wow,now if only he would stop saying islam has been hijacked and tell the america people what we face.should we hope?

Posted by: campingman1 at May 6, 2006 8:05 AM

l think Bush is preparing people for the big one, that is a nuclear confrontation with Iran. But again although he is better than the Clintinoids, he needs to go one step forward and declare Islam on the terrorist list. or at least stop saying its a religon of peace, as actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: Lulu at May 6, 2006 8:27 AM

Yes, Campingman1, we have lots to hope for, because every time one human being stands up to tyranny and says, "You can take my life but you can't take my freedom; you can try and do this evil thing to my my people, my country, myself, but I will try and stop you", it strengthens the resolve of every other human being who values life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We just have to say "NO" and be willing to back it up with action.

When I first heard about the guys on Flight 93 I remember saying a prayer for them and thanking God that we still had brave men in this country who would say no to tyranny, even though they knew they were probably going to die. I admire them so much. They knew they had to try and do something to stop what was going on. The fact that they put themselves in front of the bad guys, like an inpenetrable wall, has touched my heart very deeply. And even though they died, they were rewarded by not allowing that plane to hit its intended target. We hav a lot to hope for.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at May 6, 2006 8:43 AM

How can he say that it is WWIII when there is NO current war with any state?

Just because there is a declared war against worldwide terrorism is not sufficient to justify this.

If it has been decided that the war really is against Islam as opposed to "extremists" then why is financial support still being given to overtly Muslim countries? Why is Dubai still being given consideration for defence company takeovers and why is Saudi Arabia still being given military aid as is virtually ALL muslim countries not totally hostile to the US?

I really doubt that Bush is even aware that the Koran is not the same as the Bible and that he still ses Muslims as just another weird if ancient sect not ulike the Jehovah's Wintesses but a little more violent.

It really sounds like simple political rhetoric with the usual total lack of substance or value, or in more direct terms more Bush fresh bovine pats.

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 8:44 AM

Wonder no bright spark looking to make his/her career in the press corps doesn't ask bush the question, next timehe repeats the deadpan 'hijack a religion of peace' mantra - "have you read the koran? On what basis do you call it a RoP? Why is reading the koran not mandatory for top officials in defense and state?" etc etc

Yeah, I know. Fat chance that'll happen.

Posted by: voletti at May 6, 2006 8:47 AM

This has taken way too long. I and others have been making the (blatantly obvious) claim that we are in WW 3 since about noon on 9/11/01. Five years later, Bush agrees with another persons desciiption of this conflict as WW3- too little, too late...And, he is still only giving lip service to our number one national security probem, our economies reliance of Arab oil .ANd , last I checked, Bush was in business with the Saudis, who accounted for the great majority of hijackers.Yes, he is better than a liberal- but he is no Winston Churchill.

Posted by: templar at May 6, 2006 9:03 AM

wow of the two points of view between zathras and isabellthecrusader i will side with isabell.i still want my country to stand for everything that is right in this fallen world.freedom,rights,standing up for justice.naive yes but i can not stand a world without hope.

Posted by: campingman1 at May 6, 2006 9:14 AM

In truth, the real WWIII was the cold war. What we are seeing is really WWIV.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 6, 2006 9:20 AM

bigcatgirl13106...I did think about the cold war but it was not a war versus states but mostly bushfires using proxies and an intelligence/technology duel.

If you wish to call the cold war WWIII then by these rather loose definitions you can call the current war vs terror WWIV.

But as in the cold war NO country is fully war mobilised, casualties DO matter, industry still is mostly consumer based and a change of goverment could have had a drastic effect on the war.

World war implies total war with ALL of the resources of a nation being used maximally including its manpower. This has NOT been the case since 1945 to any country in the west.

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 9:44 AM

campingman...sorry but I was not trying to sound overcritical or too despondent but until we define and state openly that Islam is the enemy we will continue to lose ground. It is rather like a cockroach plague where we will not use insecticide because we do not wish to kill the "good" roaches. There are no good cockroaches.

Once this occurs those muslims living in the west will have their choice: apostasise and stay or leave.

Only then will we start to really go on the offensive.I do realise that many who "apostasise" will be false but that is a risk we will have to accept. If many seem to do so too easily we can always repeat what we did with the japanese. Fair? Perhaps not to some . But a lot safer and that is all that matters.

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 9:52 AM

China could end up the big winner.

Posted by: Benjamin at May 6, 2006 10:08 AM

It appears that the white house is reshuffling more than warm bodies and semantics lately. . .leaving me curious about any change in strategy.
To see "Bush calls terror fight WWIII" certainly is intriguing. Perhaps he did get a bit curious and crack open that gifted koran.
MCCKELLAN'S LAST DAY AT WHITE HOUSE... *

SHAKE-UP AT CIA: Porter Goss resigns after less than two years on job... *

Cheney remarks spark talk of 'new cold war'... *

White House backs Cheney on Russia... *

Posted by: justamomof4 at May 6, 2006 10:09 AM

WW III is a different kind of war that is stealth in design. To see this war and understand it you need a new kind of radar called RTC, "reading the Quran". RTC will help you see and define the enemy of freedom and democracy much better.

Robert,Hugh,Rebecca and most of the commenters here highly recommend purchasing the RTC radar system at your local book store. A good version of RTC is THE KORAN with parallel Arabic Text translated by N.J. Dawood which can be found at Barnes and Noble.

When you find out how well your RTC system works on detecting the stealth technology (taquiya,and kitman) built into the Islamist Ideology, be sure to recommend it to all your friends so that they can also see what they must defend themselves against.

Note: Left wing liberals will have a difficult time trying to use the RTC System and may require extra assistance.

Good luck on that one.

Posted by: Mackie at May 6, 2006 10:12 AM

If he's going to call this WWIII ,then he needs to take appropriate steps to ensure our safety at home. Clear out illegals, cut out jizya to muslim countries, throw out muslim students and not another dime for oil to muslim countries.

It's stupid to have a war and be letting the enemies into your war camp. Tear down the mosques, throw out the islam propaganda and imams, stop being P.C. and call the enemy by it's name. Islam.

Not another dime to muslim countries to build schools or hospitals or even earthquake rescue. These people have to hit rock bottom before they can be forced to change their ways. And islam should be banned all over the world.

Posted by: freewoman at May 6, 2006 10:14 AM

Mackie it also helps to have an advanced early warning bovine pat detector :)(nothing personal meant or implied)

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 10:15 AM

Zathras - I agree:

"It is rather like a cockroach plague where we will not use insecticide because we do not wish to kill the "good" roaches. There are no good cockroaches.

It is a plague on both houses. The house of Islam and the house of war.

Does anyone remember that day or two about a year ago when the press dicussed a certain controversy in the Bush administration? Some wanted to change the name for the war. Instead of 'the war on terror' some proponents suggested 'the global struggle against worldwide jihad' or something to that effect. I remember Sec. Rumsfeld mouthing the term. Then it was decided to keep the name as it stands.

Interesting. Someone knows enough, but can't say it in public.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 6, 2006 10:16 AM

Now that he has declared War (delayed by what for so long?) it would be helpful of him to declare the Enemy.

Is it Islamic Imperialsm?

That phrase covers the most jihadists in one conceptual net, and keeps the Koranic core of the craziness in focus.

"Extremists", "militants", "radicals", etc., muddy the waters.

They are Muslim jihadists aiming at global domination of their murderous dogmas.

Islamic Imperialists, with cells planetwide.

They declared open War on 9/11.

Pussyfooting ignorance has postponed our side from answering directly for 4 1/2 years.

So we got the damned War.

Now name the goddamned Threat.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 6, 2006 10:17 AM

i have hope for some muslims in the west,i belive many were fooled and are muslim in name only.when faced with murdering for islam.i hope many will end up being ex-muslims like the folks at faith freedom.when bush says freedom is a gift from god,i for one believe that.but freedom and hate dont mix.like oil and water.

Posted by: campingman1 at May 6, 2006 10:19 AM

Sorry, guys and gals,

As a former cold warrior, I must point out that you, apparently, along with our President, slept through World War III (hint: we won). The current global conflict is World War IV.

During World War III, there was endless denial, particularly in that war's later stages, that what we were facing was a serious threat, even though about one hundred million innocents had been exterminated by the Communists. After all (so the "taqiyya" of the time went), the "not monolithic" Communists were really well-meaning folks "just like us," merely trying to improve the lot of mankind. It was a constant battle throughout that period to keep any public support just to fund our defenses against the totalitarians, let alone to attempt to prevail over the enemy. Indeed, any suggestion that we might want to prevail was deemed by many of our elites as either fantasy or cultural arrogance.

On that score, after the initial skirmishes of World War IV, against an older ideology with even more blood on its hands historically, it is clear that we have a long way to go to raise awareness and to mount a sustainable defense.

President Bush, for all his flaws and tactical blunders, has made us get off the bench and start facing the opposition, whether he understands that fully himself or not. The good thing about the Iraq "tarbaby," for instance, is that the whole world can now see what an unbridled Islamic society is really like from up close. Let us hope that that image is seared into the minds of the current generation. Let us hope they never forget how a vicious ideology can pervert the individual and collective human psyche into an engine of death and destruction.

For our part, here at JW/DW and in all public forums, we must make sure the proper lesson is learned. We need to relentlessly oppose the Islamic taqiyya masters, who will themselves relentlessly strive to fool us into ignoring their real intentions. As World War IV gets underway, the first order of business, of course, is to convince the nation, indeed to convince the free world, of the pressing need, to clearly identify the enemy, to raise our defenses, and to prepare for a long struggle.

Posted by: Stendec at May 6, 2006 10:23 AM

l wonder if Bush would still call islam a religion of peace if one of h is close family members has his head sawed off by one of the islamist brave warriors?
l heard that Iranian prez wants to convert his oil revenue into Euro's with the backing of the Chinese and Russkies and EU. before that happens l think a some few well placed bombs will hit iran's nuclear sites of course Iran rejects UN sanctions or something along those lines.

Posted by: Lulu at May 6, 2006 10:36 AM

Stendec...sorry but I agree with almost all that you say except that the cold war was WWIII. At NO time were the relevant countries totally mobilised for war in economic, industrial or manpower terms.

You can, of course, say that the communist regimes of China and the USSR were almost so but this was a function of their ideology and even then still did not represent total war which is the necessary condition to define WWIII.

I know that this may seem like semantic pettifogging but the terem "world war" is not given lightly.

The cold war was a real and vicious war. But mostly one of politics and intelligence with the occasional local war often fought with proxies. The Korean war and the Vietnam war were both wars where consumer prodiuction in the USA scarcely blinked let alone chnaged to war footing.

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 10:36 AM

Stendec-

Since it never entered into the common parlance as "WW III", the Cold War was eventually considered too unfocused to be given such an historically-resounding title.

By default, the "War Against Islamic Imperialism" is "WW III".

Being a global conflict, declared by the enemy with 3,000 murdered, and viciously out in the open from Bali to Beslan to Beirut.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 6, 2006 10:41 AM

...and if Bush did round up Islamic students and the like?
The western media would crucify him, endlessly educating the west on the peacful muslim culture.

The west can never fight this war effectively until our very own media's buy-in to what is happening... When our enemies cut off the heads of westerners, our PRess en masse ignores this... instead the Press focusses on abu prison tactics that probably saved US servicemen lives.

We can never win this war until the west understands we are in a war... even 9/11 did not wake us up... what will it take?

Posted by: winston at May 6, 2006 10:51 AM

Stendec: "As a former cold warrior, I must point out that you, apparently, along with our President, slept through World War III (hint: we won). The current global conflict is World War IV."

Yeah. I was about to post the same thing when I read Stendec's comment. Norman Podhoretz dubbed this WWIV in a major article in Commentary magazine several years ago and I suppose that's how I've always thought of it.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

Not to quibble though. It's just an interesting semantic question. And viewed in that light (an issue of semantics) I am persuaded by Profitsbeard's point that indeed the Cold War never did enter into common parlance as WWIII.

Posted by: Caroline at May 6, 2006 11:05 AM

The misuse of the word war in this context is tragic. We're not at war, we're at jihad. Big big difference.

When you're at jihad you may not even identify your enemy, much less name him.

MO HIJABS MO BRUTISH SOBS MO PUNJABS MO SUB-INTELLECTUAL SLOBS MO MO MO

Maybe this all proves that Islam and democracy don't mix. Then again, maybe they mix just fine; it's the mixture itself -- sharia for the people -- that clashes with liberty as defined in the Western world. This is the lesson we seem determined not to learn. But in making such ignorance inviolate, we end up making the world safe for sharia.
---- Diana West

What has changed since WWII that we can no longer name our enemy, and worse may no longer even speak truthfully about our enemy and the grave threat it presents us.

MO HIJABS MO OLEAGINOUS FOBS MO STIFLED SOBS MO TREASURIES TO ROBS MO MO

I know America has not been a Garden of Eden, but for a temporal land, how wonderful it has been. And how casually we are casting off its manifold blessings. And for what future. It is almost inconceivable that an argument is taken seriously that we don't have the right to secure our borders and determine who shall enter our country. Not only has such lunacy become respectable, but our mainstream media instantly, instinctively embraces such a position. Every radio headline newscast, almost every newspaper and television report willfully refuses to distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. Each report stamps the mark of evil on the forehead of all who would guard
our borders.
--- Tony Blankley

Not just our geographic borde. We no longer allow ourselves to guard our moral and cultural borders.

The truth has been substituted for by delusion, and that fictive fact absolutely may not be questoined.

MO HIJABS MO SOMALI TAXI CABS MO MO MO THE PSYCHO STABS MO YEMENI CABS

Frederick Engels and Karl Marx wrought two great things:

1 A bold new form of dastistickal fraud that could be widely accepted without question

2 Victmism with a highly detailed intellectual foundation

How many times did these two fake intellectuals utter the word exploited? How many times have our opinion makers referred to the actual facts of Islam? Or even to the actual fact that the word Islam itself translates to mean Surrender or Submit in the Arabic?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 6, 2006 11:08 AM

This asymetrical war is that of Islam against all that is not Islamic and has been going on for centuries. Thus, the actors don't have to be states. States are constructs of culture and diplomacy whose boundaries fluctuate. In this case, Islam, a culture, a religion, and an international movement is muscling non-Muslim entities which, in some cases, happen to be states.

It would be foolish not to recognize that war is waged through violence, through economics, through education and all other institutions and through da'wa.

Our present difficulties are only the latest salvoes in the long war that has been going on for centuries. Unfortunately contemporary technology has the capability of bringing war and everything else to a screeching halt.

Posted by: epg at May 6, 2006 11:12 AM

Winston...."what will it take?"

A big radioactive crater somewhere..possibly in the USA but really more likely in another western state.

My personal view is that it will be in a non-nuclear western state that supports the Bush doctrine but has no retaliatory capacity and this then will require its allies to retaliate likewise and I am very uncertain that they will do so as when and if it happens elsewhere the bleeding hearts will ensure that it was an "accident" and they will block retaliation.

I do NOT see one exploding in the USA as its nuclear retaliation capacity is the only thing that I see as holding back al quaeda from using those that it already has. It would be quite possible to tactically pinpoint "nuke" virtually the whole al qaeda area on the pakistan/Afghanistan border if one was exploded in the US.

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 11:15 AM

With all the criticism leveled at President Bush very little seems to be said about the negative, hostile press. It's the liberal media (CNN, MSNBC etc), and to a much lesser extent FOX news that are as much to blame on ignorance of islam.

I don't really know how Bush feels about islam, the whole religion of peace is a farce. However I do know this much, everything positive and aggressive step he takes to fight jihad (wiretaps, patriot act, prisons in Europe, G. Bay in Cuba) gets him hammered by the press.

Seems that if more people made a fuss over the pathetic reporting by the news media more would get done than constantly slamming Bush. He is one of the only leaders in the world today taking a stance and not placating jihadist.

Posted by: adobe at May 6, 2006 11:17 AM

Zathras, and others,

On the war numbering, I guess we can agree to disagree.

However, one hundred million souls destroyed, the grand leader of the opposition declaring "We will bury you," an "Iron Curtain" separating the two antagonists and defining the territorial boundary between the warring contestants, "wars of national liberation" launched across the globe in the third world of Asia, Africa, and even South America, whole nations succumbing to Communist domination (Eastern Europe, China, and Vietnam, to name a few), and some being mercifully liberated in the end, strikes me as a pretty "total" conflict.

No matter. That the conflict was "unfocused," as you say, was due to the ideological weakness of the west, which the Communists sought to exploit via their relentless, and often very effective, propaganda. I see the identical lack of focus, and dangerous weaknesses, in the current situation.

Posted by: Stendec at May 6, 2006 11:18 AM

epg..once jihad is recognised as the direct function and result of islam and a true anti-Islamic war occurs, it will be on a world war basis and then and only then will we have WWIII.

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 11:21 AM

Mackie, Everyone Else,

"WW III is a different kind of war that is stealth in design. To see this war and understand it you need a new kind of radar called RTC, "reading the Quran". RTC will help you see and define the enemy of freedom and democracy much better.

Robert,Hugh,Rebecca and most of the commenters here highly recommend purchasing the RTC radar system at your local book store. A good version of RTC is THE KORAN with parallel Arabic Text translated by N.J. Dawood which can be found at Barnes and Noble.

When you find out how well your RTC system works on detecting the stealth technology (taquiya,and kitman) built into the Islamist Ideology, be sure to recommend it to all your friends so that they can also see what they must defend themselves against.

Note: Left wing liberals will have a difficult time trying to use the RTC System and may require extra assistance.

Good luck on that one. "

For those who are strape for cash, do not want to waste time and money, or who love to do online research, the best way to study on what the Koran really has to say to be better inform in the present era of war is via going online. Do a Google, Lycos, Dogpile, or Ask search and it will lead one to a number of good online websites that feature on the Koran and the translations.

Wish everyone the best.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 6, 2006 11:23 AM

Stendec...semantics can be fun but its interest level deteriorates fairly quickly so a moot point best dropped :))

I agree totally with your last point as above. until ISLAM is seen as the enemy and attacked accordingly we will not have a World War.

Instead, we will be sitting on the edge of one indefinitely until demography wins or some foolish muslim explodes a nuke in a state with the capacity for nuclear retaliation.

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 11:27 AM

I am so tired of hearing about the MSM and if they ever intend to join us in this global struggle. At this point I am ready to give these traitors a choice,
A. Mandatory deportation.
B. Firing squad.
This war did not start on Sept. 11, they have been screaming "Death to America" since 1979 at least. Many of us joined up in those days believing that we would kick the Russians out of Afghanistan and or crush Iran. They declared war on us decades ago but we decided we did not want to play. Now I have wonderful young men on my street coming home in boxes and I am d*m angry about it. I refuse to live in a world dominated by monsters. However, I am heartened by what I see and hear these days. For 30 years I have watched us ignore this threat. Finally I am feeling that I am not alone.
Thanks to all LGFer's,

Posted by: tgusa at May 6, 2006 11:28 AM

One last comment before I go to do something more productive: I was sent an email showing US troops under sniper fire with 2 of them being hit if not killed. The website of origin was ? Chinese but I deliberately block all foreign languages now for security reasons so I did not know the comments.

However I asked around and the comments were distinctly antiUSA and mockingly humorous and definitely from Communist China.

We can never depend upon these *******s to pull their weight but they will move in like vultures after the war.

Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 11:35 AM

Zathras, we are of like mind. May the force be with us.

Posted by: Stendec at May 6, 2006 11:47 AM

We are at war whether we want to be or not. We are at war because the Caliphate wars against us. At the bottom of the Caliphate's war is an effort to overthrow the principle that you are created equally free from the Moslem and you are free to exercise liberty as your God has created you. We are fighting against the Moslem Caliphate not just for today, but for all time. We are fighting that our children's children shall have a free government and shall have freedom of religion. This is what is being attacked by evil incarnate itself. We must fight to perpetuate for our children's children that we not lose our birth right.

The Caliphate formally declared war by fatwa against the nation state of the United States of America in or around 1991. September 11, 2001 elevated the Caliphate’s cutthroats to ones who celebrated unrequited mayhem against a peaceful and generous people who still tries to bring the Caliphate out of the dark ages. The fact that that the Caliphate is run from caves, mosques or a bunker is simply a tool it uses in its war aims. We need to prepare ourselves for a terrible war. We must not be blurred from a demand of unconditional surrender.

Posted by: David England at May 6, 2006 12:19 PM

So sorry J/W.
I found your site first.
I better get some coffee.

Posted by: tgusa at May 6, 2006 12:20 PM

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
Winston Churchill
Way to go mister President. You said it at last. Waiting for a long time now for this.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 6, 2006 12:31 PM

WW3? This is foolish of Bush to say this. There needs to be an official declaration and a complete cessation of trade with the enemy.

Posted by: johndoe at May 6, 2006 12:33 PM

Talk, talk, talk. When will we begin the necessary acts of war? Guard the borders, kick out the 5th column, mobilize the people, tell them exactly what and who the enemy is and what they intend for us all.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 6, 2006 12:43 PM

I completely agree with Bush - WWIII began on 9/11; and the Cold War still remains a conundrum at this point, so I wouldn't count it as a 'real' war yet.

Posted by: champ at May 6, 2006 12:45 PM

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same,
or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children
what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine
whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves;
whether they are to have any property they can call their own;
whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and
themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness
from which no human efforts will deliver them.
The fate of unborn millions will now depend on God,
on the courage and conduct of this army.
Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only
the choice of brave resistance,
or the most abject submission.
We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die."
George Washington

On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly,
on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores,
to preserve our heritage of freedom,
and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace
so that all their efforts shall not have been in vain.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Posted by: patriot4 at May 6, 2006 12:47 PM

champ, l think WW3 began earlier than 9-11, you had attacks on the TwinTowers under Clinton, the Cole, etc. even with the attacks on 9-11, you have a very large segment of the Democrats party, and liberals in general do not think we are at war. the looney left are more afraid of Bush than iranian president!
you have the Democrats walking on egg shells all over trying to say we wont attack Iran. all these mixed signals is not good, gives more fuel to iranians,hammas, etc. I do think Bush knows Islam is the cause, he hopes that by bringing demcracy make islam tame. l know Democracy cannot exist within Islamm, and so bringing into the middle east will destroy islam. how long this will take, how much patience and money no one knows. iran with nuclear weapons cannot be viable, and has to be stopped. l heard Michael Savages shows last Thur. talking to an ex CIA, and he felt a good bombing mission on specific sights in Iran will help create a change in leadership of Iran.

Posted by: Lulu at May 6, 2006 1:23 PM

Here's my take on th is. More at my blog http://the-gathering-storm.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=322752

Now that you've declared the struggle we face is World War III?

Fine. Who is the enemy? What strategies are they employing? What tactics? Where’s the coordinated plan to fight this world war that’s similar to the clear and decisive one that Roosevelt and the Allies had in fighting WWII? Is our enemy in this world war still a band of rogue terrorists who have hijacked a religion? Or are they something else?

Then answer me this. As I have said in my previous post, Winds of War: Connecting the Dots, every belligerent throughout history depends on the fundamentals of waging war – and the war of Islamo-fascism against the free world is no exception.

A belligerent must have at its disposal:

1. Financial resources
2. Weapons or Raw Material to Manufacturer Them
3. Propaganda Machine
4. Recruiting Apparatus
5. Command and Control
6. Safe Havens to Plan

The global Islamist strategy fills all six of these requirements.

They have the financial resources and support of the oil rich rogue states like Iran and the individual support of sheiks and rich Arab businessmen in the Middle East.

With these resources they can give their jihadist agents an endless supply of weapons and war materials for them to execute their insurgency of the West.

The Islamist propaganda machine uses the latest information technology and their mosques to get the word out and generate support and encouragement for their cause.

And their mosques strategically placed within the free nations of the world serve another purpose – recruiting of believers, and command and control of their troops.

Finally, safe heaven for planning and communication are provided by countries like Syria, Iran, and Pakistan where the free world military can not reach.

So tell me Mr. President, besides doing a pretty good job of ferreting out local and international financial supporters of the jihadists – except for combating the biggest financial supporters of all, Saudi Arabia and the other oil rich states, why have you not fought to remove the other fundamentals needed by the Islamo-fascists to fight this war?

Posted by: WC at May 6, 2006 1:30 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer

"I know America has not been a Garden of Eden, but for a temporal land, how wonderful it has been. And how casually we are casting off its manifold blessings. And for what future. It is almost inconceivable that an argument is taken seriously that we don't have the right to secure our borders and determine who shall enter our country. Not only has such lunacy become respectable, but our mainstream media instantly, instinctively embraces such a position. Every radio headline newscast, almost every newspaper and television report willfully refuses to distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. Each report stamps the mark of evil on the forehead of all who would guard
our borders.
--- Tony Blankley"

Blankley is not a particularly inspired writer, but this fragment is about the best he's written. It's got all the markings of great oratory. The first two sentences should become imprinted on our national consciousness, just like the verses of the Star Spangled Banner.
Instead, it's going to be cited, in many college classrooms across the country, as one more example of "American jingoism" and "racism."

Posted by: ovidius_naso at May 6, 2006 1:44 PM

Good point Lulu!

Posted by: champ at May 6, 2006 1:55 PM

Please!!! Bush can't count that high. He is clueless about what the meaning of what World War III means. Are we in WWIII? Yep! Are we fighting WWIII? Nope!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 6, 2006 2:15 PM

Being in WWIII and fighting WWIII are two different things. The Movie Flight 93 makes me angry becuase we have lost ground in this war becuase BUSH IS TOO STUPID TO FIGHT IT!!!!

He is the modern George B. McClellan.....Right Words no Action....All Talk and No Do!.....

Great G.W. Quotes

"Ima War President" G.W.
"Chesem out dem holes" G.W.
"Terriosts like to Terrizies" G.W.
"Saudis are our Frindz" G.W.
"W stands for Winner" G.W.

Oh yes the best is...

"I ama President and I maka decisions and Tony Snow's job is to interpret themz for de media"

God help us all.....I need another drink...and yes I am a Republican.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 6, 2006 2:42 PM

As long as our immigration policies are favorable to muslim immigration and millions of muslims keep pouring into America, how in the hell can we "win" this war? You cannot defeat your enemies by inviting them to come and live with you. That is essentially surrender the way I see it. EVery muslim that comes here, becomes a citizen, and joins his local mosque is one more nail in our coffin.

The globalist, open-borders, one-world Marxists in both the Republican and Democratic parties have been selling out America to the UN and CFR incrementally for decades. Katherine Harris, US Representative from Florida and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, has introduced a bill called The North American Cooperative Security Act, HR Bill 2672. If it is enacted, the U.S. Constitution will be null and void and the last remnants of our sovereignty will be flushed down the sewer.

This bill would integrate Canadian and Mexican police into our Department of Homeland Security, and abolish the borders between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It would provide massive financial aid to Mexico to help develop their natural gas and oil fields and improve their industrial capacity, and would impose a common tariff for all of North America. Bush has already signed us up for this travesty, to become effective in four years. It was written by Robert Pastor of the CFR, national security advisor to Jimmy Carter, who has been an activist with the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies, which is historically tied to the Russian KGB and Cuban DGI.

Comrade Pastor referred to his plan as "Building a North American Community", while Bush, Fox, and Martin named it the " Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." That sounds so innocent and benign, but it certainly is not. Let's face it, politics in America might be over because the Democrats and Republicans have the same agenda------globalism, open borders, and eventual one-world, socialist government headed by the U.N. Globalism is communism, pure and simple.

Posted by: Susanp at May 6, 2006 3:10 PM

GW is not a conservative, rather a Republicratic Technocrat. GW is a International Globalist (re: Saudi's, Dubai, Illegal Aliens et al etc.) GW is playing both ends against the middle. Is the "War on Terror" synonomous with the "War on Drugs"? "War on Illiteracy"? "War on Poverty"? Republicrat or Democan, you decide.
Einstein said the Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones...
Homer said to leave the council to the council, and war to warriors...

Posted by: SickBoy at May 6, 2006 3:13 PM

* * *

World War III began in 622 A.D.

* * *

Posted by: Television at May 6, 2006 3:48 PM

For me, this war began in 1979, when the Iranians under the command of Ayatollah Khomeini seized our embassy and took our people hostage for a year, subjecting them to humiliation, death threats, and in several cases, beatings--all broadcast live to the whole world. The first open naked act of aggression by jihad against this country had occurred, with this blatant violation of international law. But the U.S. did nothing; Iran paid no price for their aggression. They got away with it--and it's been downhill ever since.

We look back on the 1930's and ridicule the British and French for their appeasement of Hitler. But I suggest that what the Ayatollah did to us in 1979 was a far worse provocation than Hitler's march into the Rhineland in 1936--because it was a direct attack on U.S. citizens. Had Hitler, shortly after assuming power, seized the British and French embassies, took British and French nationals hostage, threatened to put them in concentration camps and had his storm troopers beating them up in front of the world press, even Daladier and Chamberlain might have gone to war right then. Hitler tried to move carefully, committing his aggressions gradually to avoid provoking the Allies to wage full war until he was ready for it. Today, he wouldn't have had to worry. That's what we've been reduced to.

In 1979, we showed the whole world that they could kidnap, take hostage, threaten, beat up and maybe even murder Americans--and they would pay no price. That would have been inconceivable before the Cold War, which put an end to the very idea of victory against an evil foe, replacing it with "measured responses" (how I hate that word "measured"), and morally ambiguous outcomes.

Posted by: Steven L. at May 6, 2006 5:12 PM

"World War III began in 622 A.D." Television

Correct!

Perhaps a new name of this struggle should be...

The Great MO War!!!! 622-???

Perhaps the greatest of them all. There are battlefields from North America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Africa. The nations (many don't exist anymore) have changed but the issues are somewhat the same.

Islam Vs. Everyone else

"So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see" Patton

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 6, 2006 6:07 PM

* * *

World War III began in 622 A.D.

* * *
Posted by: Television

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 6, 2006 6:18 PM

Only thing, TV, is that we'd be back to the war numbering debate - this would be WWI, the Great War would be WWII, the war with the Nazis would be WWIII and the Cold War WWIV. We've gone through 3 world wars, but the first was never complete.

This beats the 100 year war between England & France, which was previously recorded as the longest ever war.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 6, 2006 6:22 PM

A piece of information that all who read the Koran should be aware of.

Islamic ideology is, as we all know, that everyone is born naturally Muslim since Muhammad, and there exists unbelievers because they were raised liars (kufr). That we are kaffir because we haven't read the Qur'an (been exposed, in their argument and logic to the truth of their god Al Ilah).

Three years ago a Muslim I met on the net kept pestering me to read the Koran. I finally relented and became from that moment a bonafided and dedicated Islamophobe. However he now claims that I was satanic and am "deliberately deceptive" (thus projecting his taqiyya unto me), and even claimed that I didn't read the first Surah, because if I did I would not persist in my "hatred of Islam".

In the Muslim mind there exist only two kinds of unbelievers. Those who are "ignorant" because they haven't been exposed to the "truth of Islam" especially Surah l, and those who are satanic, who know the "truth" of Islam, but persist as enemies of Islam. Then again, according to the Qur'an, we aren't at fault, because "Allah has sealed our hearts and minds", but will "punish us anyway".

Akin to a father breaking his sons legs and then punishing him for not walking.

Point being if Bush reads the Koran, the Muslims will claim (most importantly to the moslemah) that he is satanic and deliberately deceptive, as it stands they can only claim that he is ignorant.

It is High Noon, and it is past time for a shootout on main street with Islam.

He needs to say I read the Koran and am apalled, but then again there is the problem of his Arab friends and sponsors, like the Saudis and the Emirs of Dubai and Kuwait.

Posted by: Nariz at May 6, 2006 6:28 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer said

The misuse of the word war in this context is tragic. We're not at war, we're at jihad. Big big difference.

Very good point. Talking about "war", we think only of the jihadists who actually strap on the explosives belt or lay the IED's by the roadside. It's all about "the militants", and has nothing to do with the "vast majority of moderates". And in talking about confronting a "war", the focus is obviously on mobilizing troops and weapons and bombs.

But as you suggest, facing the jihad is different. They use many methods to achieve their goals of a global caliphate, not all of them involve explosives. And our response should not be soley about explosives either. Education is just as powerful a weapon. If Bush is serious about confronting the jihad, then let him name it, let him name the source of their inspiration, let him tell us the slightest truth of what is contained in the Qur'an. Compared with the billions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, this short speech would cost nothing but a few minutes of our time, and would go a very long way in preparing us for what is surely coming.

So, following the pattern of the past, maybe we'll spend the next 3 weeks militarily overthrowing the government of Somalia, and the next 6 years rebuilding their infrastructure, while they pick off our soldiers 10 by 10, and all the while blathering on about "our good faithful allies" Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt.

Posted by: special_guest at May 6, 2006 6:40 PM

Oops, forgot Dubai too.

Posted by: special_guest at May 6, 2006 6:56 PM

Bush calls terror fight World War III
+++++++++++++

And when is President Bush going to start fighting the real terrorists in Saudi, Iran, etc...

Posted by: Texican at May 6, 2006 8:21 PM

I disagree with pig farmer and special_guest.

This is a war. Jihad is just the ideology, not the weapon. We are seeing now just the first phase of this war. The phase where the underdog who can not compete with the technological superior enemy – us – and uses unconventional methods to further aggression. No different from the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War. They could not match our military might on the conventional battle field so they used unconventional methods to wage war with us.

But sooner or later you have to occupy ground. Europe may roll over and be absorbed by Islam but they will have to occupy our country to win – i.e., put boots on the ground. The only way to finally win a war. That means turning from unconventional tactics to conventional ones – true war. That time will come. It has to if Islam is to conquer this country.

WC

Posted by: WC at May 7, 2006 12:30 AM

Television, you sure made a comment. So are all the people and cultures and nations that islam destroyed since 622 are going to ask for all that was taken from them? Are there enough muslims to pay for the loss of life alone ? One British scholar estimates that islam killed 600000000 Hindus in its 1000 year occupation of the land of the people of Indus Vally. How many Persians? They wiped out the Persian Civilization entirely. Some Persians fled and took refuge in India where they are still. The Persians mingle perfectly with the local Hindus but, the mo's do not,till date.And how many Jews,starting from Safiya? Christians? One site claims the massacre of 3 million Christians in Sudan in the past 10 years itself.Buddhists, Bahais, the list goes on. How many innocent people have been killed by islam's mindless zombies?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 7, 2006 1:15 AM

Do they give lobotomies in New Haven when they issue these people diplomas?

This ain't a war; it's jihad war.

The analogy built into his bleat about WWIII is not only very funny, it's misleading and extremely dangerous talk.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 7, 2006 1:36 AM

arjun

It would be interesting to see the breakdown by religion of all Infidels slaughtered by Muslims, from Mohammed's campaigns to IED's currently being used in Iraq.

You mentioned 600000000 Hindus - I'm sure you probably meant 6 million. While I'm sure there are numbers all over the place, according to Konrad Elst in Negationism in India - Concealing the record of Islam, the number of Hindus slaughtered was 80 million just between 1000AD and 1525AD - before the Moghuls arrived. In other words, all the massacres that took place starting with Babur, going through Aurangzeb and culminating with Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali, are not included in K S Lal's above estimates. If they were, assuming that the number killed was less, the real total would come to something like 150m.

This isn't a debt that Muslims can repay, and I'm sure that noone in the infidel world wants to see a bloodbath of all the world's Muslims. But we do expect them to acknowledge the crimes that were done at the behest of Mohammed over 14 centuries, and disown Islam - nothing short of that can do. After all, Germans have by and large completely disowned Hitler, Spain has disowned the inquisition and the conquistadoras, Denmark has disowned that portion of its Viking past that involved the large scale rape and pillage of foreign lands. None of the crimes of the above people ever came anywhere near the magnitude of what Mohammed even after his death inspired over 14 centuries, right to this day.

Given that all the sociological evils of the world - racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, homophobia, genocide - are to be found in Islam, as well as the fact that the Quran is written in stone, Islam cannot be reformed, and will therefore continue to be a threat to the world as long as it exists. It used to be said of Apartheid by Bishop Desmond Tutu that Apartheid can't be reformed: it must be abolished. Islam has been far more cancerous, far more destructive than apartheid was throughout its history. If Apartheid deserved to be dismantled, then so does Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 7, 2006 2:03 AM

Infidel pride said: "and I'm sure that noone in the infidel world wants to see a bloodbath of all the world's Muslims"

No one does but unless they actually try to accept accountability and show respect for others it may well become a reality. While the legend of the "moderate Muslim" continues Hope still exists but eventually these creatures will have to make a stand for/against essentially basic humanity, then choose their side and be treated accordingly.

My expectation is that 95% of Muslims, perhaps more if they actually think that they can win, will side with the jihadists in a west vs Islam conflict.

The only way that we can drop this percentage is by standing up directly to all incidents and inflicting similar carnage upon them(plus a few litres of pig's blood). The possibility of extermination and no heaven might push a few millions more into apostasy.

Time for Hamurabi's code for these people.
(I cannot believe just how hardline I have become over the last 12 months and what is worse is that I feel no guilt whatsoever)

Posted by: Zathras at May 7, 2006 2:59 AM

Zathras

Unlike Hugh, I don't believe that the war against Islam can be won simply by isolating them. I think it will take a military campaign.

However, I don't believe that it would be necessary to eviscerate all the world's 1 billion Muslims. A few strategic strikes that takes out the leaderships of various countries like Pakistan, KSA, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh et al, as many major mosques in all these countries as possible, and yes, a few nukes that take out the top few Islamic cities in the world (Djakarta, Aceh, Karachi, Islamabad, Dhaka, Cairo, and of course Mecca & Medina). Make sure during such a war to make it known that the war won't end until the people (not the governments) renounce Islam. It probably won't need to be that many - I think 2 or 3 nukes may suffice, and you won't even see protests, because the world will know that we are royally pissed, and won't stand for it.

Once this happens, and the governments and clergy in these countries are eliminated, the stranglehold of Islam on these people will have been eliminated, and you'll see them switch in droves. It'd be similar to Afghanistan - when Operation Enduring Freedom started, there were a lot of Pakistanis who went to Pakistan in droves because they wanted to fight Americans. Once the bombing started, all that bravado about becoming Shahids was forgotten, and they wanted to get home. If that was them, don't assume that ordinary Muslims, their governments and clergy destroyed, will keep trying to save Islam. They'll want to save themselves first and foremost. The conditions of these will have to be that they apostatize, and switch to anything else.

I don't disagree with you that the war will start with 95% of Muslims wanting Jihad. However, once they start seeing a trend of mosques being targeted for destruction, and a few nukes targeting their top cities, one will see that percentage fall drastically. Also, note that it's unknown how many of this 1.3 billion Muslims are secretly atheists, or apostates to other religions - given that death is the sentence for apostasy, who expects that number to be known? But it will be, once the Damocles sword that hangs over them is removed. Or it would be like the removal of the pendulum in Edgar Allan Poe's The Pit & the Pendulum, featuring an execution room in Toledo, Spain by the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 7, 2006 3:24 AM

Infidel Pride...nice to see a hardline optimist (yourself) try to pull me( a hardline pessimist) out of my despondency :)

I cannot disagree with much that you write above.

You would have to remove ALL religious leaders and ALL religious teachers, destroy ALL madrassas and virtually ban the Koran. Not impossible but very hard.

I only hope that if it comes to that, then you are correct.

Posted by: Zathras at May 7, 2006 3:32 AM

Not ALL - getting the big ones would be a good start, and as long as they are under the impression that this will continue until they fold, we are doing things right.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 7, 2006 4:12 AM

The cold war was WW4...this is the latest resurgence of WW1. Though if the commies don't realise who their freinds are it could soon be WW5. Ho hum. WW6 will be the rise of the gingers.

Posted by: Animus at May 7, 2006 8:20 AM

The first person to "hijack Islam" was Mohammed's wife Khadija Bibi who told him that his mania was a revelation from God. It went downhill from there.

The discussion of whether this is WW III or IV, whether this is just empty words until declarations of war are made and military might is used, seems secondary to me. Although President Bush probably hasn't thought out what he is saying*, at least he said it: This is a global war. Wars usually start with words, not bullets. Sometimes they are won with words without bullets.

I think this war started in circa 650 A. D.

*Bush's "allies" of Saudi Arabia, Dubai, et al. will no doubt prove to be more Quislings than friends.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at May 7, 2006 10:02 AM

Infidel Pride,
I mean 600 million. You arrived at the figure of 150 million.But the correct one is 600.Include the regions of Kandhar Pradesh (now Afghanistan), West Punjab(now Pakistan),Hindukush (Afghanistan),Dhaka (now Bangladesh).The Hindukush was the point where the muslims got a stronghold in India by killing millions.
This is it.In 1000 years,muslims have killed 600000000 Hindus in their aggression on the Indus Valley Civilization.
Zatras, am too becoming a hardliner.And no guilt.Nothing

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 7, 2006 12:22 PM

"You would have to remove ALL religious leaders and ALL religious teachers, destroy ALL madrassas and virtually ban the Koran. Not impossible but very hard."

Infidel Pride, I have to agree with Zathras. Islam has a deep stranglehold, it is embedded and intertwined with Arabic culture; it would have to be decimated. The religious hierarchy would go on for at least two to three generations of human life, so the destruction has to be thorough.

Posted by: HaMalach at May 9, 2006 1:42 AM