Ignorance and politically correct stupidity and blindness.

Can we rely on these fools to protect us ?

Posted by: dgene at September 22, 2006 7:20 AM

"Political Islam is not a threat," Nakhleh, who retired from the CIA

perhaps that is why he is retired now, for his retarded thinking. you cannot really take this statement seriously can you?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 22, 2006 7:20 AM

Political Islam is not a threat? This nation really is doomed. How can 3 percent of 1.4 billion people not be a threat if they are political? That would make one hell of a large army!
Politicians from both parties really aren't getting it and they will all sell us lierally into Islamic slavery. Five years after 9/11 has taught them nothing about our enemies, heir methods and their goals.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 22, 2006 7:44 AM

please sign this petition this was sent to me if you agree & pass on thanks.

http://www.petitiononline.com/NoSharia/petition.html

Posted by: alwaysinfidel at September 22, 2006 7:49 AM

Here's an overview of Nakleh's professional background:

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/nakhleh_emile_774300335.aspx

Here's what may be the original story:

http://www.harpers.org/sb-six-questions-emile-nakhleh-1158706094.html

Posted by: StillBreathing at September 22, 2006 8:11 AM

Nakhleh- is this an american name?

perhaps robert spencer would enlighten the american government & then please come to the UK.

Posted by: alwaysinfidel at September 22, 2006 8:20 AM

I do not understand this. Why does it have to be made so complicated? The minute 9/11 happened the first responsibility of all U.S. leaders and anyone in charge should have been to read the Koran cover to cover. It's not that long. It's incomprehensible to me that after five years people seem to have no understanding at all.

When people are killing others and they openly state WHY they're doing it, what is there to figure out?

Posted by: Mo at September 22, 2006 8:23 AM

The problem is not that Nakleh sounds 'un-American'. It is that is sounds vaguely Arab, and hence likely Muslim.

Posted by: Benjamin at September 22, 2006 8:25 AM

"Political Islam" is a redundant expression. Islam is a political ideology with a few religious trappings.

Fascism with a racist outlook: Nazism.

Fascism with an economic outlook: Communism.

Fascism with a religious outlook: Islam.

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at September 22, 2006 8:28 AM

Benjamin:

I don't know him, but with a name like Emile Nakhleh he is most likely a Lebanese Christian. Muslims aren't named "Emile."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 22, 2006 8:30 AM

But the CIA program's former director, Emile Nakhleh, played down the problem and estimated only two to three percent of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were politically active.

hahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!....ROFLMAO!!!!....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Oiznop at September 22, 2006 8:35 AM

Mo needs to work in the CIA. It's just like the 1930's with Hitler and Mein Kampf. The blueprint's there-read it and not be surprised.
They thought Hitler's book was nonsense but he sure showed everyone, didn't he? Need we wait for worse atrocities than 9/11 before finally seeing the danger?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 22, 2006 8:40 AM

"Democrat members distanced themselves from them and accused the Republican majority of trying to frighten voters about such threats in advance of elections in November"

Are the dhimmicrats stating concern about threats are not a concern?

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 22, 2006 8:49 AM

Council on Foreign Relations?

That says it all. Need I say more?

I thought of writing about the stupidty of the American Intelligence Community on this, but it is going to take some time for me to absorb this information about Nakhleh. The depth and breathth of this is incomprehensible. I can't get my mind around it.

I am of the opinion that in the end, the lawyers will get us all killed. The law is a game that lawyers play. The rest of us have to deal with life, the lawyers get to play all day long.

Lawyers deal in what they call 'legal fictions'. Fiction is defined in any law dictionary as 'Fraud'. And just because something is 'legal' doesn't make it 'lawful'.
So a 'Legal Fiction' is an 'Unlawful Fraud'.

A fraud is not reality. If this war with Islam is concluded, the 'game' would be over for the lawyers. By definition, it is not in their best professional interests to successful prosecute this war. The longer the war goes on, the better it is for them. The guys setting policy don't deal with reality. They deal with this game they create, yet the other side, OBL et al, don't have a copy of the lawyers rules for this game, and if they did, wouldn't play by their rules anyway.

I am starting to think that if we are to survive as a People, eventually there may have to be a blood bath in Washington, D.C., before things start to click in this War on so-called 'Terror'. D.C. doesn't get it, won't get it, and doesn't want to get it.

Nakhlek is the latest example of this fact.

Posted by: SCV at September 22, 2006 8:58 AM

There are none so blind as those who won't see. And in 1938 we had Peace In Our Time.

Saying that the threat is not political Islam is just linguistic chicanery, the threat is ISLAM. I have noticed that if you use 'political' in any report on terrorist attacks, the role of Islam is minimised and people don't join the dots. Beslan - political struggle by Chechen separatists. Mumbai - political struggle by Kashmiri separatists. And so on ad nauseam.

Posted by: Koranophobe at September 22, 2006 9:06 AM

But the CIA program's former director, Emile Nakhleh, played down the problem and estimated only two to three percent of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were politically active.

Nakhleh shouldn't even feel at ease over his own estimate.

3 percent of 1.4 billion would amount to 42 million who are "politically active." And of that, how many actively support the jihad ideology, and how many more again are enablers?

Not exactly a Tiny Minority of Extremists.

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 22, 2006 9:19 AM

People who know people need to pass on links... like this site and memri.org and other such places.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 22, 2006 9:27 AM

Perhaps "only two to three percent of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were politically active".

But the remaining ones are following their murderous orders. There is no discussion in Islam and imams or militant leaders wield great power.

In China under Mao, only a few party members were politically active, but no one among the terrorised population would have dared discuss orders and tens of thousands were sent to their deaths and killed thousands of Americans in the Korean war.

Saying such a thing has no value considering the coercive nature of Islam.

Posted by: rocky at September 22, 2006 9:29 AM

One wonders what is the goal of wanting us to lower our guard against an enemy which has proven itself more hostile even than the communists, who were not able to destroy buildings in New York despite decades of hatred and threats.

What exactly does the CIA's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program director want to achieve with such declarations?

Posted by: rocky at September 22, 2006 9:35 AM

[...]the CIA's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, created in 2004 to study the issue, advise policymakers and engage academics worldwide[...]

Hugh - can you find out the names of the academics involved and reach out to them?

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 22, 2006 9:35 AM

Maybe there wasn't room to fight political Islam and have a tax cut in the budget. Remember, Bush Jr. blames Bush Sr.'s loss for the "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge being broken. Bush Jr was determined not to lose his re-election. A fight against Political Islam world wide, if he had admitted it, would not sound like the right words for a tax cut at the same time. The CIA analysts come up with what the Boss wants.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 22, 2006 9:41 AM

"...the CIA program's former director, Emile Nakhleh, played down the problem and estimated only two to three percent of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were politically active."

"'Political Islam is not a threat,' Nakhleh, who retired from the CIA in June, said in an interview posted on the web site of Harper's magazine. 'The threat is if the people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence.'"
-- from the article above

There is a good deal to note in the paragaphs above.

Let's stat with that figure of "1.4 billion Muslims" given with such suave assurance by Emile Nakhleh, the "CIA program's former director," and left unchallenged, or even uncommented on, by the reporter for Reuters. By now we are all familiar with the way in which Muslim spokesmen constantly exaggerate the figures for Muslims; we have all seen how, in the last few years, the figures suddenly have pushed up, in increments of 100 million -- 1 billion, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and even, the other day, 1.6 billion. Any figure given that is over 1.2 billion (which, I think, is also exaggerated, and have written about here) is part of that campaign, part of the same campaign designed to scare non-Muslims, or overawe them, with the theme of "Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion."

Yet how many people, reading these remarks by Emile Nakhleh, "retired since June" from the C.I.A. would even stop to note that "1.4 billion" figure that is just tossed off?

And then there is the estimate, by Emile Nakhleh, that of these "1.4 billion" Muslims, only "two to three percent" are "politically active." What does that mean? What could it conceivably mean when in Islam there is no division between politics and religion? Is "politically active" a term for those who are engaged directly in terrorist acts? Is it a term meaning those who engage directly in terrorist acts and those who support them with money, with guns, with ardent approval? Is it a term that means those who actively take an interest in terrorism and also running for Town Meeting in a New England village? What does it mean? It means nothing. It is simply one more bit of nonsense and blague. Or could he mean, rather, that it his unsupported view, very few Muslims wish to become suicide bombers, even if very many Muslims proudly named their sons Osama after the attack of 9/11/2001, and very many Muslims, in the Muslim-ruled countries and in the Lands of the Infidels, have expressed their approval of Osama Bin Laden, of Hezbollah, and of other terrorists and terrorist groups. Unless we know what Emile Nakhleh, "the CIA program's former director," means by that strange phrase "political Islam," we cannot really examine that "two to three percent figure" he also provides. But we have reason to think all he is doing is engaging in an effort at ludicrously minimizing the problem posed by the theologico-politico-geopolitical system of Islam, and that can only be in order to allay fears, to keep the Infidels unalarmed, as unconcerned, even as somnolent, as possible.

In Western Europe, for decades those who ruled, and whose duty it was to both instruct and protect others from threats, as early as possible in their detection, those who failed to instruct and protect enough early on about Nazism, and about Communism, and about energy policies and problems, and about AIDS, and Mad Cow Disease, and possibly irreversible environmental changes, also failed to learn, themselves, and then to instruct others, in what Islam is all about, and what Muslim migrants would necessarily be carrying with them in their mental baggage, and why what they carried would mean, necessarily, disaster for the countries of the Bilad al-kufr to which those Muslim migrants came. For who can deny, at this point, even if there are disagreements over what is now to be done, that the large-scale presence of Muslims in the countries of Western Europe has lead to a situation, for the indigenous Infidels and even for other, non-Muslim, migrants to those same lands (Hindus, Buddhists, Caribean and African Christians, Chinese), of greater unpleasantness, expense, and physical insecurity, than would otherwise be the case?

Finally, Nakhleh asserts, in a tone of remarkable self-assurance, that "[p]olitical Islam is not a threat. The threat is if the people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence.'"

By "people" he means "Muslim" people. And he is telling us that not only do the teeniest tiniest possible percentage -- "two to three percent" -- of the world's Muslims (who, by the way, are now up to "1.4 billion")-- "politically active" but that also, there is trouble only when "people" (that is, Muslims) become "disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence."

Now I'm confused. Now I need Emile Nakhleh to help me out. Are the "two to three percent" of the world's Muslms who are "politically active" the ones who are not "disenchanted with the political process and democracy"? Are they the ones we don't have to worry about because they are engaged in political activities, and therefore must not yet "disenchanted with the political process and democracy" and opting "for violence" as Emile Nakhleh demurely describes terrorist groups and suicide-bombers, or are they the ones who, being the only ”politically active” ones out of those "1.4 billion Muslims" instead, therefore, the very ones who soon become "disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence"?

If it is the latter case, then one must ask why 97-98% of the world's "1.4 billion Muslims" manage to remain "politically active," and instead are politically passive or inert? One wonders what would be the reasons for that. One wonders if we Infidels should indeed wish those 987-98 percent of the Muslims who are now according to Emile Nakhleh not “politically active” to do so, for can it lead to anything other than many more of them then becoming “disenchanted with the political process and democracy” and then opting “for violence.” (How demure that choice of verb, incidentally -- “opt for violence.” I “opt for violence,” you “opt for violence,” we all “opt for violence.”) .

Societies suffused with Islam, that is with a belief-system that encourages despotism, not least because Islam locates the source of political legitimacy in the will of those ruled – the political theory that undergirds the advanced Western democracies -- but rather in the degree to which any government and any rulers adhere to the expressed willof Allah, and of his messenger, as located by clerics and interpreters long ago in Qur’an and hadith, a will to be found in the Holy Law of Islam, or Shari’a. And since, further, the belief-system of Islam is a collectivist system, ignores the rights of the individual, sees the individual Muslim as owing his entire allegiance ot that belief-system and to the collective of fellow Believers, the Umma al-Islamiyya, it is difficult for Muslims to conceive of recognizing,.much less making the center of their polities, the rights of individuals – rights such as freedom of speech, and free exercise of religion, including the right to abandon a religion. That is why no Muslim country adheres to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (though the Shah of Iran signed the document), why instead a “Muslim version” that completely vitiates the entire meaning and sense of the original, was created, and presented to the world as an acceptable alternative, when it at every point undermined the letter and spirit of that original.

And if what Emile Nakhleh, who retired from the C.I.A. last June as head of its “program” dealing with “political Islam means – oh,.what a tangled web we weave, Mr. Nakhleh, and Miss Reuters, when ‘ere we practice to deceive -- is that the 97-98 percent of Muslims who are not “politically active” should become so, and we Infidels have a duty to somehow prevent them from becoming “disenchanted” and thus becoming “politically active” in another bombs-and-explosives sort of way, and therefore it is up to us, the Infidels, to bend our efforts to encouraging democracy in Muslim societies, despite the fact that everything necessary to democracy beyond mere head-counting at the purple-thumbed polls, including the legitimacy of governments arising from a social contract theory, and the necessity of post-electoral compromise between political rivals (a spirit of compromise completely unknown in Islam, and the results of which we see in Iraq today), and the enshrinement of individual rights, is not part of Islam, is inimical to Islam – and yet we are not permitted to discuss this, to worry about it, to wonder how Islamic societies can be brought a kind of democracy that means anything at all, beyond what it has meant in the farcical elections in Egypt (where the Ikhwan gained seats), in the “Palestinian” “Authority” (where Hamas won power), in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and anywhere that the tiniest, and phoniest and for-western-consumption-only steps are taken to supposedly begin that process of “democratization” that everywhere would lead to an increase in the power of the less corrupt, but much more threatening, true Believres –less tainted by corruption than the more worldly thieving-ruling families, for they would be Believers purs et durs.

Emile Nakhleh’s two paragraphs of nonsense deserve to have some sense imposed on them. We’ve tried above. We’ve really tried.

And Emile Nakhleh himself deserves attention. Is he one more of those C.I.A. retirees who, like Raymond Close, “retired” early in order to go into business – perhaps something in the public-relations line – with some of those he was supposed to worry about? Is he now a “lecturer” by any chance, on “political Islam,” a writer of Op-Ed pronouncements, someone who might be supplementing his government pension with the kind of remarks that are reuterized above? Or is he simply one more example of the unintelligent “experts” in the Central Intelligence Agency, of whom we have had a troubling sampling – including schoolboyish Scheuer – over the past few years, each one more naïve and confused than the next.

One worries: these are the ones we find out about, these are the ones whose intelligence and understanding we can judge because they have retired from the C.I.A., and are now speaking publicly. But what about those who haven’t retired, whose capacity for comprehension, or whose loyalties, are similar to those of Emile Nakhleh, or Raymond Close, or others?

One worries, and one wonders.

Posted by: Hugh at September 22, 2006 9:46 AM

Hamas rejects Abbas unity pledge

Mr Abbas is seeking a coalition between Fatah and Hamas
Palestinian militant group Hamas has said it will not join a planned national unity government if recognising Israel is a condition.
It follows a speech by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in which he said the government would recognise Israel and renounce violence.

Hamas spokesmen said there had been no change in the position on Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5370628.stm

Posted by: Churchill1939 at September 22, 2006 9:55 AM

Wow Hugh, you have put what makes me restless in so many accurate words.

You really work hard to keep this site going.

Where will all this end?

Posted by: rocky at September 22, 2006 9:57 AM

And it is Sharia that is the goal of those we fight. The manner in which they are advancing it is simply a question of their tactics, not of whether or not they are enemies of our way of life.

Considering that the pope has effectively apologized for quoting someone else critical of islam; given the islamization in Europe and the fact that a Netherlands justice minister has no objections if the majority of Dutch vote to impose sharia law there; and now this -- are we not already living under a de-facto sharia law?

Is Emile Nakhleh also islamic or is this individual an al-qaeda agent working within the US government?

Posted by: witness at September 22, 2006 10:01 AM

I agree that the problem is shari'a totalitarians, but I would like to highlight a LITTLE detail:

estimated only two to three percent of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were politically active

Now, even at that IDIOTIC level of discussion, we should still be able to notice that

TWO TO THREE per cent of 1,4 billions
MAKES A WHOPPING

42,000,000

FORTY TWO MILLIONS OF "militants" (?)

When did the commies have 42 million "militants" ? Never.

So even Mr.NAKHLEH (who must be, evidently, of Scottish heritage) should riconsider his optimism, even from his very limited point of view.

Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO at September 22, 2006 10:09 AM

"6a. Is there an inherent threat to Western democracies from the Islamic world?

No, there's only a threat from those who use Islam for ideological reasons and who are willing to employ violence."

"6b. Is there an inherent threat to Western democracies from the Communist world?

No, there's only a threat from those who use Communism for ideological reasons and who are willing to employ violence."

"6c. Is there an inherent threat to Western democracies from the Nazi world?

No, there's only a threat from those who use Nazism for ideological reasons and who are willing to employ violence."

Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 22, 2006 10:16 AM

Consider the following paragraph from Mr. Fitzgerald's incoherent rant:

And if what Emile Nakhleh, who retired from the C.I.A. last June as head of its “program” dealing with “political Islam means – oh,.what a tangled web we weave, Mr. Nakhleh, and Miss Reuters, when ‘ere we practice to deceive -- is that the 97-98 percent of Muslims who are not “politically active” should become so, and we Infidels have a duty to somehow prevent them from becoming “disenchanted” and thus becoming “politically active” in another bombs-and-explosives sort of way, and therefore it is up to us, the Infidels, to bend our efforts to encouraging democracy in Muslim societies, despite the fact that everything necessary to democracy beyond mere head-counting at the purple-thumbed polls, including the legitimacy of governments arising from a social contract theory, and the necessity of post-electoral compromise between political rivals (a spirit of compromise completely unknown in Islam, and the results of which we see in Iraq today), and the enshrinement of individual rights, is not part of Islam, is inimical to Islam – and yet we are not permitted to discuss this, to worry about it, to wonder how Islamic societies can be brought a kind of democracy that means anything at all, beyond what it has meant in the farcical elections in Egypt (where the Ikhwan gained seats), in the “Palestinian” “Authority” (where Hamas won power), in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and anywhere that the tiniest, and phoniest and for-western-consumption-only steps are taken to supposedly begin that process of “democratization” that everywhere would lead to an increase in the power of the less corrupt, but much more threatening, true Believres –less tainted by corruption than the more worldly thieving-ruling families, for they would be Believers purs et durs.

The other day, I took some abuse for mentioning the "bloviations of the insufferable windbag Hugh Fitzgerald." What an injustice!

Is is possible that we are looking here at a new record? Mr. Fitzgerald, may I suggest that you buy a few periods (full stops)? May I also note that it is not good to begin a sentence with a conjunction?

You, sir, are indeed a semiliterate, bloviating, insufferable windbag. I rest my case.

Posted by: Norseman at September 22, 2006 10:17 AM

"6d. Is there an inherent threat to Western democracies from supervolcanoes?

No, there's only a threat from those who use supervolcanoes for ideological reasons and who are willing to employ violence."

"6e. Is there an inherent threat to Western democracies from a huge hairy asteroid that's going to hit the earth?

No, there's only a threat from those who use huge hairy asteroids for ideological reasons and who are willing to employ violence."

Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 22, 2006 10:31 AM

http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/media/Christian_Persecution2.wmv

Yeah right Islam is harmless! Between 1993 and now Bethlehem went from over 90% Christian to just 10% today. That was no innocent conversion. We're talking about Bethlehem here!

Posted by: ofcourse at September 22, 2006 10:44 AM

It's everyone for themsleves...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at September 22, 2006 10:48 AM

It does require a little intelligence to understand Hugh, but dont give up: graduate to the two syllable words first, and keep trying.

Hugh, methinks you are excellant. Many thanks.

Posted by: dgene at September 22, 2006 11:07 AM

It does require a little intelligence to understand Hugh, but dont give up: graduate to the two syllable words first, and keep trying.

Hugh, methinks you are excellant. Many thanks.

Posted by: dgene at September 22, 2006 11:07 AM

Hugh - I have to admit that sometimes your writings are inpenetrable and dense as the edges of a jungle. I realize that you're full of knowledge and are trying to rush it all out at once, ad hoc and in real time, but the readability of some of it will confuse or block those infrequent and unknowledgable visitors to the website and impart a sense that "it's all too difficult to navigate, this Islam, this jihad", much like those 19th century explorers who would wind their ways up the Amazon tributaries in the native pirogue and surmise that all the jungle was impenetrable, based on the thickness at the edges.

In other words, the content suffers by the style. Please take the criticism with a grain of salt. In no way am I making light of your contribution. These are matters of style not substance after all.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 22, 2006 11:36 AM

"The threat is if the people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence."

That's me.

Bring your "day of rage" to my street, and your visage of Hell will be more than a literary abstraction.

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at September 22, 2006 11:46 AM

To whom it may concern:

Hugh often posts in the comments fields, and then edits his remarks for publication as separate articles. Since this particular piece has come under such fire, I invite you all to read the article version here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013245.php

You will find it, I believe, much more readable and clear, and free of typos and unresolved dependent clauses.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 22, 2006 11:48 AM

Can somebody kindly explain why the Branch Davidians were a threat, necessitating the mass murder of women and children by the federal government in Waco, but Islam is a "peaceful religion" and not a threat?

Posted by: Menetheos at September 22, 2006 12:04 PM

Menetheos - Branch Davidians were localized to a single compound. The numbered in the 10s or 100s at the most.

They may be the same thing in spirit, but not in real estate and warm bodies.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 22, 2006 12:07 PM

Plague - That's what I thought. Islam is too big to challenge. Surrender is the only option.

Posted by: Menetheos at September 22, 2006 12:10 PM

Glad this guy is retired and out of the CIA. Where does he get the percentage, a recent Gallup poll? And to think that political Islam is not a problem is a divorced from reality. Idiots like this should not have jobs in the CIA.

Posted by: No More Spin at September 22, 2006 12:17 PM

To those who would criticize Hugh

Although his comments are sometimes lacking in grammatical style, I completely understand his problem. Hugh is full of passion and frustration at the same time. He, as we all are, is frustrated with the blindness of those people who are in power and have the means to do something about the problam of Islam. He, and we, can only use the public airwaves and the internet to express our views and attempt to enlighten others to the great danger we all are facing.

I can also empathize with Hugh about grammar and spelling errors. I graduated from a university with "magna cum laude" honors so most would not consider me ignorant. However, sometimes I get passionate, and in my haste to post a comment I make a lot of mistakes in writing. I also make haste to get my arthritic fingers off this damn keyboard.

Most of the time I refrain from commenting because someone else has stated the point I would have made. I do confess that I don't have the time to read every comment, but I have learned which contributors actually have something intelligent to say. I scroll down and read those comments. I pass over a lot of comments, but I especially look for the name "Hugh" at the bottom of the quote because I know he has something germaine to say. There are also a few others I read, but I won't flatter any egos by naming them.

Posted by: TexasInfidel at September 22, 2006 12:45 PM

The CIA wins the brain-dead award of the week!

Islam ('political' or otherwise) will ALWAYS be a threat to our world because it incorporates unlimited first-degree murder into its core doctrines. There is no way to get that homicidal teaching out either; it is a lethal fixture that has drastically devalued human life for far too long.

Enough said on THAT.

Now, someone needs to tell the US government to get real, since it is all too clear that these bureaucrats are living (dangerously)in an ivory tower and/or getting their information from people living in ivory towers.

Not good. Not good at all.

Posted by: pythagoras at September 22, 2006 1:29 PM

Grammar? Spelling? Coherence?

I don't need no stinkin' grammar.
I don't need no stinkin' spelling.
I don't need no stinkin' coherence.

Now I rest my case.

Posted by: Hugh at September 22, 2006 2:37 PM

TexasInfidel l understand your posts well enough, we all do typos, and your fingers do not go as fast as
you think and l find myself reversing letters.
with Hugh's post as well as others, l do a lot of speed reading, and do get the thread of many.
books like Robert's l do take my time and enjoy everyword!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 22, 2006 3:00 PM

"They (Branch Davidians) may be the same thing in spirit..."

I realize we post here with flying fingers on the keyboard. However...

Name one time that someone was stabbed in the back by a Branch Davidian.

Name one time that someone was shot in the back by a Branch Davidian.

Name one time that a Branch Davidian blew himself up as a suicide bomber.

Name one time that a Branch Davidian blew himself up as a car bomber.

Name one time that a Branch Davidian blew himself up as a bomber on a public bus.

Name one time that a Branch Davidian blew himself up as a bomber on a train.

Name one time that a Branch Davidian flew an airliner into an American High Rise Building.

Who would you prefer to guest overnight in your home, whom would you feel safest with, a Al Quida member, or a Branch Davidian?

Methinks that maybe the biggest enemy of the American People is not Al Quida...maybe it is the Federal Government. How can this go on?

Nakhleh? Now 15,000 visas to Saudi students that have vowed to saw our heads off?

Maybe I'm wrong...have been before. I sit here stating that the federales don't 'get it'. Having watched this over the last five years, seeing a repeated pattern of 'incompetence' on their part, how long does it take to sink in.

Maybe the federales 'get it'. Maybe it is me and the rest of the American People that are the ones who don't 'get it'. Maybe the 'incompetence' IS intentional.

I'm going to have to think about this idea. The federales position that the Branch Davidians were a threat but the Saudis are not. When it is demonstratedly the opposite. Is there something right in front of me, hideing right out in the open, and I can't see it? Let me think on this...

Posted by: SCV at September 22, 2006 3:11 PM

So ,after the next attack, make sure the anger is directed at the non-political followers of Islam.

Slims the field somewhat.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 22, 2006 3:30 PM

Many people do not understand that islam is just a cover for

Punjabi-Arab-Iran axis of evil to kill women and children of jews, balochis, sindhis, kashmiris and even Indians.

Punjabi-Arab axis of evil has launched a vicious war of terrorism against jews, christians and balochis.

balochis long for independence. Punjabis have snatched our businesses and lands and now they are bombing us with F-16.

Mosques, temples are being bombed regardless. Women cannot feel safe. They are constantly harrased sexually by Punjabis.

Selfish Punjabis behave very nicely and sweetly but they are loot your wealth and business and bomb your homes and land.

Punjabis and Al-Taqiyya are synonymous.

balochistan Zindabad!

Posted by: mystichealer at September 22, 2006 3:50 PM