| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
It's an old quote, but worth revisiting. All right, which one of you "Islamophobes" said it? Come on, fess up. You, in the back there -- was it you, Trifkovic? No? How about you, Bostom? Not you either? Greg Davis, it must have been you. No? Hmm. All right, Fitzgerald. Stop ducking your head down -- this isn't an air raid drill.
Very well. If none of you mugs are going to fess up, who did say this? What's that? It was Abu Qatada, a Muslim cleric linked to Al-Qaeda? How astonishing! Who would have thought that Al-Qaeda had been infiltrated by Islamophobes!
But of course, that's the charge: that people like me and the others I named above, and still others also, "endorse" the "Al-Qaeda version of Islam" when we point out that there is little or nothing that is unorthodox about that "version" from the standpoint of traditional Islam. The whole world takes for granted the idea that the Islamic world rejects contemporary jihadism on Islamic grounds, and various non-Muslim analysts have come up with various explanations of how exactly it deviates from traditional Islam -- genuine jihad can only be called by state authority, etc. (That one ignores the fact that the jihadists today present their activities as entirely defensive, and according to traditional Islamic law defensive jihad doesn't need anyone to call it to make it obligatory on all Muslims.) Meanwhile, however, the jihadists continue to recruit peaceful Muslims by presenting their "version" of Islam as the genuine article, the pure thing, and the soothing explanations that comfort so many in the West don't seem to have any power to blunt the force of this recruitment.
What the learned analysts don't realize is that many Muslims believe Abu Qatada when he says things like this. Peaceful moderates have yet to come up with a refutation of claims like this that is convincing to Muslims on Islamic grounds. It is not endorsing their perspective to point this out. It is just stating a fact.
And when CAIR and MPAC and the rest focus their ire on me and others like me instead of on Abu Qatada, they are doing nothing -- nothing -- to impede his efforts.
"Guess Who Came to Iftar for Dinner?," by Diana West:
I wasn't going to write about Ramadan in official Washington this fall season -- not again. But I just can't resist. First, there are all the holiday trappings of this by-now annual column -- such seasonal staples as my all-time favorite "war on terror" quotation from Abu Qatada, the Al Qaeda-linked cleric. I just love to trot it out around Ramadan after President Bush has said something utterly ignorant about Islam meaning peace, or, addressing the Muslim pooh bahs he always has at the White House for a fast-breaking Iftar dinner, how the jihadists have "twisted" Islam."I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam," Abu Qatada said about six years ago. "Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?"
Of course he hasn't.
Ah, me. Good stuff.Then there's the holiday excitement of combing through the White House Iftar dinner guest list looking for unindicted co-conspirators. Since I had to put this column together before White House Iftar 2007, I turned to White House Ramadans past, reading through the president's old speeches -- 2001 through 2006 -- to see if I'd missed anybody he'd singled out for a mention.
And I had! White House Ramadan is so much better than bingo. In 2003 and 2004, President Bush asked Faizul Khan, who is affiliated with the Saudi-funded Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., and serves on the board of directors of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), to give the blessing. This year, the Justice Department officially labeled ISNA as a U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the movement aiming to establish a global Islamic empire, and also as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas fund-raising Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development trial still awaiting a verdict in Dallas.
Then again, maybe the ISNA score doesn't count in this holiday game since the official co-"conspiratorialness" of the group is practically brand new. Still, as Steven Emerson has pointed out, ISNA has "never condemned terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah by name," which really should have come under White House consideration -- if, that is, anyone at the White House ever considered anything. Heaven knows it's hard enough finding good moderates these days. Look too closely and they might find a Sharia-supporter. Sharia, of course, is Islamic law -- wholly antithetical to Western-style liberty.
Take Talal Eid. In 2006, Eid gave the blessing at the White House Ramadan dinner, and this year Bush appointed him to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. As Robert Spencer has reported, Eid is a Wahhabi-trained imam certified by the anti-American Muslim World League who has actually called for the establishment of Sharia courts in the United States to regulate the family affairs of American Muslims.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at October 6, 2007 7:18 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Washington Times not carrying that one?
Posted by: GrennBeck![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 6, 2007 8:07 AM
"I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam"-Abu Qatada
Much of the incantation of President Bush and others on this matter is similar to President Herbert Hoover's "Prosperity is right around the corner" as the economic depression deepened in 1930. The denial of reality on this matter is dangerous but human. Human beings often try to put a happy face on ugly things until their efforts become ridiculous. "Islam means peace" is ridiculous and soon the Islamophobia-propaganda incantation will not hide reality either.
at October 6, 2007 8:32 AM
Last night Conan O'Brien had a joke about Bush's breaking Halal bread with our Muslim "friends." O'Brien said "there was an awkward moment when Bush praised Mohammed as 'the greatest boxer of all time.'"
All humor is based on having an element of truth. The truth here is that Bush's ignorance of Islam exceeds even his normally tremendous ignorance levels of things in general. And that ignorance, even willful ignorance, widely shared in Washington, is the greatest threat to natioanl security we face...
Posted by: BunrattyBill at October 6, 2007 8:36 AM
BunrattyBill-
It is beginning to look ridiculous. It's not good when the president is ignorant on such a serious matter. It's becoming a joke. Ordinary folks see the reality.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 8:50 AM
I have done a total about-face concerning President Bush.
When we got Saddam, I thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Through Cindy Sheehan and everybody else on the planet hating his guts due to the continuing war on Iraq, I stuck by him.
But, his willful ignorance concerning Islam and the Qur'an has been too much for me. Six years after 9/11, he entertained Muslims at the White House this week. He has officially recognized pagan Ramadan. He continues to make absolutely false pronouncements about Islam and the Qur'an.
He is a blithering idiot. And he's contributing to the Islamization of America by letting in Muslims.
I guess some people can face reality, and some can't.
Posted by: darcy at October 6, 2007 8:54 AM
Hey Frank, Hoover and W - both in-denial Presidents?
Posted by: darcy at October 6, 2007 8:59 AM
darcy,
spot on!
GWB was the first person I ever heard saying islam was a 'religion of piece'.
Before 9/11 I knew it really wasn't and now I know so much more, and why it never will be.
Looks like we all know more than the govts.
What makes it worse is that muslims must be laughing there heads off, and coming to sites like this for a war progress-report,and realising how well they are doing.
And with our help:(
at October 6, 2007 9:09 AM
"I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam," Abu Qatada said about six years ago. "Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?"
Truer words have never been spoken by a moslem!
I am astonished about the complete lack of kitman!
Question to all the Republican Candidates:"Pres. Bush has been giving so-called iftar dinners at the White House. What are your plans? Do you plan to continue or discontinue this practice?"
Posted by: 2and2is5 at October 6, 2007 9:10 AM
darcy:
I too have done a 180 on Bush. Not that I ever entirely trust any politician, but at least post 9/11 he seemed to exhibit an ability to lead. The fact that he is not Al Gore or John Kerry is also to his credit.
Now to me he is all balls, no brains. Whereas somebody like Clinton was exactly the opposite. Bush's elementary idea of Islam is inexcusable for an intelligent voter, much less the CIC.
As of now, I am in the camp of Giuliani, who has brass balls and apparently brains. I wish we had a better menu of candidates, and a different way of going about picking the president, but if you don't like who is running for president, run yourself.
Posted by: JohnAdams at October 6, 2007 9:19 AM
ABC news is reporting, Bush administration officials convinced the Israelis to call off a July strike against the Syrian nuclear site.
By September the Israelis feared that news of the site was about to leak and went ahead with the strike despite White House concerns.
ABC reported, some officials supported Israel's decision to strike, although others, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, firmly opposed it and offered to publicly condemn Syria for operating a nuclear facility instead.
Jerusalem Post headline: "US stalled IAF raid in Syria fearing ME destabilization"
This is such an incompetent Administration / president! Is it any wonder Mr. Bush has fared so poorly in Iraq? How can we achieve victory with this kind of weak leader? Can't Iran breath a sigh of relief knowing this pusillanimous U.S. president is at the helm?
What is more destabilizing to the Middle East, destroying nuclear materials in the hands of Muslim terrorist states or establishing a 23rd jihadist state in the Middle East, in the Holy Land according to Mr. Bush's "vision" for peace in the region?
Posted by: monk at October 6, 2007 9:27 AM
It is beginning to look ridiculous. It's not good when the president is ignorant on such a serious matter. It's becoming a joke. Ordinary folks see the reality - Posted by: Frank
It's not just beginning to look ridiculous, it has been utterly ridiculous from the moment Washington hosted it's first Iftar dinner Nov. 2002 and Bush stated the foundation of his duplicitous/inconsistent policy:
President's first iftar dinner speech
Tonight's Iftaar also sends a message to all Americans: our nation is waging a war on a radical network of terrorists, not on a religion and not on a civilization. If we wage this war to defend our principles, we must live up to those principles, ourselves. And one of the deepest commitments of America is tolerance. No one should be treated unkindly because of the color of their skin or the content of their creed. No one should be unfairly judged by appearance or ethnic background, or religious faith. We must uphold these values of progress and pluralism and tolerance.
That should help explain the foolishness of recent Presidential proclamations and suicidal policiy decisions. Ignoring, over-looking or 'honoring' the content of their creed is a policy that must be addressed, preferably destroyed.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at October 6, 2007 9:30 AM
Thanks to internet websites such as JW/DW and many others, I have learned the truth about Islam and everytime I see stories such as this one, it is really embaressing.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 6, 2007 9:34 AM
I used to stand by President Bush, but the border issues and now his views on Islam is really a bit too much.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 6, 2007 9:36 AM
Appearances can be deceiving. While Bush is hosting tonight's Iftaar, in which he said "I send a message to all the nations represented by their ambassadors here tonight: America treasures your friendship. America honors your faith." Bush is also allowing the U.S. military to strike now at the snake's head. Attacking the mosques where these scum originate is paramount to fighting islamic extremism. One sign of hope is how our soldiers, our front line, now clearly see where the problem originates:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=72b4c5b978
Happy iftaar!
at October 6, 2007 9:46 AM
To Heroyalwhyness who wrote,
“It's not just beginning to look ridiculous, it has been utterly ridiculous from the moment Washington hosted it's first Iftar dinner Nov. 2002 and Bush stated the foundation of his duplicitous/inconsistent policy: . . That should help explain the foolishness of recent Presidential proclamations and suicidal policy decisions.”
Outstanding Post!
at October 6, 2007 9:49 AM
Anti-Islamic Movements in Germany: “Islamophobic – and Proud of It”
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/10/06/resistance-is-growing-in-germany/
at October 6, 2007 10:03 AM
Hey Frank, Hoover and W - both in-denial Presidents?-Darcy
Darcy-
There are astonishing similarities in their denial of reality. Hoover kept saying there was "no depression" and "the economy is sound". Meanwhile the unemployment rate went to 25%, bread lines were forming in every city and charities, states, municipalities were running out of money to cope with the economic disaster.
It's not good (especially in a democratic society where public opinion matters) for leaders to deny reality. This "Islam is a religion of peace" is Herbert Hoover stuff. It makes the president and others in positions of authority look ridiculous.
FDR (similar to Reagan) did not deny reality. We need such a president on this matter. There's too much Hoover-Bush and folks are getting fed-up with it.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 10:08 AM
As I have posted before, in a sane world, Bush would have been impeached, tried and punished for letting the family of the world's worst terrorist, to safety even when the smoke from the horrendeous attacks was smouldering and no flights were operational. Then came to light the reason: Bin-Laden family is Bush's business partner and Al-Saud, Bush's adopted family. With the most powerful office at the disposal of such a corrupt man, what could Americans expect? Bush's record speaks for himself. Everything from keeping borders for criminals to increased student's visas to Saudis, clearly indicates a seriou abuse of office of president/commander-in-chief. Noone can put a price to this blunder, of electing Bush to white house. The only way to correct this mistake is to elect a patriotic statesman, Tom Tancredo to white house. Tancredo's record speaks for himself. Here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=685 and here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://www.house.gov%2Ftancredo and here: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
With Tancredo, America cannot go wrong.
at October 6, 2007 10:13 AM
I hope GWB choked on one of the sheep's eyeballs.
Such pandering is unbearable.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 6, 2007 10:17 AM
"No one can put a price to this blunder, of electing Bush to white house".
The alternative with Gore was worse. I don't think the president is a bad person but his denial of reality and his stubbornness are great flaws. He is best (as he was after 911) when he is in touch with public opinion.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 10:21 AM
I have a confession to make.
After 9/11, I too was a rabid Bush supporter.
Now, don't pass out on me; I apologize for the shock of this news; but it's true!
I really did admire the man and I was taken in by words that sounded like they were patriotic; sounded like they were going to take down the enemy; sounded for an instant like -- "...a day that will live in infamy!"
I was wrong! So, so, wrong!
What chilled me right off the bat within the second week or so, was when Bush began calling islam the religon of peace and subsequently began warning that "attacks on muslims" would be vigorously prosecuted by law enforcement.
Now, I would not advocate that innocent human-beings should be attacked by anyone; and I would not for example, allow a gang of thugs to attack an innocent mother and her children on a street simply because they were muslim -- and I have serious doubts that anyone in the JW community would allow anything like that either.
Why not? Because MOST of us are simply decent human beings.
The problem with Bush's pronouncement in my mind, was his apparent presumption, that somehow most Americans were like hysterical muslims who riot for even the most triffle of things in the first place -- they are not.
But what really set me off, was his eagerness to set law enforcement against Americans based on trumped up suspicions floating around in his head, when in reality, it was the muslims who had actually made a real and deadly attack against American citizens.
In truth, there never were mass protests in America against islam -- not in six long years!
Yet, Bush was willing to set the police and perhaps the military, against his own people if he imagined that there was just cause.
I began to realize that Bush was not an American in my understanding of the word; I began to doubt his patriotism and his loyalties.
In fact, it was apparent that Bush knew very little about the people he was governing and really had no interest in knowing anything about them -- otherwise, he would not have made such a pronouncement when there was no "mass hysteria" in the weeks following 9/11.
Since then, he has been nothing but a buffoon and embarrassment to all Americans.
I have since come to believe the man to be an outright traitor; but traitors are usually intellegent, silent, and operate unnoticed. Bush does not fit this category.
What then, should I think of Bush?
Bush is simply a garden variety fool, buffeted by his emotional impulses, and lead by his snout in one direction or the other when it is filled with the fine fragrance of Saudi cash.
Nothing more!
Yet, he is a danger more lethal to America and her interests than all the nuclear bombs in Iran under the trembling fingers of the ape.
For those bombs are to date, laying silently in their silos awaiting launch.
Bush on the other hand is loose; hurting his country with every stroke of his pen; with every misplaced joke; with every embarassing pronouncement about the religon of peace.
What will be done?
Nothing, but face the consequences of the foolish man's impetutious and thouthless impulses transubstantiated into law.
BunrattyBill-It is beginning to look ridiculous. It's not good when the president is ignorant on such a serious matter. It's becoming a joke. Ordinary folks see the reality.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 8:50 AM
And the problem is more serious, because we have an eagar pack of fools that hope to eclipse Bush's reign of idiocy the instant that they take reigns of office.
Our only option is to go to the moon away from these ruling morons; unfortuantely, transportaion there seems to be a logistical impediment to the plan.
at October 6, 2007 10:22 AM
I try not to be too hard on politicians and talking heads like President Bush. This is a politically-charged issue and one thing I've learned all these years is that politics is rarely about principle. It's about expediency. When it becomes politically-expedient for politicians to trash Islam, they will. I don't see the current political environment as being receptive to this kind of talk. That's our job. This is a strictly grass-roots movement. When politicians worry more about losing their jobs because they're pandering to jihadists and everyone knows it than losing their jobs for appearing "Islamophobic", "racist", or "bigoted", we will have arrived.
I find it hard to believe that the most powerful man in the world, with all his advisors, is not familiar with the jihad tenets of the Qur'an and Islamic traditions. I think he knows it all too well but is paralyzed by political correctness.
Posted by: Gnosis at October 6, 2007 10:28 AM
By the way...West is dead-on as usual. One of her better columns, actually.
Posted by: Gnosis at October 6, 2007 10:32 AM
Witness wrote: "I began to realize that Bush was not an American in my understanding of the word; I began to doubt his patriotism and his loyalties."
I think you have a right to question this president's loyalties. In part, in light of what Alert wrote; something apparently that has been corroborated by the following and by other reporters, witnesses, etc.:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/post911/aviation/tampa_phantom.html
Alert wrote: As I have posted before, in a sane world, Bush would have been impeached, tried and punished for letting (members of the bin Laden) family (as well as many Saudi Royals, altogether to the tune of approximately 140 potential witnesses) of the world's worst terrorist, to safety even when the smoke from the horrendous attacks was smouldering and no flights were operational. Then came to light the reason: Bin-Laden family is Bush's business partner and Al-Saud, Bush's adopted family. With the most powerful office at the disposal of such a corrupt man, what could Americans expect?
at October 6, 2007 10:40 AM
I am conflicted about GW's policies.
I'm going to go out on a limb here.
We all know that Islam (a theocracy) is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, what Islam really teaches, how nonsensical his statements about Islam are, and how eagerly Muslims lap them up.
But who is his audience? Not me.
Soothing the worldwide Muslim community (if that's what he's doing) makes it easier to blow up Iraqi mosques in the process of taking care of business without ruffling every Muslim feather.
Surely he keeps his cards close to his chest.
Surely he keeps his friends close and his enemies closer.
Just rambling.
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 10:43 AM
I think he knows it all too well but is paralyzed by political correctness.
Posted by: Gnosis at October 6, 2007 10:28 AM
I have thought of this too, Gnosis, because, as you said, how can the "most powerful man in the world" be so uninformed?
Thanks GramFan and thanks Frank.
at October 6, 2007 10:46 AM
Sure, PRCS, if there IS a "method to his madness" (Bush on Islam) I'm sure we'll all be thrilled!
When do we find out if that's the case?
Posted by: darcy at October 6, 2007 10:49 AM
"Thanks GramFan and thanks Frank".
Darcy-
You are very welcome Darcy. I'll bet that's true everywhere you go.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 10:57 AM
PRCS, you wrote: "But who is his audience? Not me.
Soothing the worldwide Muslim community (if that's what he's doing) makes it easier to blow up Iraqi mosques in the process of taking care of business without ruffling every Muslim feather."
Sun Tzu is on my list of books to read. At the moment I am concentrating on the Middle East, Israel, Islam, etc.
Sun Tzu wrote: "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster."
I mean no disrespect PRCS, Mr. Bush knows neither his enemy nor himself. Because you are not part of his audience, this does not mean millions of Americans are like you. Many millions of Americans imbibe this president's dangerous nonsense; his dogma. FDR, a big-government leftist, unlike Mr. Bush, had the good sense to define our enemy before and during the second world war. We were at war with the Germans (the "Huns") and the "Japs." It was not simply Nazis whom we were at war with, but Germany.
Bush is telling the American people, the ideology, faith, what have you, of our enemy is peaceful, tolerant and just; only a handful of terrorists have hijacked this peaceful, tolerant and just religion for their own nefarious purposes.
Mr. Bush assures the American people that "The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics (Not true); a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam (agian, not true)...... "The terrorists (according to Bush) are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect to hijack Islam itself (False). The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends," etc.
This is very dangerous and damaging indeed. Consequently, the American people do not know our enemy, by and large. A nation cannot win a war if you do not know your enemy.
Posted by: monk at October 6, 2007 11:04 AM
The bigger problem its not just Bush. Its all his CFR advisers around him that are feeding him this PC junkfood.
Welcome to the downfall of the USA.
Posted by: SoteriA at October 6, 2007 11:11 AM
The USA and the free world will survive and win this battle. Only question is - as what cost? Every another day of PC schizophrenia means another thousand of innocent victims tomorrow.
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at October 6, 2007 11:20 AM
Gnosis, "expediency" introduces a worthy consideration as regards statecraft.
do the folks who dined [men separate from women?] HAVE the power we seem to be granting them in our comments as they attend this and other such high profile events? It is a lot of very disturbing show. But how much work must the powerful do in return?
i, for one, think Bush's comments on military bases give us a truer impression of his thoughts.
as citizens we may raise a loud cry as to why in order to ferret what is going down.
Posted by: boakai ngombu at October 6, 2007 11:30 AM
Robert,
You are a funny guy. My humble new website about Islamic Anti-Semitism is www.EducateUSA.com
Mostly links selected to educate Jews about what Allah says about us.
Respectfully,
Mark
at October 6, 2007 11:34 AM
MONK wrote:
"Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster."
Sun Tzu
I mean no disrespect PRCS, Mr. Bush knows neither his enemy nor himself. Because you are not part of his audience, this does not mean millions of Americans are like you. Many millions of Americans imbibe this president's dangerous nonsense; his dogma. FDR, a big-government leftist, unlike Mr. Bush, had the good sense to define our enemy before and during the second world war. We were at war with the Germans (the "Huns") and the "Japs." It was not simply Nazis whom we were at war with, but Germany.
Bush is telling the American people, the ideology, faith, what have you, of our enemy is peaceful, tolerant and just; only a handful of terrorists have hijacked this peaceful, tolerant and just religion for their own nefarious purposes.
Mr. Bush assures the American people that "The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics (Not true); a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam (agian, not true)...... "The terrorists (according to Bush) are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect to hijack Islam itself (False). The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends," etc.
This is very dangerous and damaging indeed. Consequently, the American people do not know our enemy, by and large. A nation cannot win a war if you do not know your enemy. ****
Monk you're a wise and insightful chap.
Too many people seem in denial about the nature and extent Bush and his cronies folly.
Posted by: Big Luke at October 6, 2007 11:39 AM
is there anything we can do?
Posted by: ploome at October 6, 2007 12:14 PM
GWB is no different from most Americans. Most of us know good Muslims. They can always find an excuse for what someone else did and simply say that it has nothing to do with THEM. Political correctness makes it next to impossible to paint all Muslims with a broad brush.
Even the realization that radical Islam poses a very real threat to our freedom doesn't make acting against it a simple task. Where is the bad guy in the mosque? How do we recognize him? He could be the guy writing a check to CAIR or to Hamas, but otherwise he's just another American.
Unless and until we are prepared to ban all (meaning just that: all) Muslims from entering the US, we will always be at risk.
Not even the next 9/11 will get some of us to let go of our fantasies about peaceful Islam.
Posted by: PMK at October 6, 2007 12:14 PM
JohnAdams-
I'm on the same page re Rudy G. He's as slippery as they come when he wants to be, but he was at the 21st century Pearl Harbor and has no illusions about what this enemy means to do in the future. He's a very realistic man. I also suspect that because he went to Catholic schools he's a lot more conservative on social issues than he let's on.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 12:17 PM
"...Mr. Bush knows neither his enemy nor himself."
Perhaps you know the president well. I've never met him.
Given the nature of geopolitics, I would never presume to know what others really know or what they are really thinking.
As Churchill noted: In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
"A nation cannot win a war if you do not know your enemy."
A nation can.
Whatever one thinks of President Bush or his policies, I suspect that only he and a very select inner circle of friends and advisors know what he really knows about Islam or what his statements about it are intended to convey and to whom.
Just rambling.
at October 6, 2007 12:20 PM
Bush sounds more like a democrat with each passing day! What happened?
Posted by: champ at October 6, 2007 12:30 PM
"GWB is no different from most Americans. Most of us know good Muslims."
Kinda a trick question...define a "good Muslim".
A good person who claims to be a Muslim is one who doesn't obey the Quran concerning non submissive infidels, so is that a good or bad one? A matter of perspective & context that only serves to confuse the issue at hand.
Muslim doctors trying to blow up airports. Pentagon personnel praying to Mecca. Sound confusing?
"War is deceit"...quoting Mo
Posted by: SoteriA at October 6, 2007 12:31 PM
Monk,
The world has changed since FDR defined our enemies as the Germans and the "Japs".
FDR interned tens of thousands of German and Japanese civilians during the war, with nary a peep from the press. We can't even keep a few hundred killers in Gitmo without the world and our own press giving us hell.
The president who "knows our enemy" and fights accordingly will end up before the ICC.
That is the world we have made for ourselves.
at October 6, 2007 12:34 PM
PRSC, you wrote: "Unless and until we are prepared to ban all (meaning just that: all) Muslims from entering the US, we will always be at risk."
Why not? Ban ALL Muslims from entering the US. We at war.
We had the German American Bund, an Antisemitic fraternal American organization established in the 1930s; estabished in order to promote German interests Nazism and fascism. Why would we not ban all Germans from entering the US while we were at war with Germany?
Islam declared war on the US.
Every American Muslim (including school children) that celebrated on Sept. 11, 2001 -- so long as we have (not a witness, but) witnesses -- should be deported.
Every American Muslim that calls for the overthrow of US rule of law, in favor of sharia law, should be deported. This would include much of the Saudi Wahhabi lobby.
If Muslim Americans are not loyal citizens, they should be deported.
I'm not talking about criticizing this or that government policy per se or criticizing this or that elected official, but those who seek to overthrow American legal institutions that are based on justice and modicum of tolerance. Why not deport them?
Posted by: monk at October 6, 2007 12:37 PM
PMK: "The president who "knows our enemy" and fights accordingly will end up before the ICC."
No. Sorry. I don't buy it. Did not Osama bin Laden say, 'everyone (fears or respects) the strong horse'. (?)
Remember Nicolo Machiavelli? "Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with."
America is still a strong horse, led by a pathetically weak leader. America losing its ability to instill fear under this leader. Give us a strong horse at the helm. Americans would love him and fear him. ICC could not touch him.
Do you really think the rules have changed. No one touches a strong man.
Look at the Iranian president. Now here is a man that has a spine as genocidal and evil as he is. Did anyone touch the criminal when he was here in the US?
Don't try convince me things are different. They aren't different. Weak people deserve weak leaders. I hope America is not this weak.
Posted by: monk at October 6, 2007 12:51 PM
A favorite argument of our detractors is that they know "good Muslims". Individuals and their personal beliefs mean nothing. Bin Laden doesn't make Islam evil anymore than the moderate Muslim makes Islam moderate. How can it? Catholicism has brought both unimaginable cruelties and sufferings to the world, yet also great, wonderous, selfless and loving acts. Who was the true Catholic: Mother Theresa or the Grand Inquisitor? How can you objectively answer that question without understanding Catholic doctrine? What matters is what the religion itself teaches, the piety of its subjects notwithstanding. You can surround yourself with all the "good" Muslims you want, if it comforts you. People will still die, jihadists will still work to establish global Islamic rule under which non-Muslims and women have suffered just as they always have anytime they've fallen under the heel of shari'a. It will never end.
Posted by: Gnosis at October 6, 2007 12:53 PM
PRCS-
I think you are right that President Bush and many around him are aware of the real nature of Islamic deception. But Herbert Hoover was aware of the growing economic catastrophe in 1930-1932 and his denial of reality with the public made Hoover look redicioulous. The president can't peddle bullshit in things of this nature. Bush did come close to leveling with the people when he referred to "IslamoFascism" but then got cold feet when the CAIR-liars and others went into propaganda mode. But that was the moment to confront the issue head-on and not back-off.
The problem with the president (a hunch) is that he justifiably lacks confidence in his communications skills. He's bad-real bad in that. An FDR or Reagan would not have backed-down. (Reagan did not back down re "the evil empire". He ignored the noisy attacks on him and many behind the iron curtain quietly cheered him for that.) In any case, the public stance that "Islam is a religion of peace" is ridiculous. Bush must stop that crap.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 12:55 PM
"PRSC, you wrote: "Unless and until we are prepared to ban all (meaning just that: all) Muslims from entering the US, we will always be at risk.""
I don't recall writing that. Could you provide a link, please.
"Every American Muslim that calls for the overthrow of US rule of law, in favor of sharia law, should be deported."
Where would American born Muslims be deported to?
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 12:59 PM
Frank,
"In any case, the public stance that "Islam is a religion of peace" is ridiculous."
You and I know that. The question is why he keeps repeating it and who that repetition is intended for.
In my ramblings, I wondered if his intent is to keep the Ummah from wigging out every time we offend it in the process of prosecuting this worldwide war against Muslim fundamentalists (euphemistically called a 'war on terror', I think, to avoid calling it what it really is and further wigging out the Ummah).
It's only a thought, but not calling the war what it really is might keep the faithful from, say, the Straits of Malacca from joining their 'brothers' in the sandbox.
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 1:15 PM
Although once a supporter of GWB, I am now aware that he really does not understand the Islamic threat IN America. These overtures to PC our relations with the Muslims does nothing but provide access to our elected officials for the front organizations of Jihad now rooted in America. If Troy had these leaders they would have simply opened the gates!
Posted by: IMA Believer at October 6, 2007 1:20 PM
I don't recall writing that. Could you provide a link, please.>>>>
I'm sorry. You're right. I believe PMK wrote that. My apologies.
at October 6, 2007 1:24 PM
In January, I had the opportunity to interview former Senator Rick Santorum at an Ethics and Public Policy Center speech given by George Weigel. Senator Santorum is currently a visiting fellow at EPPC.
I reminded the Senator of an Interview he had given on the Glenn Beck Radio Show. In that interview, he discussed a conversation that he had had with the President about the current regime in Tehran. He stated that he had informed the president about the 12th Imam and the current Iranian President's belief that it is his personal mission in life to create the chaos necessary for the Mahdi to return. Senator Santorum stated that the President understood the gravity of the matter.
But, when Mr. Beck asked him why he thought that the president understood the gravity of this matter, Senator Santorum gave no answer, and Mr. Beck did not press him on this issue.
Fast Forward: In my interview with Senator Santorum, I asked him the same question.“How do you know the President really understands the gravity of the situation?” His answer stunned me. He said,
“He nodded a lot while I was speaking.”
I then asked, “Did he say anything specific or give an indication about what he thought or believed that led you to your conclusion.” At this point the Senator got a bit frustrated with my probing and said,
“He is the President, he must understand.”
That was the end of this line of questioning.
I had always had a great deal of respect for the Senator and to a certain extent, I still do. But how he could think that he could convince any thinking individual with such ludicrous responses is beyond my comprehension. Politicians nod and smile for a living. These physical gestures mean only that they have crafted an important part of the personae needed to get elected. Senator Santorum should know this. I certainly do.
After this interview, I spoke with many other members of the conservative glitterati. With the exception of Mr. Weigel, who gets most things correct, the assembled academicians, theologians, think-tankers, and politicians were sadly misinformed about Islam. Equipped by Mr. Spencer and others with a fairly broad knowledge of Islam, I found myself making non-stop corrections to comments of others during the reception that followed the presentation. One person even tried to credit his lobby group for Steve Emerson’s work. I quickly took him to task in front of others. I am afraid I did this rather bluntly as I consider this a very low thing to do. Needless to say, I did not make myself very popular this evening.
Knowing that the majority of the assembled individuals considered themselves to be conservative, I left the gathering a very depressed individual.
at October 6, 2007 1:25 PM
Maybe Bush is this genius-in-disguise.. see also under next thread.. genius bar.. one day we will know dhumbya as geius-laid-bare.. hardi-har-har..
He keeps saying "islam is a religion of peace®" until they contradict him - thus proving him wrong.
Then he'd be free to say.. "well.. I gave them the benefit of all doubt and look.. they still behave like the violent beats that they are."
Naww.. he couldn't be that smart.. he's simply bought off.
Posted by: 2and2is5 at October 6, 2007 1:27 PM
Bush wasn't saying crap like this during his first term as president, so perhaps we have the dhimmicrats in congress to thank for Bush's new 'enlightened' view of Islam. Bush can't win.
Posted by: champ at October 6, 2007 1:29 PM
Bush wasn't saying crap like this during his first term as president, so perhaps we have the dhimmicrats in congress to thank for Bush's new 'enlightened' view of Islam. Bush can't win.
Posted by: champ
Let's stop making excuses for the guy. That ROP crap started soon after 911. Bush's SOWdi friends the bin Ladens were flown out of the ocuntry the day after 911.
So please...
And so WHAT if there are Demoncrats in the Congress!! Are they coming over to the White House and giving him a wedgei if he doesn't say islam is a ROP??
In this case I have to say: The Dhims can't win. Bush is clerly capable of saying plenty of stupid things all on his own.. LOL
Posted by: 2and2is5 at October 6, 2007 1:42 PM
patagonianplato,
One person even tried to credit his lobby group for Steve Emerson’s work.
Without naming the individual, can you tell us what lobbying group that was?
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 1:51 PM
Here's a GWB interview on Al Arabiya T.V.,
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/10/05/39989.html
Bush denies he is an "enemy of Islam"
Puff? A bodyguard of lies?
I don't know.
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 2:02 PM
Until Islamic terrorism hurts our economy, don't expect the masses to pay attention.
Once it hurts our pocketbooks, people will be out for blood.
We're ahead of the curve because we pay attention to ideology and we can see where this is all leading. The average person doesn't care what's in the Koran, but they will notice if they have to pay $10 for a gallon of gas because some lunatic blew up an oil pipeline.
Posted by: venividivici at October 6, 2007 2:10 PM
Hmmm...maybe it's no wonder Bush is clueless when this is what the FBI was up to at the turn of this century. I doubt they've gotten a whole lot better since, given their kow-towing to the muslims. How can an 'intelligence' organization get things so wrong?? Makes you feel real safe now, doesn't it? Knowing that they're the ones out there watching the 'bad guys'.
(my apologies if this has already been discussed at JW)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/megiddo.htm
FBI PROJECT MEGIDDO,
ABOUT DOMESTIC TERRORISM
Sponsored link.
Executive summary, with hyperlink to the full text
Overview
On 1999-OCT-20, The FBI announced a report called "Project Megiddo". It is intended to alert U.S. law enforcement to what they describe is "the potential for extremist criminal activity in the United States by individuals or domestic groups who attach special significance to the year 2000." An accompanying FBI statement mentioned that "The threat posed by extremists as a result of perceived events associated with the Year 2000 (Y2K) is very real. The volatile mix of apocalyptic religious and (New World Order) conspiracy theories may produce violent acts aimed a precipitating the end of the world as prophesied in the Bible..." Their concept is that by creating widespread instances massive destruction, violence, and death, that the end of the world will be precipitated. This is not a new phenomenon within Christianity. Very similar beliefs were held during the time of the Roman Empire.
Data for the report were collected over a nine-month period of intensive intelligence gathering by the domestic terrorism unit of the FBI, The report is "considered so sensitive and secret that it will not be made public." Fortunately, the Center for studies on New Religions (CESNUR) obtained a copy and placed it on the Internet. 4
We were surprised that the FBI included a hyperlink to our essay "Factors commonly found in doomsday cults." as a footnote to Page 28.
The FBI report's executive summary follows:
For over four thousand years, MEGIDDO, a hill in northern Israel, has been the site of many battles. Ancient cities were established there to serve as a fortress on the plain of Jezreel to guard a mountain pass. As Megiddo was built and rebuilt, one city upon the other, a mound or hill was formed. The Hebrew word "Armageddon" means "hill of Megiddo." In English, the word has come to represent battle itself. The last book in the New Testament of the Bible designates Armageddon as the assembly point in the apocalyptic setting of God's final and conclusive battle against evil. The name "Megiddo" is an apt title for a project that analyzes those who believe the year 2000 will usher in the end of the world and who are willing to perpetrate acts of violence to bring that end about.
Sponsored link:
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The year 2000 is being discussed and debated at all levels of society. Most of the discussions regarding this issue revolve around the topic of technology and our society's overwhelming dependence on the multitude of computers and computer chips which make our world run smoothly. However, the upcoming millennium also holds important implications beyond the issue of computer technology. Many extremist individuals and groups place some significance on the next millennium, and as such it will present challenges to law enforcement at many levels. The significance is based primarily upon either religious beliefs relating to the Apocalypse or political beliefs relating to the New World Order (NWO) conspiracy theory. 5 The challenge is how well law enforcement will prepare and respond.
The following report, entitled "Project Megiddo," is intended to analyze the potential for extremist criminal activity in the United States by individuals or domestic extremist groups who profess an apocalyptic view of the millennium or attach special significance to the year 2000. The purpose behind this assessment is to provide law enforcement agencies with a clear picture of potential extremism motivated by the next millennium. The report does not contain information on domestic terrorist groups whose actions are not influenced by the year 2000.
There are numerous difficulties involved in providing a thorough analysis of domestic security threats catalyzed by the new millennium. Quite simply, the very nature of the current domestic terrorism threat places severe limitations on effective intelligence gathering and evaluation. Ideological and philosophical belief systems which attach importance, and possibly violence, to the millennium have been well-articulated. From a law enforcement perspective, the problem therefore is not a lack of understanding of motivating ideologies: The fundamental problem is that the traditional focal point for counterterrorism analysis -- the terrorist group -- is not always well-defined or relevant in the current environment.
The general trend in domestic extremism is the terrorist’s disavowal of traditional, hierarchical, and structured terrorist organizations. Even well-established militias, which tend to organize along military lines with central control, are characterized by factionalism and disunity. While several “professional” terrorist groups still exist and present a continued threat to domestic security, the overwhelming majority of extremist groups in the United States have adopted a fragmented, leaderless structure where individuals or small groups act with autonomy. Clearly, the worst act of domestic terrorism in United States history was perpetrated by merely two individuals: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. In many cases, extremists of this sort are extremely difficult to identify until after an incident has occurred. Thus, analysis of domestic extremism in which the group serves as the focal point of evaluation has obvious limitations.
The Project Megiddo intelligence initiative has identified very few indications of specific threats to domestic security. Given the present nature of domestic extremism, this is to be expected. However, this is a function of the limitations of the group-oriented model of counterterrorism analysis and should not be taken necessarily as reflective of a minor or trivial domestic threat. Without question, this initiative has revealed indicators of potential violent activity on the part of extremists in this country. Militias, adherents of racist belief systems such as Christian Identity and Odinism, and other radical domestic extremists are clearly focusing on the millennium as a time of action. Certain individuals from these various perspectives are acquiring weapons, storing food and clothing, raising funds through fraudulent means, procuring safe houses, preparing compounds, surveying potential targets, and recruiting new converts. These and other indicators are not taking place in a vacuum, nor are they random or arbitrary. In the final analysis, while making specific predictions is extremely difficult, acts of violence in commemoration of the millennium are just as likely to occur as not. In the absence of intelligence that the more established and organized terrorist groups are planning millennial violence as an organizational strategy, violence is most likely to be perpetrated by radical fringe members of established groups. For example, while Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler publicly frowns on proactive violence, adherents of his religion or individual members of his organization may commit acts of violence autonomously.
Potential cult-related violence presents additional challenges to law enforcement. The potential for violence on behalf of members of biblically-driven cults is determined almost exclusively by the whims of the cult leader. Therefore, effective intelligence and analysis of such cults requires an extensive understanding of the cult leader. Cult members generally act to serve and please the cult leader rather than accomplish an ideological objective. Almost universally, cult leaders are viewed as messianic in the eyes of their followers. Also, the cult leader’s prophecies, preachings, orders, and objectives are subject to indiscriminate change. Thus, while analysis of publicly stated goals and objectives of cults may provide hints about their behavior and intentions, it is just as likely to be uninformed or, at worst, misleading. Much more valuable is a thorough examination of the cult leader, his position of power over his followers, and an awareness of the responding behavior and activity of the cult. Sudden changes in activity - for example, less time spent on “Bible study” and more time spent on “physical training” - indicate that the cult may be preparing for some type of action.
The millennium holds special significance for many, and as this pivotal point in time approaches, the impetus for the initiation of violence becomes more acute. Several religiously motivated groups envision a quick, fiery ending in an apocalyptic battle. Others may initiate a sustained campaign of terrorism in the United States to prevent the NWO. Armed with the urgency of the millennium as a motivating factor, new clandestine groups may conceivably form to engage in violence toward the U.S. Government or its citizens.
Most importantly, this analysis clearly shows that perceptions matter. The perceptions of the leaders and followers of extremist organizations will contribute much toward the ultimate course of action they choose. For example, in-depth analysis of Y2K compliancy on the part of various key sectors that rely on computers has determined that, despite a generally positive outlook for overall compliance, there will be problem industries and minor difficulties and inconveniences. 1 If they occur, these inconveniences are likely to cause varying responses by the extreme fringes. Members of various militia groups, for example, have identified potentially massive power failures as an indication of a United Nations-directed NWO takeover. While experts have indicated that only minor brownouts will occur, various militias are likely to perceive such minor brownouts as indicative of a larger conspiracy. 2
The Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem has stated that some state and local governments could be unprepared, including the inability to provide benefits payments. 3 This could have a significant impact in major urban areas, resulting in the possibility for civil unrest. Violent white supremacists are likely to view such unrest as an affirmation of a racist, hate-filled world view. Likewise, militia members who predict the implementation of martial law in response to a Y2K computer failure would become all the more fearful.
References:
"U.S. Congress, Senate, Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, Investigating the Impact of the Year 2000 Problem," February 24, 1996, pp. 1-6.
Ibid, p. 3.
Ibid. p. 5.
The full text of the Megiddo Report is online at the Cesnur web site at: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/FBI_004.htm and on the FBI site at http://www.fbi.gov
Response to the FBI report
1999-NOV-13: The Christian Alert Network is an American Christian Fundamentalist group. They issue reports which deal with what they feel are threats to Christianity. They are distressed that the FBI document "classifies all God-fearing Americans as domestic terrorists [sic] suspects." Their report says that the FBI considers a person a terrorist if: They believe the book of Revelation and its description of battle of Armageddon.
They believe in time prophecy.
They believe that God will overcome the enemies of Christianity.
They believe that the Y2K bug will hit many computer programs. 7
"Simply put, it [the report] vilifies all Bible believers, home schoolers, 2nd Amendment rights advocates, freedom-loving Americans as domestic terrorists." The Christian Alert Network is supporting the Free Congress Foundation's (FCF) call for the House of Representatives to hold an investigation into the FBI and its Project Megiddo. FCF's previous call for action was an attempt to force the U.S. Army to terminate the religious rights of Wiccan soldiers.
2000-JAN-21: We stumbled across some relatively new essays, published by "Anonymous" on JAN-10. The Other Side of the News identified the author of one of them as Scott McDonald but we have no way of confirming this. The two essays are: "The making of Project Megiddo & THE SECRET AGENDA TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA." at: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/
"The Bizarre world of the Megiddo Connections" at: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/
The essays deal with a secret international conspiracy involving the FBI, the OCRT (the sponsor of this web site), and several other groups. The goal of this conspiracy is said to be the destruction of conservative, Bible and prophecy believing Christianity in the U.S. They also describe the OCRT as a religious hate site.
Additional references added by this web site
5. The "new world order" is a collection of "conspiracy theories warning of a tyrannical global government, often depicted as a tool of the Anti Christ. [sic]6
6. "'Project Megiddo' warns of cult violence, religious terrorism as new millennium approaches," AANEWS, 1999-OCT-20.
7. "Christians are terrorists [sic] suspects according to FBI," The Christian Alert Network newsletter, 1999-NOV-13.
8. The initial plan by the FBI was to distribute the report only to police chiefs. They were considering publishing an abbreviated version for public distribution. They have changed their mind and published the entire report on their web site at http://www.fbi.gov (It requires an free Acrobat reader to view the report). This change in plans might have been caused by the proliferation of copies published on the Internet.
**************************************************
Gotta' watch those darn Christians and Jews!!!
at October 6, 2007 2:16 PM
As someone said above, the argument is made about knowing one particular moslem who is the be-all end-all of kindness and friendliness. How do you know when this "friend" will decide to become a true follower of mohammad and his god allah?
I suggest, like I have on other sites that you do a Google search on {I have killed my Jew, now I can go to Paradise} you will get 1,120,000 hits.
Here is one link to such a story:
http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=699
Among all those links is one story about a Jew and a moslem who had been "friends" for many years, and when the moslem became "radicalized", he killed his Jewish "friend" and said those same words.
at October 6, 2007 2:18 PM
PRCS-
I don't understand why he keeps repeating that big lie. It only gives cover to CAIR-liars and provides ammunition for Muslims who attack those who critically analyse Islam. (If the president agrees with CAIR-liars that "Islam is a religion of peace" then he agrees with conspirators-where do we go from there?) At the very least he should stop endorsing this big lie from "the bully pulpit". It's nonsense and destructive to keep repeating the big lie. In essence, he is tool of Jihad propaganda when he does that.
I think the two guys who really understand the nature of this very deceptive enemy are Newt Gingrich and Rudy G. Both of them are slipery scumbags but they are articulate and they have nerve. Gingrich may enter the race later. He's very ambitious and smart.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 2:22 PM
Frank, I really do like Newt Gingrich.
But do me a favor and do some research and see if his name is linked to the Wednesday Meeting at Grover Norquist's house.
at October 6, 2007 2:34 PM
venividivici wrote: "Until Islamic terrorism hurts our economy, don't expect the masses to pay attention.
Once it hurts our pocketbooks, people will be out for blood. We're ahead of the curve...."
You recommend we should wait until Islam hurts our economy? It may be way to late by then. Don't you think?
at October 6, 2007 2:44 PM
Newt Gingrich is too devisive a figure.
You need to create unity rather than continue the growing polarisation that's developed in the states in the past 10 or so years. I suspect the population could be played off against each other.
"Let's stop making excuses for the guy. That ROP crap started soon after 911. Bush's SOWdi friends the bin Ladens were flown out of the ocuntry the day after 911.
So please..."
Excellent point.
"And so WHAT if there are Demoncrats in the Congress!! Are they coming over to the White House and giving him a wedgei if he doesn't say islam is a ROP??"
Coffee / Screen moment.
at October 6, 2007 2:44 PM
Newt Gingrich is too devisive a figure.
You need to create unity rather than continue the growing polarisation that's developed in the states in the past 10 or so years. I suspect the population could be played off against each other.
"Let's stop making excuses for the guy. That ROP crap started soon after 911. Bush's SOWdi friends the bin Ladens were flown out of the ocuntry the day after 911.
So please..."
Excellent point.
"And so WHAT if there are Demoncrats in the Congress!! Are they coming over to the White House and giving him a wedgei if he doesn't say islam is a ROP??"
Coffee / Screen moment.
at October 6, 2007 2:44 PM
"And so WHAT if there are Demoncrats in the Congress!!"
Bush isn't the only one making stupid comments...LOL!!
Posted by: champ at October 6, 2007 2:48 PM
I am conflicted about GW's policies.
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 10:43 AM
It is the listening to the politicians that confuses people. Look at Bush's, or any politician's record, and you won't be confused any more.
Posted by: Alert at October 6, 2007 2:57 PM
is there anything we can do?
Posted by: ploome at October 6, 2007 12:14 PM
Good question. We can start by asking out senators/congressman/woman:
- What are the dangers USA faces?
- What does he/she think about Islam?
- Why Bush isn't impeached?.
Other suggestions on what we can do are welcome .....
Posted by: Alert at October 6, 2007 3:04 PM
Frank,
"I don't understand why he keeps repeating that big lie."
I don't either, but he obviously has a reason to.
Let's assume, here, that he does know that Islam is a complete way of life, a total belief system incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
I'm sure he's been informed.
If that's the case, then the audience his message is intended for becomes key.
Not you. Not me.
But maybe those invited to the Iftar dinner, and their rambunctious coreligionists, perhaps.
Trying to assuage a couple of hundred million Muslims who might otherwise join their 'brothers' in the fight.
Merely musing.
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 3:22 PM
Do you really think the rules have changed. No one touches a strong man.
Look at the Iranian president. Now here is a man that has a spine as genocidal and evil as he is. Did anyone touch the criminal when he was here in the US?
by monk
Precisely. Today Ahmadinejad is the strong man. He has powerful friends (Russia and China) who want what he offers, be it oil or influence. He is in office, giving him diplomatic immunity.
The ICC isn't for people like Ahmadinejad. It's for leaders who are out of power or down on their luck. He is neither. When he leaves office, see what happens. We're weak because we have surrendered our sovereignty to world bodies. We're not what we once were, even in 1985. We can't stand up for our own interests without coming up to a treaty or convention that says we can't protect ourselves. Our marines can't fight back against terrorists who pose as civilians without being accused of violating the Geneva Conventions and ending up in a courts-martial, destroying whatever career they had planned.
A lot of people call Bush a war criminal. It started as hyperbole but eventually it will sink in and people's defenses will be worn down.
The ICC is one more weapon in the arsenal of smaller states. Can you really say that Bush will not become the next Pinochet? Plenty of countries want to poke us in the eye and they will be cheered on by the NY Times and many other august journals. Needless to say, most Democrats would have a field day.
at October 6, 2007 3:47 PM
TO PRSC
I can only tell you that it is a group that believes that it is possible to spread democracy throughout the world, and currently seems to be focusing its efforts in the Middle East and other Islamic countries.
He implied that his group had done the ground breaking research which had uncovered a web of jihadist groups in the U.S. I told him that regardless of what he might believe his group had accomplished, it was Mr. Emerson who had done the ground breaking reporting on Jihad groups in America and that as far as I knew, he was the very first to make a documentary and publish a book about it titled, American Jihad. At this point, he was a bit stunned and, without arguing what I had stated, he simply replied;
“Well, we have a great deal of respect for what Mr. Emerson has done.”
On a separate note:
When I told this gentleman that democratic elections in many Islamic countries would in the end simply hand power to the Islamists, much in the same way that democratic elections handed power to the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, he beat a rather hasty retreat from the table we were sitting at.
I don’t understand why these people find me so off-putting.
at October 6, 2007 3:55 PM
PMK wrote: "We're weak because we have surrendered our sovereignty to world bodies. We're not what we once were, even in 1985. We can't stand up for our own interests without coming up to a treaty or convention that says we can't protect ourselves. Our marines can't fight back against terrorists who pose as civilians without being accused of violating the Geneva Conventions and ending up in a courts-martial, destroying whatever career they had planned."
Whose fault is this other than America's. Who came up with the idea of League of Nations other than an American president? Who is always looking to world bodies like the criminal United Nations for approval other than George W. Bush? The Geneva Conventions. Weren't they crafted primarily because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis? Why should they be applied to America or Israel who are defending themselves? Why do we even respect so-called international law?
America has a history of working through these worthless criminal international bodies. Look at all the anti-Israel, United Nations Security Council Resolutions like 242 and 338. Who crafted these evil resolutions other than US diplomats. Look at Condoleezza Rice. Have you ever seen a more thoroughly incompetent Secretary of State who drinks at the trough of international "law" and international consensus than this woman? We only have ourselves to blame.
Posted by: monk at October 6, 2007 4:12 PM
interestinconundrum-
I don't know much about the Wed. meetings of Grover Norquist, but he's looks like a self-important thug who started life at third base and deludes himself that when he reaches home plate that he's a home run hitter. He and guys like Abramhoff are over-privileged gangsters. However, sometimes good people (Truman with Pendergrast, eg) have to do business with these creeps. Association with them may be necessary though it may require wearing a clothes-pin on one's nose.
I think Gingrich is a very slippery and self-centered guy but my perception is that he's not a thug. In fact, I do think he would act in the interests of the US at all times-and that he has a deep understanding of the foundation of this Republic and how fragile it is in history. (Most of history is government by tyrants.) Besides Gingrich (like Rudy G) started at home plate-so their home runs are real.
Posted by: Frank at October 6, 2007 4:19 PM
Bush sounds more like a democrat with each passing day! What happened?
Posted by: champ at October 6, 2007 12:30 PM
Bush fooled Americans. That's what happened. For example although he wanted to reform immigration (aka open the borders to criminals from mexico), did he breath a word about it before getting elected? Did he even hint that he would prosecute Border Parol agents for doing their duty?
Posted by: Alert at October 6, 2007 5:08 PM
Frank,
"In any case, the public stance that "Islam is a religion of peace" is ridiculous."
You and I know that. The question is why he keeps repeating it and who that repetition is intended for.
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 1:15 PM
PRCS,
Bush was in wahhabbi back-pocket even before geting elected. After comin to the white house it has only got worse (as this latest pandering shows). Bush's Islamic repetition is to please his wahhabbi masters in Riyadh. It is really that simple.
at October 6, 2007 5:15 PM
Alert,
PRCS,
Bush was in wahhabbi back-pocket even before geting elected. After comin to the white house it has only got worse (as this latest pandering shows). Bush's Islamic repetition is to please his wahhabbi masters in Riyadh. It is really that simple.
Are you presenting that as fact, or as personal opinion?
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 5:21 PM
PRCS,
- Bush family "adopts" Bandar-bin-Sultan, making him Bandar-Bush.
- Bush businesses with Bin-Ladens.
- Bush allowing Bin-Ladens to escape right after 9/11.
- Bush erasing references to Saudi Arabia from 9/11 interim report.
- Bush increasing Saudi student's visas.
- Bush retracting from referene to 'Islamic Terror' the day after he made it.
Connect the dots above and come to your own conclusion/opinion.
Posted by: Alert at October 6, 2007 5:35 PM
Alert, you wrote:
- Bush family "adopts" Bandar-bin-Sultan, making him Bandar-Bush.
- Bush businesses with Bin-Ladens.
- Bush allowing Bin-Ladens to escape right after 9/11.
- Bush erasing references to Saudi Arabia from 9/11 interim report.
- Bush increasing Saudi student's visas.
- Bush retracting from reference to 'Islamic Terror' the day after he made it.
Connect the dots above and come to your own conclusion/opinion.">>>>
Alert, please understand, people, even followers and readers of Robert Spencer, do not want to connect the dots. They don't want to hear this from you.
Folks want a hero. Almost everyone needs a hero. This hero is George W. Bush. Nothing you produce; no facts, nothing will persuade these people.
at October 6, 2007 5:58 PM
Monk,
You recommend we should wait until Islam hurts our economy? It may be way to late by then. Don't you think?
Well, I don't think it will be too late then, fortunately, because we have the power of science in our corner. I don't recommend waiting, but I'm pretty sure that's what it will take for the masses to really go all out against Islam. I wish that this weren't so, believe me.
I would have moved against Islam yesterday, and in a way that would not leave a single Muslim not understanding the situation, were I in charge.
Posted by: venividivici at October 6, 2007 7:29 PM
Even while the WTC was still a smouldering ruin, bush said that islam was peace.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
and his position vis-a-vis islam hasn't changed a whit since then. you'd think that 9/11, jihadist activity in regions of the world where the US has never meddled, and the iraq fiasco would move him to re-examine his assumptions regarding islam. but no. being bush means that you're right & everyone else is wrong. such self-assurance for a man who experienced far more failure than success before becoming governor of Texas! he is truly a great man. and he richly deserves the ceausescu treatment after being tried & convicted for treason. not guilty of treason, you say? just imagine FRD issuing a statement after the attack on Pearl Harbor declaring that Japanese Imperialism is a peaceful ideology, and that the attack was planned & executed by a renegade carrier group that was acting out of a complete disregard for the peaceful principles embodied in the philosophy of Japanese Imperialism.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at October 6, 2007 7:53 PM
Where would American born Muslims be deported to?
If they see their loyalty to the ummah is stronger than their loyalty to America then Saudi Arabia should be forced to accept them.
Muslim brothers. How can they refuse?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 6, 2007 10:04 PM
Where would American born Muslims be deported to?
If they see their loyalty to the ummah is stronger than their loyalty to America then Saudi Arabia should be forced to accept them.
Muslim brothers. How can they refuse?
I understand your sentiment.
But, you know that's just wishful thinking.
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2007 10:49 PM
Bush: All religions pray to 'same God' 'That's what I believe. I believe Islam is a great religion that preaches peace'
A logical impossibility -- this man is an idiot!
I rest my case.
Posted by: witness at October 7, 2007 8:29 AM
From the article quoted above:
"We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight – I say, 'we' – it's my wife and I," Bush told Nakouzi. "This is the seventh one in the seven years I've been the president. It gives me a chance to say 'Ramadan Mubarak.' The reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country. In other words, I hope this message gets out of America. I want people to understand that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit. If you're a Muslim, an agnostic, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, you're equally American.
"And the value – the most valuable thing I think about America is that – particularly if you're a religious person – you can be free to worship, and it's your choice to make. It's not the state's choice, and you shouldn't be intimidated after you've made your choice. And that's a right that I jealously guard.
"Secondly, I want American citizens to see me hosting an Iftaar dinner."
"That's a strong message for the Americans," said Nakouzi.
It's for the Americans alright, because the muslims aren't buying Bush's delusions about islam.
If he really understood in a rational way the tenets that islam espoused, he would not make such stupid and false statements about islam.
In fact, this will probably be recieved as an insult to islam which in reality it is because islam does not espouse the notion of equivalent dieties nor does it tolerate other religons.
One might try to argue, that he is slapping islam intentionally; but like all of Bush's gaffs, misunderstandings, misplaced jokes and quotations, his pronouncement on islam is born of ignorance and miscomprehension of ideology rather than insight or understanding of it.
It also seems to me from what Bush has said, that not only is he a fool -- a dangerous one at that -- he is a non-believer in any diety himself at a personal level.
The fact that his poor attempts at pandering to Christians, Jews, islam, and everyone else is evidence; for he has insulted the intellegence of everyone, disavowed all the dities, and exposed himself for the fool that he is -- all in single breath of nonesense!
Posted by: witness at October 7, 2007 9:02 AM
Folks, I too, have given up on Bush; in fact, I've given up on the Republican Party, period. What has the Party done for me? Absolutely nothing. Just a few days ago, the United States Congress has seen fit to honor Islam and Ramadan in this country; they've passed a resolution to honor this garbage...and there were no "NAY" votes, can you believe that? They say that they are honoring the Muslims in THIS country, not the radicals of the world. What's the difference if they're in this country or not: They still believe in the same Koran, whether they're moderates or not, don't they? Does Congress mean to imply that because a Muslim is a moderate he's not going to believe in the Koran's instructions to kill every infidel he sees, when the moderate's radial brother challenges the moderate? Oh, yeah, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn, NY that I'll sell you, too, Brother!
Posted by: hardball at October 7, 2007 2:55 PM
Alert, They don't want to hear this from you.
Posted by: monk at October 6, 2007 5:58 PM
Monk/PRCS:
Fine, Wafa Sultan: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52962
Frosty Wooldrifge: http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty238.htm
Chuck Baldwin: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070223.html
Bush Impeachment: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin353.htm
There.. you/they (whoever 'they' are), heard it NOT from me...
at October 7, 2007 2:57 PM
Alert, They don't want to hear this from you.
Posted by: monk at October 6, 2007 5:58 PM
Monk/PRCS:
Fine, Wafa Sultan: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52962
Frosty Wooldrifge: http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty238.htm
Chuck Baldwin: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070223.html
Bush Impeachment: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin353.htm
There.. you/they (whoever 'they' are), heard it NOT from me...
Did I say that I don't want to hear this from you?
I asked if you were presenting the 'wahhabbi back-pocket' assertion as a fact or as a personal opinion.
As a matter of civility, I would ask that you withold further pontification.
Thank you
Posted by: PRCS at October 7, 2007 5:50 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)