How many man hours did it take to come to this conclusion?

Unreal.

Posted by: Moose at June 16, 2007 9:23 AM

Probably 20 Million dollars of grant monies well spent to discover this! Thank you, Congress!

Posted by: localmalcontent at June 16, 2007 9:41 AM

There is nothing but political Islam.

Its a dead pedophile warlord's ideological excuse for terror, rapine, slaughter and tyranny, not a "religion".

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 16, 2007 10:07 AM

Yeah sure, that makes a lot of sense. Lets ask christian evangelists,who think religion should
enter polictics what their Ideas on violence is.
Would it be a surprise that the majority support
war in iraq or an attack on Iran? Lets aks Jews
who want religion mixed with politics and surprise
they support Israeli wars, settler fanatics and militarty "actions".The only difference is what Muslims support, resistance in Palestine, you call terrorism. Mr. Spencer, you definitely need a new job.

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 10:11 AM

This is less trivial than it looks. There are two significant findings that go against the grain of conventional thinking, namely, (1) that support for terrorism is not caused by poverty, lack of education, or dictatorships, and (2) that the most important factor in support of terrorism is a perceived threat to Islam from America. If we can stress these two points, perhaps people will evolve in their thinking a bit and at least start coming to grips with the problem -- something they have been excused from doing so far, by their belief in these fallacies.

I ought to warn you, I have been reading Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home, and while I don't share all of his conclusions or recommendations, I certainly endorse his approach of trying to see the problem through the eyes of 'the other side.'

I find his theory plausible, that the perception of threat to Islam is brought on by the liberal's pet projects, such as gay marriage and abortion rights, and their excesses designed to shock people of traditional mindsets. And the study shows the #1 problem is this perceived threat to Islam. But as long as people keep thinking it comes from our colonialism and military encroachments and support for dictators, we'll just be chasing shadows.

Posted by: Goob at June 16, 2007 10:14 AM

There are two significant findings that go against the grain of conventional thinking, namely, (1) that support for terrorism is not caused by poverty, lack of education, or dictatorships, and (2) that the most important factor in support of terrorism is a perceived threat to Islam from America

1)How exactly does this finding tell you that the people who support political Islam do not do so because of corruption,poverty and injustice?

2) Why is the threat only percieved, when America is obviously an Empire, with thousandths of troops stationed in the Gulf, an ongoing occupation of Iraq and threats to Iran ecs?

Actually this finding is silly, because it is only normal that people who support religion mixed with politics will also justify some sort of violence.
It is only through the American lens that this becomes an unwavering supports of "terrorism".

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 10:36 AM

find his theory plausible, that the perception of threat to Islam is brought on by the liberal's pet projects, such as gay marriage and abortion rights, and their excesses designed to shock people of traditional mindsets

Wait, now the twin towers were destroyed because of
gay marriage?

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 10:39 AM

This study is scientifically useless, since it evaluated the results with what America percieves
as terrorism, aka Hezbollahs war against Israel, Palestinian and Iraqi resistance, which are not internationally agreed on evaluations. That if you describe Israeli and American actions as terrorism and poll Israel and America, you would find the same results.

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 10:49 AM

It is nothing more then a selfulfilling prophecy, since the more America interveres in the Middle East, the more Muslims will support violence, and
then Americans will perceive and judge that violence
as what they claim they have always said, that Muslims are more violent and therefore must intervene. Its crazy.

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 11:00 AM

It is time for the entire world to wake up to the fact that today Islam is merely continuing its ancient and historic quest to dominate the world. The rationalizations Islamic jihadists use to support their current actions are nothing but a smoke screen. This report from a liberal organization merely serves as a fan to blow away the smoke!
RNL
http://www.therealinfidels.com

Posted by: RNL at June 16, 2007 11:25 AM

It is time for the entire world to wake up to the fact that today Islam is merely continuing its ancient and historic quest to dominate the world

Your proof? A silly conspiracy theory, that is all it is. As if there ever was or is now such a thing as ISLAM, a complete, rationalizing entity; which sound likes some strange super computer directing
its followers everywhere around the world. There will never be such a thing, because it is logically impossible and historically complete nonsense.

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 11:31 AM

stranger83

Wait, now the twin towers were destroyed because of
gay marriage?

Yes. Essentially. At least this is D'Souza's theory. That the cultural Left's attempts to globally export their 'modern' attitudes and values, threaten those who don't want them. Such as the war on the patriarchal family unit, enthusiastically carried out by the Left, is seen as an existential threat by people of traditional morality, ie, most of the world. Just about every facet of the Left's programme is seen as undesirable or disgusting by Muslims by and large, and I must say I see their point.

Of course, there is also truth in your point. This is why we don't have political Christianity, or at least we try not to, because people on a mission from God tend to become negligent of other people's rights.

Posted by: Goob at June 16, 2007 11:37 AM

And to claim that Islam has a unique desire or history in trying to conquer nonislamic territories is complete nonsense, when it is juxtaposed to the history of western colonialism, when after 1918, at the peak of European colonialism, 80 percent of the world was under European control. It becomes even more nonsensical with America occupying Iraq and its
military bases littering the gulf. The role that christianity has played and continues to play in colonialism makes the claim of a unique Islamic desire to expand worthless.

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 11:38 AM

It is time for the entire world to wake up to the fact that today Islam is merely continuing its ancient and historic quest to dominate the world. The rationalizations Islamic jihadists use to support their current actions are nothing but a smoke screen. This report from a liberal organization merely serves as a fan to blow away the smoke!
RNL
http://www.therealinfidels.com

Posted by: RNL at June 16, 2007 11:41 AM

This is why we don't have political Christianity, or at least we try not to, because people on a mission from God tend to become negligent of other people's rights.

Come on, are you serious? You are obviously an intelligent person, so I dont understand how you can say that. You have in the United States 80 millions political evangelists, who despise exactly the same values espoused by the left as Islamists do. One third of the congress consider themselves born agains, the evangelists play a huge part in elections with millions of dollars channeled to candidates mimicing their values. The President of the United States is a born again and everyone knows the close relation between evangelical leaders and the currrent goverment. Just think Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham.

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 11:45 AM

Nowhere is "political christianity" so strong as in the United States, with evangelits trying to pass legislation that would prohibit gay marriage and
abortion and trying to get their candidates on the supreme court. Just think of Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove, two fanatics in powerful political positions.

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 11:51 AM

Gay marriage and abortion have exactly WHAT to do with islamic terror ?

Muslims were killing machines long before legalized abortion and gay marriage were even thought of ! To blame muslim terrorist acts on their "disgust" with Western morality is just another way of rationalizing and excusing the inexcusable.

The West, warts and all, is still a far more moral culture than islam will ever be.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at June 16, 2007 11:56 AM

I said we try not to!

Yes, I realize our separation of Church and State is imperfect. And many on the right argue with me, and say there was never any such thing intended.

But we cannot establish an official religion, and we cannot make or keep laws based solely on that religion... when I was a kid in the 1960's, almost all the stores were closed on Sundays. Why? Laws had been passed reflecting that the day of rest prescribed by the Bible had to be legally established and that the government was supposed to enforce the Bible's rules! Well we got rid of that. It took some time too.

(Obviously we don't get rid of laws from the Bible that coincide with our ideas and values, such as 'Thou shalt not kill...')

I'm still trying to learn. It is difficult not to always view everything through the American lens. So I thank you for your challenges and your giving me the opportunity to expound and clarify.

Peace....

Posted by: Goob at June 16, 2007 11:56 AM

So I thank you for your challenges and your giving me the opportunity to expound and clarify.

No, I thank you for being a good person.

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 12:01 PM

Greetings:

I have always felt that repeal of the Sunday closures and other so called "Blue" laws was a lit noted but major victory of the secular left.

I think it advanced the "consumerism" lifestyle and disrupted family life in an insidious way.

Posted by: 11B40 at June 16, 2007 12:37 PM

"Gay marriage and abortion have exactly WHAT to do with islamic terror ?

Muslims were killing machines long before legalized abortion and gay marriage were even thought of ! To blame muslim terrorist acts on their "disgust" with Western morality is just another way of rationalizing and excusing the inexcusable.

The West, warts and all, is still a far more moral culture than islam will ever be. "

According to the theory, the cultural Left's successful imposition of their values on the ever-shrinking global village gives new urgency to traditional people to keep their cultures intact by keeping these dangerous and untested ideas out. Traditional people do not like homosexuality, pornography, drugs, alcohol, licentiousness, and sacreligious 'art' such as the Piss Christ or even the Mohammed cartoons. They don't want birth control or abortions. They worry what kind of world their kids will inhabit if these things take over. Now in America, we're used to all this stuff, so it doesn't bother us much...

And considering that Sayyid Qutb helped to found the modern Jihad ideology in reaction to the immorality of the far-more strait-laced America of the late 1940's, it seems not far afield to presume that America's culture today is far more offensive and frightening to them -- even to the point where they feel justified in whatever it takes to keep it out.

I'm not making excuses for anyone, by the way, just trying to get to the bottom of things. And in my own helpless and futile way, to bring the two Americas back together to find their commonalities and to deal with the realities of the situation. Without an accurate, realistic definition of the problem, and a sober appraisal of each of our contributions to it, no solution is possible.

Posted by: Goob at June 16, 2007 12:44 PM

What is there to be surprised about? Political Islam dictates that there can be no religion practiced but Islam and that all residents of any polity must adhere to Islamic law. For non-Muslims, that means conversion to Islam or paying the jizya. For Muslims, it means doing whatever can be done to bring people around to Islam and changing the laws of the locality to coincide with Islamic teachings. How can this be imposed on a secular society EXCEPT through violence?

It also doesn't let Muslims off the hook. Look at Gaza. People are being hung for "not being Muslim enough".

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 12:57 PM

stranger:

What exactly is "Hezbollahs war against Israel" in response to? Hezbollah is in Lebanon. What was their original justification for going to war with Israel? Israel wasn't at war with Lebanon until the PLO was given leave to use Lebanon to attack northern Israel. Now Israel has left Lebanon, but Hezbollah is attacking still. Why? Could it be political Islam?
Case closed.

What are the Palestinians in Gaza, who have been in full control for two years, resisting?
Case closed.

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 1:03 PM

Wait, now the twin towers were destroyed because of gay marriage?

Funny. I always thought it was Monica Lewinsky.

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 1:05 PM

goob and stranger83:

If American (and, by extension all Western) culture is so threatening to Muslims then why don't they:

1. Stop emigrating to the West

2. Stop all Westerners from entering their country

For example, Arabs nationalized the oil industry. Let them run the whole thing themselves. Build their own ships, maintain the pipelines, build their own educational system to teach future generations how to operate the machinery, the whole ball of wax.

How about a policy of separation, total and complete? In return for no Muslim entering Dar-al-Harb, no non-Muslim will enter dar-al-Islam.

We'll find another way to conduct global commerce. We might even end up becoming self-sufficient, since Muslims are clearly threatened by Hillary Clinton's global village. We wouldn't want to make them uneasy by learning about freedom so we'll leave them alone on one condition: they leave us alone.

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 1:21 PM

What are the Palestinians in Gaza, who have been in full control for two years, resisting?
Case closed.

Oh god,Palestinians in full control of Gaza, there are these little unimportant things called control of sea route, air space, economic control, military control,othen then that you are right. Why are Palestinians resisting?Hmmm

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 1:23 PM

Israel wasn't at war with Lebanon until the PLO was given leave to use Lebanon to attack northern Israel

Go educate yourself, the PLO had a two year ceasefire with Israel when the Israeli Embasseder in Britain was killed by the Abu Nidal group, a rival to the PLO. Then Israel decided to invade Lebanon. Read Benny Morris Righteous Victims,standard history. Even if you were right, would you actually tell me the PLO was Islamic?

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 1:30 PM

1. Stop emigrating to the West

2. Stop all Westerners from entering their country

Oh yes, I would have loved the Iraqi Goverment to have asked your 200 000 soldiers to kindly stay out of their country. Maybe if King Fahd asks the troops to leave the Gulf, or Sultan Kabous asks them to stay out of Oman, their hears will melt. How stupid do you take me to be?

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 1:35 PM

sorry that would be King Abdullah now

Posted by: stranger83 at June 16, 2007 1:45 PM

stranger:

You ask if "people who support political Islam do not do so because of corruption,poverty and injustice?"

That is indeed why they support it, but not for the reasons you think so. They don't object to any of those things in principle. They object that they are not the ones in control. The Islamic world as never been opposed to injustice, tyranny, or oppression as long as they were the unjust, the tyrants, and the oppressors.

Political Islam isn't a doctrine of freedom but of domination. Its goals are not to be free of the West but to conquer it.

History has shown this to be true, that Islam seeks to dominate and military superiority is all that will prevent it from doing so. This may not be 'cool' or 'PC', but sometimes the facts just aren't politically correct. That doesn't make them any less true.

That Christianity also seeks hegemony doesn't change the fact that Islam doesn't, so you're attempts at equivalency fall flatter than Rachel Corrie.

Why are Palestinians resisting?Hmmm

They want all of Israel under their rule. They are 'resisting' Israel's existance. The Arabs look at Israel and see a country that thrives, that has made momentous achievements in science, literature, agriculture, and music. They know that the Arab World has fallen behind, and to see the Jews in a position of cultural and intellectual superiority is infuriating for them. You see, Muslims believe themselves to be a superior breed, much like white supremicists. And Arab Muslims consider themselves to be superior to all other Muslims.

Ironically, it is this sense of being the best of the best that holds them back. Honor is very important in Arab culture, and thus humiliation burn far deeper for the Arabs than it does in the West. This humiliation drives them to fear, fear that they are not superior, that they have made many bad decisions, that they are in fact fallible human beings like everyone else.

They deny this fear by hating those who have pulled ahead. They hate Jews because Jews have accomplished more than them. They hate Jews for making them doubt their own superiority. And this hate is in turn tearing them apart. They are so consumed by hate that they are unable to compete with Israel in the realms of science and the arts. So they compete with violence and even there they are inferior.

It is only Israels' mercy that keeps the Palestinian Arabs alive. It is Israels' moral inablity to kill them all that allows their cause to persist. And that is the greatest insult of all.

In short, they're really sore losers who can dish it out but can't take it.

Posted by: paradox at June 16, 2007 1:46 PM

stranger comes across as one who read this notice I found on Memri.org

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD162107

Global Islamic Media Front Instructs Islamists to Infiltrate Popular Non-Islamic Forums to Spread Pro-Islamic State Propaganda

"The Battar Media Raid to Defend the Islamic State [of Iraq] (ISI),"

They claim to defend the Iraq, but the banners tell a different story:

Hand in hand against the media of the universal infidelity: the crusade, the sickle and the star

Let us all raise up to support the state of Islam

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 2:20 PM

Stranger83,
America is non-sectarian. Anyone may advocate for any position they like. A christian can advocate for laws that reflect his values, an atheist can do the same. It is not a failing of America that Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and secularists push different agendas: that is the success of America.

As far as the role of Christianity in colonialism, or the current economic hegemony that the west tries to maintain, please. Show me the Biblical texts, the history of New Testament exegesis that supports the establishment of Christian political hegemony. I don't mean some random individual's writings. I mean, ecumenical councils, Fathers of the Church, Biblical texts. You won't find it.

By contrast, Islamic authoritative texts are full of exhortation of the faithful to control the political sphere and make other views submit.

In every society, regardless of its religion or ideology, you will see the elite try to expand their hegemony. This is the nature of human selfishness. The question is whether the cultural ideology promotes these base instincts or puts a break on them. Christianity--in its most authoritative texts--is full of exhortations NOT to try to control the temporal sphere. (This might have something to do with why the overwhelmingly Christian American electorate has been quite willing to stay within the political system, rather than cutting off heads in San Francisco or bombing the legislature in Massachusetts. That kind of activity merits hell in the Christian scheme; heaven in the Islamic.)

You seem to miss that point.

Posted by: mountainecho at June 16, 2007 2:36 PM

You might also consider the situation of African Americans, who long ago embraced the religion of their oppressors.

The condition of African Americans under the regime of slavery--and long after--was far more dehumanizing than that of the Palestinians. Nevertheless, the civil rights movement in America was not characterized by suicide bombers, random rocket strikes and kidnapping.

If ever there was a people who were justified in using such means (and there isn't) is was African Americans.

Their quest for liberation, however, was largely informed by their Christian culture, which proscribes murder and mayhem; in much the same way, the Palestinian quest has been informed by their Islamic culture. The difference in the outcome is pretty telling.

The teachings of Jesus Christ are very different from the teachings of Muhammad. When adhered to, each produces quite distinctly different results.

Posted by: mountainecho at June 16, 2007 2:47 PM

I was somewhat surprised to discover that the study states:

Women appear to support terrorism slightly more than men.

There's a clue here folks !!!

Damned if I know what it means.

Posted by: joeblough at June 16, 2007 2:50 PM

PS

There is actually little to complain about with respect to money spent on the study.

People are very loathe to accept theoretical proofs of the sort that RS presents.

Makes 'em think too hard. Hurts the head.

Statistics however are dearly beloved.

And, not surprisingly, the statistics show exactly what RS would predict.

It will make it a little easier for the empirically biased to accept the thesis.

============

I'm no fan of statistical "studies". Correlations are not proofs.

I.e. 100% of thieves in US prisons have brushed their teeth at some point in their lives. Sociologists ask "does tooth brushing cause theft"?

Nonetheless, if you look, this one doesn't seem too bad as such things go.

Posted by: joeblough at June 16, 2007 3:00 PM

The #1 problem, again, is the perception that America is at war with Islam.

Now it seems to me that that's just absurd. Before 9/11 I thought that Islam was just another religion, just as valid and worthy of the protection of the First Amendment as any other.

I didn't hate Muslims or wish Islam to be eradicated from the earth. This even after the hostage crisis in Iran... they still didn't have me hating them.

How can we be at war with Islam? It's not a country nor an army nor a military, it's a system of beliefs. You cannot wipe it out or declare war on it.

Now it's tempting to just dismiss this as crazy and say that they're all illogical and brainwashed. But I doubt that's the case. Where indeed could they get that idea? Do people just make up stuff out of thin air and then fervently believe it, enough to kill themselves over it?

So I think we need to somehow attack this wrong idea, that the West is at war with Islam... but I really don't know how to do that, other than asking people where they get it.

We need to sweep away all the false pretexts and get to the bottom of it. Until we do that, we'll continue talking past each other and the problem will get worse as we evade any possibility of a solution.

Obviously I think Political Islam is wrong. Religious belief is not belief if it's compelled, it's just a survival mechanism. And I think people need to be free to choose any religion or no religion.

If they're going to take something that simple and benign and call it a War on Islam, then by all means, let's have the war and get it over with.

Posted by: Goob at June 16, 2007 3:10 PM

mountainecho,

The point about the slaves and the civil rights movement is right on. This movement was started in the churches and led by people like Martin Luther King. They sought equality, not special treatment. They asked Americans to be true to their own Christian beliefs as well as to the Constitution.

Of course the civil rights movement also resulted in many African Americans converting to Islam, away from "the religion of the oppressors".

What to make of the Catholic Church today, which defies Christ's call to "render unto Caesar..." and takes unto itself the right to grant sanctuary to people who are here illegally and which actively and openly defies secular authority?

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 3:35 PM

PMK wrote:
stranger comes across as one who read this notice I found on Memri.org
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD162107
Global Islamic Media Front Instructs Islamists to Infiltrate Popular Non-Islamic Forums to Spread Pro-Islamic State Propaganda

Yep. Interesting. Even if stranger83 is not GIMF-driven, it has all the trappings of the deliberate troll quite insincerely pretending to be "sharing views." But who is clearly impervious to the common sense educational process that this website provides to a reasoning mind.

We should be alert to the potential future appearance of GIMFbots here.

Posted by: WestwardHo at June 16, 2007 8:49 PM

gee...a correlation there?
What tipped them off?
lol

Posted by: jcom972 at June 16, 2007 9:50 PM

Israel wasn't at war with Lebanon until the PLO was given leave to use Lebanon to attack northern Israel

Go educate yourself, the PLO had a two year ceasefire with Israel when the Israeli Embasseder in Britain was killed by the Abu Nidal group, a rival to the PLO. Then Israel decided to invade Lebanon. Read Benny Morris Righteous Victims,standard history. Even if you were right, would you actually tell me the PLO was Islamic?

Posted by: stranger83

Nice try. Typical, making excuses for terrorism. The PLO routinely violated the ceasefire. It was the PLO shelling, and not directly the Argov shooting as is sometimes assumed (or charged by people who don't care about truth), that triggered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I did your job for you and provided you with the facts. Here's some education for YOU:

Why did Israel invade Lebanon in 1982?

In June 1978, Prime Minister Begin, under intense American pressure, withdrew Israel's Litani River Operation forces from southern Lebanon. They were replaced by UNIFIL, a UN force to restore peace and help the Lebanonese government re-establish its authority, as authorized by UN Resolution 425. The withdrawal of Israeli troops without having removed the PLO from its bases in southern Lebanon became a major embarrassment to the Begin government, maintaining pressure for Israel to return.

UNIFIL was unable to prevent terrorists from reinfiltrating the region and introducing new, more dangerous arms. Cross-border conflict between Israel and the various forces in Southern Lebanon continued at differing levels of intensity after 1978. Civilians on both sides, and UNIFIL peacekeepers, were killed as the fighting ebbed and flowed. Israel increased its support of the Lebanese Christian Militia in the south, under Major Saad Haddad, who regularly fought armed PLO fighters but also caused casualties among non-combatants. The US government during the Carter administration (1976-1980) had several times joined in UN condemnations of Israeli raids and reprisals in South Lebanon, always condemning simultaneously PLO terrorist cross-border activities (generally not condemned by the UN).

In July of 1981 Lebanese-American Philip Habib was sent by the Reagan Administration to negotiate a more lasting cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel. On July 24 Habib announced agreement that all hostile military action between Lebanese and Israeli territory in either direction would cease. For the next eleven months the cease-fire was in effect as a formality, but the PLO repeatedly violated the agreement. Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. Twenty­nine Israelis died and more than 300 were injured in the attacks. In April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer, the rocket attacks and air strikes recommenced.

Israeli strikes and commando raids were unable to stem the growth of the PLO army which built camps, trained thousands of fighters, and stockpiled arms in south Lebanon. The situation in the Galilee became intolerable as the frequency of attacks forced thousands of Israeli residents to flee their homes or to spend large amounts of time in bomb shelters. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the PLO terrorists.

The final provocation occurred in June 3, 1982 when a Palestinian terrorist group led by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov. The IDF subsequently bombed PLO bases and ammunition dumps in Beirut and attacked other targets in Lebanon on June 4-5, 1982. The PLO responded with a massive artillery and mortar attack on the Israeli population of the Galilee. It was the PLO shelling, and not directly the Argov shooting as is sometimes assumed, that triggered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

On June 6, 1982, under the direction of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel invaded Lebanon with a massive force, called Operation Peace for the Galilee, driving all the way to Beirut and putting the PLO and residents, as well as the Lebanese civilian population of that city, under siege. Israel justified its breech of the Habib cease-fire by citing the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London and a build-up of PLO armaments in South Lebanon. Israel was also concerned by increasing Syrian involvement in the Lebanese civil war and wanted to forestall a hostile, Syrian-backed government developing in Lebanon.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the operation:

No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids. (Washington Post, June 16, 1982)

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 10:49 PM

Oh god,Palestinians in full control of Gaza, there are these little unimportant things called control of sea route, air space, economic control, military control,othen then that you are right. Why are Palestinians resisting?Hmmm

Here we go again, stranger!

Gaza has a border with Egypt, a nation filled with friendly Muslim Arabs. What about the rest of the Arab countries? What are they doing to help Gaza? You're all part of the ummah, aren't you? (Only when it's convenient!!)

Economic control?

Gazans destroyed green houses that provided income. Where is the Palestinian economy? If it can't provide for itself whose fault is that? There was lots of aid given in the 1990s. What happened to it? Always, gimme, gimme, gimme!
You're nothing but children.

Military control?

Gaza has plenty of rockets and bombs with which to attack others. What was the PA doing for the last fourteen years? The Israeli military left two years ago. Who is stopping Gazans from defending themselves? Who was waging war against Gaza for the last two years? You keep attacking and attacking and then cry foul when the other side strikes back. Now some Gazans are secretly wishing for the Israelis to reinvade and save you from yourselves. You're nothing but children!!!

Palestinans called for an end to occupation. You got it. Should have been careful what you wished for. Now there's no excuse for the barbarism in that sorry area of the world.

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 11:17 PM

Oh yes, I would have loved the Iraqi Goverment to have asked your 200 000 soldiers to kindly stay out of their country. Maybe if King Fahd asks the troops to leave the Gulf, or Sultan Kabous asks them to stay out of Oman, their hears will melt. How stupid do you take me to be?

Posted by: stranger83

You're answering your own question, friend!!!

You can't even understand what I said. Americans wouldn't go near that area if we didn't have to. We would leave there yesterday if we could and we would never look back.

I'm saying if individual CIVILIAN Muslims (you know, the kind that fly airplanes into buildings? the kind that blow up synagogues and discos? the kind that preach the jihad that must come down upon those who don't believe in your "religion"? those kinds!) would stay out of the West then individual CIVILIAN non-Muslims (the kind that build the oil industry and create the modern amenities that can be seen in Muslim countries) won't go there. In addition MILITARY non-Muslims (the kind that are being told they can't leave Iraq because it would result in chaos? the kind that are told they have to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons? the kind that are now being told they have to go into Darfur?) wouldn't go near the Muslim world because there would be no need to. You can have your pure Islamic world and do with it what you will.
The troops are out of Saudi Arabia. They should leave Qatar. They should get out of every Muslim country in the world. For one reason: fighting for Muslims is not worth the loss of one American life. You've proved that time and again.

Ta Ta!

Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2007 11:29 PM

Goob said, "The #1 problem, again, is the perception that America is at war with Islam."

No, Goob. The #1 problem is that our population does not understand that Islam is at war with America. And--this is perpetual war. And--this is total war.

By perpetual war, I mean that Muslims are obliged to wage war until the entire earth is under Muslim law, or until Doomsday, whichever is sooner. Since the United States is not under currently Islamic law, it is, by their definition, part of Dar al-Harb (the domain of war). America is the biggest barrier in the world today to Islamic hegemony. Therefore, it is directly in the Islamic crosshairs. Countless contemporary Muslim leaders and "scholars" have singled out America, by name, for direct attack and societal destruction.

By total war, I mean that this war includes not only combat (kital), but deception(taquiyya), kitman (lying), and propaganda (dawa). It also includes deliberate subversion of our socienty (and all other non-Muslim societies). It also includes purging (genocide) of minorities currently under Islamic government in order to "purify" Islam--this is the fascist part of Islam, as if the rest were not bad enough.

Islamic morality in this war is defined thus: any action whatsoever, no matter how perverted or heinous, that advances the spread of Islam is moral. Thus, under Islamic war, murder, kidnapping, terror, rape, torture, mutilation, looting, extortion, and fraud, just to name a few actions, are all considered moral when performed against "infidels" and infidel states in the name of jihad. Under their Koran and the example of Mohammed, Muslims have perpetual license to lie, cheat, steal, and plunder to achieve their ends.

Conversely, any action whatsover, no matter how innocent or inadvertent, that impedes the spread of Islam is considered immoral. Thus, if we in the West merely criticize Islam, its prophet, or its doctrines (as in the "Mohammed cartoons"), or even simply quote verses from its war manual, the Koran, we are subject to violence and even murder at the hands of the nearest defender of Islam. If we are bold enough to physically resist Islamic expansion, we are targeted for annihilation.

This hideous attitude flows largely from the vile example of the "prophet" (pirate!) Mohammed, who slaughtered (or had slaughtered on his orders) anyone who refused to accept his new "religion." For instance, whole tribes were exterminated when they refused his "gift" of Islam. And various individuals were hunted down and assassinated for "dissing" him, such as poets who merely wrote some critical verses about him.

No, America is not at war with Islam right now. Most Americans think the Koran is just like the Bible, that Mohammed was just like Jesus, that an imam is just a noisy preacher, and that a mosque is just a church by another name. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Islam is in a war to the death with America. The only end Muslims can doctrinally accept is the complete subjugation of our population and destruction of our civilization. As a society, we need to wake up, or else our hard-won individual liberty and our now taken-for-granted security will soon be history.

Posted by: Stendec at June 16, 2007 11:45 PM

How come stranger quit posting after PMK posted that link?

Posted by: screaming_eagle at June 17, 2007 12:39 AM

Thank you Stendec! Everything you said is true and can be backed up with abundant amounts of proof. I don't understand how anybody can just dismiss everything that you have said (we know who they are), no matter how much proof you put before them. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's just frustrating, I try telling people about the islamic problem and they just shrug it off like it's no big deal.

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at June 17, 2007 1:25 AM

PMK
Catholic Church is no different from the rest: corrupt as an earthly institution, as Jesus' whole movement was from the start (Judas' betrayal, Peter's denial, etc). I don't think the Catholic Church would even attempt to deny that itself.

I'm not sure what you mean about the Catholic Church not "rendering to Caesar." Certainly they seem as willing to do so as their evangelical brethren and perhaps more so than, say, scientologists.

I'm also not sure how it "actively and openly defies secular authority"--at least, once again, not in any unique way. As I said, the beauty of America is that all parties are free to protest and promote their own point of view. As American citizens, we're all signed up to grant that right to everyone, even those we disagree with. The Catholic Church appears to have a different view of immigration policy than you do (this, no doubt has something to do with Christ's predilection for the poor and disenfranchised and also something to do with the fact that America has a long history of singling out Catholics immigrants as somehow less desirable citizens). I understand your point of view on immigration, but I don't really see how Catholics are betraying either Christ or America by agitating for what they believe to be just.

Posted by: mountainecho at June 17, 2007 2:15 PM

I suppose they summarily killed Lebanese Christian women and children, sometimes tearing them apart limb by limb, and razed Christian cities for no reason. They must have also used the Islamic battle cries, prayed in the Islamic way, and became the ultimate idols of the Muslim world just for the sake of it.

Why did we go from discussing the correlation between political Islam and terrorism to discussing what some Muslim poster thinks about the West’s past, and the Palestinian problem?

Posted by: ofcourse at June 18, 2007 10:03 AM

That should have been:

“would you actually tell me the PLO was Islamic?”
stranger83

I suppose they summarily killed Lebanese Christian women and children, sometimes tearing them apart limb by limb, and razed Christian cities for no reason. They must have also used the Islamic battle cries, prayed in the Islamic way, and became the ultimate idols of the Muslim world just for the sake of it.

Posted by: ofcourse at June 18, 2007 11:09 AM