, I would disagree with you that it may not be about political correctness. We are here talking about the fact that we now have to have behavioral indicators. I agree with that. But my question is, if an avian type creature walks like Donald Duck, talks like Donald Duck, in an open setting, if that creature quacks quite loudly, it seems to me to be beyond common sense to think those are not behavioral indicators.

So my question is, if I’m a member of the Department of Hunting today and I see those two events or those two circumstances, would it be appropriate for me to report those as behavioral indicators? Now, that’s not a question of whether or not you’re being political (sic) correct, sir. I’m asking you to answer that specific question. If I’m a soldier and asked you that question, what do you tell me?

MR. STOCKTON: Quacking of the sort associated with Donald Duck — that needs to be reported, and our officers are trained up now to report on that behavior.

REP. LUNGREN: I thank you, and I appreciate that.

Excellent!

However, I can agree with Mr. Stockton. We have about 2.2 million MoSlums in here the US. There are about 1.2 billion MoSlums in the World. Most of the World's oil, which is one of the most important economic growth fueling commodity, comes from Islamic countries. If anyone in the Government makes an official line that we have a problem with Islam, then that will have repercussions through-out the Western World. We will also get into deep waters with our strategic partners who we will need down the road and they are not yet developed. The country that will benefit most is China. They do not draw attention on themselves, though they are also aware of the nature of the Islamists.

When Islamic nations, like Saudie Arabia, declare an open Islamic war on the Western world, then we could kick ass of people like Mr. Stockton for talking like a duck. As I understand his message, we are after Al-Quida, that is a generic term the Officials use for any Islamists fundamentalist without labeling Islam, in the current situation I feel OK about our Stealth war against Islams Stealth Jihad. In order to win or contain this Stealth Jihad, we must severely curtail immigrants coming from Islamic countries, such as Pakistan. If Mr. Stockton stated that we are war with Islam, then the whole Western world should be prepared for a mega backlash from the "religion of Piss" within our borders. We don't have the infrastructure and logistics to cope with that kind of problem.

"This terminology is in itself a declaration of war by all observant Muslims on all infidel Westerners."

We should tell them that THEIR religious beliefs are irrelevant to 21st century "unbelievers" and that we consider attacks on us by non-nation Muslims as criminal acts that will be dealt with like any other criminal act.

IMO

That's true Blueraven, when you look at it logically either the western politicians have all gone deaf, dumb & mute over Islam, or most probably they've all been told: the muslims hate us, want to kill us, but they hold the oil we need. We have to remain silent, even be nice to them until we no longer need the oil they hold. It's the only thing that makes sense. Roll on the electric car & world oil depletion I say.

I agree that we've got to dismantle the ideology of Islam, by robust criticism of the Koran and the character of Mohammed.

But that is only half of the problem. Even to the non-believing Muslim, Islam is an extremely 'useful fiction' and powerful identity ('strong horse versus weak horse').

Being a Muslim in the West gives you all sorts of privileges and immunities from normal laws, so even apart from the threats facing apostates, there is absolutely no incentive to leave the cult.

The positive discrimination of special privileges and exemptions for Muslms has got to end, and be replaced by negative discrimination.

We should use all means possible to ensure that being a Muslim in the West involves all sorts of financial, legal and social handicaps, so that persistance in this evil cult becomes very unnattractive: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-to-destroy-islam-non-violently.html

ROFL! Super stuff, traeh.

@PRCS: "Does Orthodox Islam teach violence against non-Muslims?"

And the answer is…? ;-)) … This is a WAR like no other.

I agree, that we do not let a primitive 7th century barbaric, self-delusional theo-political violent ideology dictate terms to us, not in the 19th century when we kicked their ass, and surely not in the 21st. If they want to practice their voodoo on themselves, fine. But do it out of sight and with its violence away from us. If not, it will be declared illegal and the criminals hunted down. The First Amendment does not protect any Theo-political organization determined to undo our Constitution. In fact, its provision of 'separation of religion and state' condemns Islam's Koranic violence and its Sharia jihad as illegal activity, subject to prosecution. There is no provision for a theocratic 'state within a state' in our Constitutional government. This is true for any Western country, even for Italy, where the Vatican is a separate state. Our secular laws of social agreements in a democratic framework cannot be supplanted by any religious laws, not in the 18th century when our Founding Fathers drafted the US Constitution, what is our Social Contract; and certainly not in context of our constitutional human rights and legal freedoms protected by such laws in the 21st century. Islam is out of place.

Thanks.

We have too long allowed ourselves to believe that we, as a nation, are in a literal war with stateless Muslims who believe they really have a divinely mandated right and the responsibility to offer us reversion, dhimmitude, or warfare.

No legitimate Muslim nation has offered us those options, to date, that I am aware of.

The real problem with Lundgren vs Stockton is that Lundgren asked the kind of idiotic questions that allowed Stockton to play his game of obfuscation.

This long after 9/11 there's no good reason for our elected officials to have still not done their homework.

IMO

Slamdunk, I'm glad you got a kick out of it. It was fun to write it.

BlueRaven,
Thank you.

I do see the upside to a stealth linguistic style by the U.S. government -- but I was just having a little fun with the surrealistic dialog.

The merits of the upside are probably not worth the downside.

......Re:...our elected officials:

"This long after 9/11 there's no good reason for our elected officials to have still not done their homework...."

We must remind those who voted for the current Congress and Executive to carefully re-consider their "charisma"-based decisions of last time when the looming election of 2012 is actually upon us.

Voters need a mature sense of responsibility, and realize that they alone are ultimately responsible for what their choices render unto us......the buck stops with us voters.

Here's a really disgusting situation written about by Diana West a few years ago:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/9/20050609-092940-3178r/

Letters about that to my long serving Democrat senators, along with previous and current Republican congressmen (some even sent after the Fort Hood shooting) have all expressed their beliefs that a Qur'an (and only a Qur'an) should be treated as Ms. West describes--for religious reasons--and the mind boggling notion that we should leave such procedures to the same military leadership that failed to prevent Nidal Hassan's "workplace violence".

It's a slog.

Definition of WAR

(1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

(2) : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

I find your definition of “war” too constrained for the present circumstances.

To define Jihadis as “criminals” just confuses people as to what is going on. A “criminal” may commit his crimes for any of thousands of individual, personal reasons while a Jihadi commits his acts while following the tenets of Islam. It is not at all the same thing and to conflate Jihad with common criminality is to obfuscate the conflict of ideologies that we are engaged in.

In the larger sense, Western Civilization, most definitely, is “at war” with Islam.

Davey,

"the conflict of ideologies"

I agree with you there.

But, our fellow citizens have been confused since Bush and Blair assured us that they had read the Qur'an and that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.

To eliminate our fellow citizens' confusion, they and any potential jihadists need to know (without equivocation) that:

1) Acts of violent jihad are, indeed, part and parcel of Orthodox Islam.
2) Our secular laws trump religious laws.
3) We view acts of violent jihad, carried out on our soil, not as the fulfillment of a Muslim's religious obligation, but as the acts of criminals in the eyes of our secular laws.

A few noteworthy jihadists have been--or are being tried--as criminals here; despite their personal beliefs.

The Shoe Bomber
The Underwear Bomber
The Times Square Bomber
And many more.

None of the above were handled by our military forces, but rather by appropriate police forces and our civilian judicial system.

Nothing can ruin a Muslim's self esteem faster than telling them that carrying out some aspects of their "religion" on our turf makes them nothing more than criminals, here, who will be judged by a kuffar judicial system.

“But, our fellow citizens have been confused since Bush and Blair assured us that they had read the Qur'an and that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.”

It is precisely the confusion of our fellow citizens that concerns me and I believe when Jihadis are placed in the same category as common criminals, it adds greatly to that confusion.

I have no doubt that you and I would agree on a great many things about Islam, perhaps totally. From your posts I get the impression that you have read a great deal and are familiar with the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sirat. So we both know who the enemy is. I also think we would both agree that our main difficulty is educating our fellow Infidels as to the nature of that enemy. It is how we go about this that I would comment on.

I am sure you have suffered the frustration of trying to explain Islam to someone who “just doesn’t want to believe it” and will grasp at any straw to avoid the unpleasant reality that Islam inculcates “criminality”. Religion that teaches bad values?! They just can’t get their heads around it; it is such an alien concept and totally outside their life experience. It is also very frightening and unpleasant when faced head on for the first time. So they will twist and turn and tie themselves in knots to avoid it – it is the most difficult concept for an Infidel to accept.

But when you say Jihadis are “criminals” (even if you INTEND to mean only by our law), now our fellow Infidels have a very firm branch to grasp and a very large fig leaf to hide from the unpleasant truth. Everyone is familiar with criminals, especially “Christian” criminals – so this is the explanation that they leap to, with great eagerness and relief, because it leaves Islam as an innocent bystander.

So when you brand the Jihadi a “criminal”, well then, surely he “misunderstands” his religion as everyone knows criminals are wont to do – and you have just destroyed any hope of explaining the essence of Islam.

“But, our fellow citizens have been confused since Bush and Blair assured us that they had read the Qur'an and that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.”

It is precisely the confusion of our fellow citizens that concerns me and I believe when Jihadis are placed in the same category as common criminals, it adds greatly to that confusion.

I have no doubt that you and I would agree on a great many things about Islam, perhaps totally. From your posts I get the impression that you have read a great deal and are familiar with the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sirat. So we both know who the enemy is. I also think we would both agree that our main difficulty is educating our fellow Infidels as to the nature of that enemy. It is how we go about this that I would comment on.

I am sure you have suffered the frustration of trying to explain Islam to someone who “just doesn’t want to believe it” and will grasp at any straw to avoid the unpleasant reality that Islam inculcates “criminality”. Religion that teaches bad values?! They just can’t get their heads around it; it is such an alien concept and totally outside their life experience. It is also very frightening and unpleasant when faced head on for the first time. So they will twist and turn and tie themselves in knots to avoid it – it is the most difficult concept for an Infidel to accept.

But when you say Jihadis are “criminals” (even if you INTEND to mean only by our law), now our fellow Infidels have a very firm branch to grasp and a very large fig leaf to hide from the unpleasant truth. Everyone is familiar with criminals, especially “Christian” criminals – so this is the explanation that they leap to, with great eagerness and relief, because it leaves Islam as an innocent bystander.

So when you brand the Jihadi a “criminal”, well then, surely he “misunderstands” his religion as everyone knows criminals are wont to do – and you have just destroyed any hope of explaining the essence of Islam.

"It is precisely the confusion of our fellow citizens that concerns me and I believe when Jihadis are placed in the same category as common criminals, it adds greatly to that confusion."

When explained, as I have laid out, it clarifies our position.

Violent jihad, commited on our soil. is a crime, and it is appropriate police departments and our justice system that handles such jihadis.

Would you have handled Richard Reid as anything other than a criminal?

BTW: I've been here since 2004 and still have your 2008 Islam "flyer".

IMO

Bill Clinton, Lawyer (revoked)
B.H. Obama, Lawyer

Law language belongs in court, not when speaking to the very people they (our "leaders") were hired by, to work for.

“BTW: I've been here since 2004 and still have your 2008 Islam "flyer".”

Seems we’ve been at this for quite a while, old friend.

I have written/revised another “leaflet” that you may not have. It is a two page biography of Muhammad as portrayed in the “Sirat Rasul Allah” and Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim. In this one I attempt to convey Muhammad’s sanction of rape, theft, murder, torture, dishonesty, abrogation, etc. as these actions relate to documented events in his life – you know, uswa hasana, al insan al kamil and all that. I would send it to you but I no longer have your email address it seems.

As far as how to treat Jihadis, I would go with whatever is most expedient. A courtroom for Richard Reed, prison with all the “rights” of traitors and spies for a nest of Mujahideen and bullets and bombs for those on the battle field.

Take care old friend, Godspeed in the fight.
Deus Vult!

MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida would love to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is at war with Islam.

REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t say that.

MR. STOCKTON: That’s a prime propaganda tool.

REP. LUNGREN: Sir –

MR. STOCKTON: And I’m not going to aid and abet that effort to advance their propaganda goal.
..................................

Secretary Paul Stockton just couldn't be tap dancing any harder than he is.

The ridiculous subtext here seems to be that if "Al-Qaida" manages to convince all those "moderate" Muslims that we are at war with Islam, that they will all turn to "Islamic extremism"—even though that does not appear to exist...

By the way, Representative Dan Lungren, who represents Sacramento and the surrounding area, is not bad at all—especially by the standards of California congresspersons.

He also testified at Rep. Peter King's hearings on the threat of "Islamic extremism".
...

Traeh, thank you for your posts. They "quacked like a duck", all right—very witty! And very illuminating...