| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Here, courtesy Ron Paul and John Stossel, is a Christmas Eve repast of common but false assumptions about the global jihad and what we can do about it: "Ron Paul on War," by John Stossel.
Stossel starts us off by asking Paul:
Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.
This is, of course, the Bush Administration's famous and oft-repeated rationale for the Iraqi democracy project. The primary problem with it is that they're already over here, as the JFK Airport plot, the Fort Dix plot, and numerous other plots indicate, and our being over there is doing nothing to prevent their being here.
But while law enforcement officials have so far done a terrific job heading off these plots, little or nothing is being done to deal with the national security aspect of the immigration question, or to challenge the spread of the jihad ideology among Muslims in the U.S. Instead, we are all fiercely exhorted to assume, on pain of being read out of polite society, that Islam is a religion of peace and all U.S. Muslims abhor Osama bin Laden and today's global jihad.
Anyway, here is how Ron Paul answers the question:
Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.
In other words, they're just fighting back against an unjustified invasion. They're fighting us over here because we're fighting them over there. And certainly, from the standpoint of Islamic theology, there is something to this. Jihad in Islam is usually fard kifaya, a general obligation upon the community as a whole but not upon each individual in particular; it becomes fard ayn, or obligatory on each individual, if a Muslim land is attacked. So much jihadist recruitment today calls peaceful Muslims to wage jihad by loudly proclaiming that Islamic lands have been attacked, and thus all Muslims are obligated to rush to their defense.
However, it is a false assumption that if we just leave them alone, by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan and presumably also by abandoning Israel, then there will be peace. Muhammad's expansionist imperative is open-ended: "I have been commanded," he said, "to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah."
Do any Muslims take this seriously today? Well, just the other day a jihadist leader in Uzbekistan declared: "The goal of this campaign is not only Kabul, Kandahar, or Baghdad. The eyes of the nation of Muhammad are set on Washington, London, Moscow, Paris, Delhi, Beijing, and other countries. This is our goal and, Allah willing, we will get there." Will people who think that way drop this goal if American troops leave their countries? Considering the fact that Muslims were conquering nations on the basis of the jihad ideology long before there even was a United States of America, that seems unlikely in the extremely.
After that, Stossel asks Paul:
Is this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.
This question shows the damaging influence of Dinesh D'Souza's silly and stupid book, The Enemy At Home, in which D'Souza contends that jihadists hate us because of popular culture. It also demonstrates ignorance of the fact that jihadists are killing plenty of people who have nothing to do with Western culture. As I asked in my review of D'Souza's book here, are Buddhist schoolteachers in Thailand the exponents of American pop culture? Are Christian schoolgirls beheaded in Indonesia on their way to school the vanguard of an invasion by Eve Ensler? Are churches torched in Nigeria because they are showing blue movies during off hours?
Paul answers:
I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.
Yes, indeed it was. But here Paul is just making a blanket assertion, again without taking into account the expansionist and supremacist imperative within Islam.
Stossel and Paul go on to joust about the Iraqi democracy project and the idea of America as the world's policeman. I agree that it is impractical, naive, and foolish to think that the United States can plant in Iraq a political system that Iraqis don't appreciate or want, and that the idea that American military force should be used against any and all tyranny, if followed through, would ultimately bleed this nation dry in service of an unattainable goal.
However, all that is really beside the point in this global conflict. As Paul himself says, "If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country." Indeed. And more than just our country is being threatened today by the global jihadists, and virtually no one in power understands the nature and the magnitude of the threat any more than do John Stossel or Ron Paul.
Posted by Robert at December 24, 2007 11:17 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The Ron Paulians will be pissed at you
Posted by: alexb![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 24, 2007 11:30 AM
"...virtually no one in power understands the nature and the magnitude of the threat any more than do John Stossel or Ron Paul."
Surely there are many who understand the threat we face, it's just politically inconvenient - and incorrect - for them to admit it. Surely congressmen who were evacuated from the Capitol on 9/11 can't think it was just a misunderstanding or that al Qaeda won't come back and try again. Just look at the WTC. Bombing it in 1993 wasn't enough. Al Qaeda never gave up on its goal. Are we to believe that Washington, DC will be removed from their target list if we just pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Posted by: PMK at December 24, 2007 11:37 AM
Ok, i know Islam calls for jihad and world domination. But Islam also makes its adherents stupid. If we let them alone without money and weapons, they would be rather harmless and could be contained easily. But it is the US government itself that is constantly fanning the flames of jihad and delivering the weapons for it. Should we expect a benign umma when the coalition forces have killed 80'000 civilians in Iraq alone?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/the-price-of-loss/
at December 24, 2007 12:00 PM
Swissy...
Gad that's right. Give a bloodthirsty savage a gun and he will sure use it. Well, I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of bloodthirsty savages. I join you in condemning bush, He sends them money as well.
Were did you get the figure 80,000 civilians dead at coalition hands? Do you have any figures on how many muslims have killed by other muslims? Must be a lot since they are always blowing things up and beheading people.
at December 24, 2007 12:21 PM
Pauls a 50% candidate. That is he is 50% smart and 50% stupid. That's why he won't win. It will take a 75%er to pull it off. The 100%er's are too perfect to be trusted. I predicted Huckabee or Tancredo. Tancredo dropped out, and Huckabee is gaining.
The dems have no 75%er's. They have already lost the election because of that. Watch 75% overwhelm 100%.
And they thought it could not be done...
at December 24, 2007 12:37 PM
Another fissure in the flimsy "occupied holy land" construct is this: Rapidly after 9/11, the US completed a withdrawal from Saudi Arabi, yet today we learn that this terror spewing nation remains one of the major exporters of muderous Jihadis.
Leave the "holy" trash heap of Saudi, and the Jihad impulse remains intact and even amplified.
Leave Gaza, and the bombs and exterminationist rhetoric only elevates.
Exterminate Israel, and the work of the pious Muslims is not yet complete.
In fact, if one comprehends the true nature of expansionist triumphalist fascist Islam, one would understand instantly that such Islamic victories would only whet Muslim lust for more booty, more murder, and more territory for the imperialist nightmare of Islam.
An argument can and should be made that today there are more Muslims than ever supporting UBL and al Qaida, or similar strands to al Qaida. Rather than blaming our actions and our policies, (or our inactions for that matter) for this reality, as many Westerners (and ALL Muslims) do, it's much simpler to explain it as something intrinsic within the infinite hideousness of Islam.
Murderous, expansionist, terroristic Jihad is a creed deeply entrenched within Islam. Hatred of non-Muslims is intrinsic. Lust for booty and war too. These, and many other evil and vile strands are in the very weft of Islam, inseparable from it.
These evils are the monster which bin Laden brilliantly awoke and vexed back to full consciousness after centuries of relative dormancy. It is ALL Islam...
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Enough!
Merry Christmas! God bless Us, Every One!
Posted by: jsla at December 24, 2007 12:45 PM
I first saw Paul's cowardly babbling on Jihad for the first time just this past weekend. For such a pomp, Paul sure is ahistorical on the causes of Jihad.
He sez that US occupied territory is the cause of all this, which squarely conflicts with the acknowledged history of the matter. Maybe ol' John should crack a book or two.
If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.
In the extremely unlikely event that Communist Chinese came here to defend us, it would be 1) to protect America from a ruthless enemy (much as we did on behalf of Saudi Arabia per Saddam), 2) free us from a ruthless dictator and conduct elections for the first time in American history (back to Saddam again), or 3) rescue America from the grips of fully enforced and totally conscienceless Sharia law (per the Taliban).
What a moronic analog Paul's oblique compliment to the Communist Chinese is.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 24, 2007 12:50 PM
"...virtually no one in power understands the nature and the magnitude of the threat any more than do John Stossel or Ron Paul."
Tom Tancredo was and is right on all counts including the threats of Islam and immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf3JunNAQQw
Too bad Americans could not support their patriotic statesman, but than, coming from proplr who cannot impeach Bush, who sells out Americans every day it is not surprising.
Only, Americans will pay a heavy price for this blunder.
at December 24, 2007 12:51 PM
We always have to many fruitcakes around Christmas time.
Crazy Uncle Ron being the biggest of them all.
Posted by: Bar at December 24, 2007 12:56 PM
"I predicted Huckabee or Tancredo. Tancredo dropped out, and Huckabee is gaining" (duh_swami).
Tancredo endorsed Romney; that's huge - and the MSM are ignoring it.
As reality sets in over the next few weeks, 6-10% of the Republican vote (the most loyal, most conservative, most knowledgeable, most influential block) will get behind Romney. And Tancredo will be there, right behind Romney, all the way to the White House.
Posted by: LoneRanger at December 24, 2007 1:00 PM
I have to confess, I was taken in by D'souza's theory. But you're correct, it's full of holes. Seeing as how the immorality that Qutb took such a vicious phobia toward was that of Middle America in the late 1940's, there is no conceivable remedial action which could be taken to appease the Muslim objectors. Not that we should ever consider such a thing anyway, which effectively moots D'souza's theory.
I think there's a grain of truth to it though still, while pretty much immaterial. And that is that our casual immorality and liberal excess can too easily be characterized by Muslim leaders as frontal attacks on Islam and their own lifestyle.
But again we should never worry about that, we should live freely as we wish and defend the chips whereever they may fall. Oddly enough, it is now the Right who defends the Left's pet projects such as women's rights and homosexuality -- both of which particularly enrage the Islamic masses -- while the liberals, feminists, and homosexuals are either trembling under their beds and the more adventurous among them are letting the Islamists in the back door. Unbelievable.
But our shoulders are broad, we can take it, we know we are in the right.
As the final death knell to D'souza's theory, or Ron Paul's, or the conventional wisdom's, it is obvious that the most well-behaved and non-imperialist, own-business-minding society of atheists or polytheists would never be acceptable to any interpretations of the Qur'an. Not one. I have yet to see any pronouncement from any Muslims that polytheists or Atheists are now OK with them as long as they toe the line.
Posted by: Goob at December 24, 2007 1:08 PM
They’ve all got their reasons to take a pay cut in exchange for a really tough job. Giuliani won’t sell his interest in Giuliani Partners, won’t release the Client list (Qatar got leaked and he now acknowledges receiving regular cash), and intends to keep cashing Giuliani Partners checks as our President. The Romney and Clinton families have financial connections (Romney seems to be a good guy though). Obama’s advisors will have to explain the working relationship to him if he is successful.
One thing about Ron Paul is that he at least seems to be guided by the principle of the Constitution. If he pulled us out of the Middle East and cut off the Jizya, the place would explode. So would many of our Islamic friends Stateside.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Supreme Court precedent allows the internment of a suspect group during wartime if that were to become necessary.
The Constitution provides for Amendments.
It’s better to be lucky than good, and Paul’s stated intentions seem to track with those advocated by many on this website. Different reasons maybe, but the same end it all likelihood.
I’m not voting for Paul though, I’m voting for Obama. The quicker we bankrupt this government, the better for all involved.
at December 24, 2007 1:28 PM
Paul is a hick. How did he ever get national attention? He's a complete simpleton re Islam; he's really just an old-time isolationist who wants to repeat the same mistake with Islam that his antecedents made with the Nazis.
It's totally reprehensible that a Republican presidential candidate would seek to legitimize Osama bin Laden's allegation about Western occupation of Saudi Arabia.
at December 24, 2007 1:34 PM
Robert said
The primary problem with it is that they're already over here, as the JFK plot, the Fort Dix plot, and numerous other plots indicate, and our being over there is doing nothing to prevent their being here.
Oh great. Now the Washington Post, St. Petersburg Times, and the Wall Street Journal, with their usual level of journalistic integrity, are going to use that quote to say that Robert Spencer believes a Muslim conspiracy killed JFK, as they journalistically roll their eyes and make a circle with their pointing finger around their ears.
Posted by: special_guest at December 24, 2007 1:47 PM
Well, Paul is at least half-right: if we were not so involved in overseas adventures and flying jets over the capitals of foreign lands, we would not be foremost in the mind of jihadis--and, as RS points out, the islamists wouldn't have much of a case to enjoin jihad on the whole muslim ummah.
Indeed, he sometimes sounds almost Fitzgeraldian in talking about disengaging from the middle east. (Thematically, that is: certainly not syntactically and probably not in diction, although, wouldn't it be funny to discover that Fitzgerald is a Texan!)
On the other hand, he doesn't seem to understand that the disengagement will only quell the problem temporarily. Frankly, I don't have any objection to what he says, if he would only couple it with the notion that other steps should be taken to deal with the inevitable future issues (some doctrine like containment).
Posted by: mountainecho at December 24, 2007 1:54 PM
Romney is a 100%er. He can't win even with Tancredo.
Not all Tancredos followers are going to follow him to Romney. If they liked Romney, they would not have supported Tancredo in the first place. I am not endorsing Huckabee's winning, but I am predicting it, on something as simple as he is a 75%er, and they rule...
at December 24, 2007 1:59 PM
Rudy's the smartest candidate. That's why he likes to cut corners a little when it comes to running around with broads. He can see through things - like lingerie and Islam. He should hook up with Romney so we can have team based on moral decadence, slippery politics and fewer platitudes.
Posted by: jewdog at December 24, 2007 2:22 PM
""However, all that is really beside the point in this global conflict. As Paul himself says, "If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country." Indeed. And more than just our country is being threatened today by the global jihadists, and virtually no one in power understands the nature and the magnitude of the threat any more than do John Stossel or Ron Paul """
So why is it that our fearless wonder Crawford cowboy leader of the free world always restrain's Israel in their fight against the front line global jihadists ?
And why is he always sending millions after millions of dollars and weapons and CIA sniper training to the Islamic jihad palestinian boys after they have proven they have no desire for peace with those pesky infidels next door.
Anybody got a straight answer ?
""the idea that American military force should be used against any and all tyranny, if followed through, would ultimately bleed this nation dry in service of an unattainable goal. ""
We're running on empty and many nations are dropping their peg to the dollar.
Wshington just keep printing more paper as it becomes worthless.
I'd say our arrogance is leading to our downfall.
The jihadists vulture's are just circling to clean off the dying corpse.
at December 24, 2007 2:34 PM
mountainecho said
On the other hand, he doesn't seem to understand that the disengagement will only quell the problem temporarily.
1) It may be only a temporary solution, but how can we hope to have a permanent solution to the problem of Islamic jihad when we cannot yet even admit that Islamic jihad is the problem? A temporary solution would at least give us time to step back and properly reformulate the problem, and take the steps towards a more permanent resolution.
2) Withdrawal may be more permanent than you think. With the right conditions, they could keep themselves busy with intra-Islamic violence for quite a long time. Use your favorite search engine to search for "site:jihadwatch.org fissures camp of Islam".
3) Withdrawal of Coalition troops from Iraq is not the same thing as disengagement from the Middle East. Calling Saudi Arabia and Pakistan our "good friends and strong allies" is not the only way to be engaged in the Middle East. We should redouble our financial and diplomatic support for Israel and a de-Syrian-ized Lebanon; we should immediately end all financial and diplomatic support for the "Palestinians" and other jihadist groups and governments. We should adopt a policy of attacking jihadis wherever/whenever we see fit, without requesting the permission of the government that is hosting/protecting them. We should reach out to other groups and other nations that are truly on the frontlines of the Islamic conquest; they need our support if they are to survive.
4) Withdrawal from Iraq is only part of the solution. Immigration control, public education about core Islamic beliefs and Islamic history, alternate energy sources, designation of Islam as a political organization bent on replacing the Constitution with sharia by violent means, all are important parts of the "permanent" solution. Use your favorite search engine to search for "site:jihadwatch.org manhattan project".
Posted by: special_guest at December 24, 2007 2:36 PM
special guest,
Unlikely, but I fixed it anyway.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at December 24, 2007 2:56 PM
(Rudy) can see through things - like lingerie and Islam.
Haa. Jewdog, you do have a way with words.
Through the one veil you can see something beautiful or ugly; through the other veil you can
see ugly.
at December 24, 2007 3:55 PM
@ duh_swami
Thank you for correcting me. We cannot account 80'000 deaths directly to the coalition forces. I don't know how they split between Muslims and the US side.
But i don't agree with you, that this is just Bush's mistake. The misguided policies about the ME go back to Carter. All these mujahedeens were financed with 6 billion dollars and trained by the US itself. Ever read the story of Ali Mohammed? Quite unbelievable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed
Posted by: Swissy at December 24, 2007 4:07 PM
JW - "This question shows the damaging influence of Dinesh D'Souza's silly and stupid book"
This DD or Do-Do guy is an idiot. He should know better. The fact he is coming from India, the country which was most bastardized by the Muslims in the World. He is not telling the truth for some odd reason.
To all JW comrades, Merry Christmas and wonderful New Year.
MusHunt
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 24, 2007 4:33 PM
Robert said
Unlikely...
I was half-joking, but who knows how far they'd go? You may be too generous in your assessment of them, but it's the season, and the day, for such generosity.
Merry Christmas to Robert and the JW staff, and to fellow JW/DW readers.
Posted by: special_guest at December 24, 2007 4:53 PM
Tancredo endorsed Romney; that's huge - and the MSM are ignoring it.
So what? First, they're too busy trying to predict which three candidates will get tickets out of Iowa and who will come up where in New Hampshire. You don't really expect them to talk about the ISSUES, do you?
With respects to Tom Tancredo, I didn't support Romney before and I don't support him now for one very simple reason: I don't believe him when he says he's going to control illegal immigration. His record suggests otherwise. The same holds true for every other "top tier" GOP candidate.
Posted by: PMK at December 24, 2007 4:57 PM
Mr. Spencer wrote,
“And more than just our country is being threatened today by the global jihadists, and virtually no one in power understands the nature and the magnitude of the threat any more than do John Stossel or Ron Paul.”
However, Mr. Stossel asked Congressman Paul the following question;
“Is this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.”
While Congressman Pual stated;
“I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.”
While I disagree with both comments, and agree that Mr. Stossel’s comment may in part be due to Mr. D'Souza’s book, the two statements are still worlds apart in their underlying assumptions. At the very least, Mr. Stossel believes that the problem has something to do with Islam, while Congressman Pual believes that it is all about occupation. I believe that there is a chance of persuading people such as Mr. Stossel to reevaluate what they believe. There is probably no such chance with Congressman Pual.
at December 24, 2007 5:06 PM
Swissy,
Can you refresh my memory? What was the US doing in 1979? What Muslim countries were we in? What civilian Muslim body counts were going up because of the US? What caused the Iranian revolution? Don't say it was support for the shah. That suggests that we should have no relations with anyone whom someone might find "unsavory". It would mean we should avoid the nut job like the plague, but an awful lot of people want the US to "talk to our enemies".
What is the right course for you? We were wrong to "support Saddam" against Iran (in a war he started) and we were wrong to overthrow him? Why shouldn't we just leave the world alone and turn off the telephone at the White House? Leave the Middle East and let the rest of the world worry about oil. We're not the only consumers of it, you know. Even Barack O'Bama isn't suggesting such a thing. While he talks about getting out, he still wants to leave a small force behind. One American body on Muslim land is going to be an excuse for jihad somewhere.
Posted by: PMK at December 24, 2007 5:10 PM
Swissy...I don't think I said it was just Bush. I said he provides them/some of them, with weapons and money. In terms of Iraq the buck stops with him.
But you are right, the MI started boiling way before Bush came on the scene.
If you go to the link you posted, and look under 'database', there is a list of casualties, of which only a few were done by US/coalition forces. The rest were done by terrorists. One thing that muslims like to do is inflate numbers...so never take their numbers at face value....Merry Christmas...
at December 24, 2007 5:28 PM
Why did Muslims seize 13 U.S. ships and take slaves when George Washington was president? This is b.s.
Posted by: DavidE at December 24, 2007 5:37 PM
JSLA-
Not only would an Islamic defeat of Israel increase their blood-lust it would put them all into a FRENZY of Jihad. An opening for total manifestation of the demonic and inhuman heart of Islam. I myself believe that Mohammed was a classic case of demonic possession.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at December 24, 2007 5:46 PM
"I didn't support Romney before and I don't support him now for one very simple reason: I don't believe him when he says he's going to control illegal immigration. His record suggests otherwise. The same holds true for every other "top tier" GOP candidate."
Posted by: PMK
OOO.K.! And the “top tier” democrat candidate who is going to do better on immigration is…??? And of course that candidate would be a wizard on Jihadis and Islam as well.
So the name is….?? Who???
at December 24, 2007 7:48 PM
Ron Paul has lost my vote. If we were an own-business-minding, thoroughly moral nation of pious Christians with minorities of moral and pious Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, and Hindus, the Jihadis would still hate us for not being Muslims.
Posted by: Kepha at December 24, 2007 8:35 PM
Just as a kaffur's word is worth half of that of a muslim a muslim vote should be 1/10th the worth of a kaffur vote. Then, its level playing ground. Let's see the outcome then.
Posted by: Alert at December 24, 2007 11:49 PM
Why allow 1/10th?
Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 25, 2007 12:19 AM
Checkout Ron Paul here on illegal alien stance, along with others running for the high office..
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
The key is look at past actions, NOT the promises to gather the votes. You can check out the Dems as well, but it may scare the supporters.
This shows nobody has all the answers right, but may aid those who want a secure country find a person to support.
Mitt R. is best as of now, based on his current position, and past actions.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 25, 2007 1:09 AM
Checkout Ron Paul here on illegal alien stance, along with others running for the high office..
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
The only candidate with a clear, firm and consistent stand, Tom Tancredo, had to pull out of the race, of saving America, thanks to the lack fo support from Americans.
Sometimes, fact is stranger than fiction!
at December 25, 2007 2:40 AM
Alert;
Yep, a sad loss that Tom T. had to step out.
Mitt is not perfect, but in the overall stances, and his stand on issues related to Jihad and islam, he is the closest to Tom T. than any of the others, I hope others will look at him from his stand on the issues, and past actions.
He (Tom) placed his support on Mitt, I feel for good reasons, and if Mitt can get the Republican nod, perhaps he will find a place in his ticket, for the endorsement from him.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1
at December 25, 2007 3:18 AM
He (Tom) placed his support on Mitt, I feel for good reasons, and if Mitt can get the Republican nod, perhaps he will find a place in his ticket, for the endorsement from him.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 25, 2007 3:18 AM
That is a good point, Islofob IS-1. I shall keep my eyes and ears open. However, at present, I am still a little shaken by how jaded Americans are by their own PC onslaught that they could not see a patriot when he, Tom Tancredo, fell in their lap. If Tom had opposition from those very people who were at his heart what kind of opposition will he face from slimy, traitor politicians in White House, Congress and Senate, who, you will well agree, are alive and kicking.
Posted by: Alert at December 25, 2007 4:54 AM
Islofob IS-1,
Thanks for the link. It really is about past record, rather than campaign promises.
I spoke to my cousin a few days ago, and she's all for Hillary, just because she's a woman. You can't imagine my alarm.
Posted by: Abscedere at December 25, 2007 11:42 AM
So why is it that our fearless wonder Crawford cowboy leader of the free world always restrain's Israel in their fight against the front line global jihadists ?
And why is he always sending millions after millions of dollars and weapons and CIA sniper training to the Islamic jihad palestinian boys after they have proven they have no desire for peace with those pesky infidels next door.
Anybody got a straight answer ?
Posted by: rocketman at December 25, 2007 12:48 PM
Anybody got a straight answer ?
Posted by: rocketman at December 25, 2007 12:48 PM
Let mr try:
America's "wonder Crawford cowboy leader of the free world " is the son of an oil-businessman/poligtician who gladly deals the country's resources for his business with some of the richest Islamists from Saudi Arabia. These rich Islamists have supported the entire Bush family, specially the failed business ventures of "wonder Crawford cowboy leader of the free world ". In return, rich Islamists want Israel to be destroyed. What better way to achieve that objective, than to have the "wonder Crawford cowboy leader of the free world " in your pocket and make him do the dirty work? Besides, this is how one gets richer.
Just my $0.02.
at December 25, 2007 2:48 PM
Thank's alert .
It makes sense.
I've always wondered way the masses were so easliy putty in his hands ?
Maybe theres enough of that grease to lubricate their minds free of what is really going on ?
I know this goes against the religion of most everyone here.
Will they excomminicate us for getting to the truth they so eagerly hide ?
at December 25, 2007 4:31 PM
Paul is as staggeringly ignorant of Islam as he is of basic foreign affairs or the workings of the military.
Luckily, only his blimp will fly.
Not his candidacy.
Posted by: profitsbeard at December 25, 2007 4:45 PM
I've always wondered way the masses were so easliy putty in his hands ?
Maybe theres enough of that grease to lubricate their minds free of what is really going on ?
I know this goes against the religion of most everyone here.
Will they excomminicate us for getting to the truth they so eagerly hide ?
Posted by: rocketman at December 25, 2007 4:31 PM
rocketman, One reason masses were so easliy putty in his hands is lack of credible opposition. Bush got some of Kerry's negative votes (.. but Kerry as a president would be much worse). It is very easy to fall in this trap. Other reasons:
- Republicans vote for gtheir party, even if the candidate is a liberal sell-out disguised as a Republican.
- Bush played the 'national security' card well. Who would go against that?
- More than 90% Americans do not knwo about the depth of Bush family collusion with Wahhabbis.
In summary, America gets sold out to anyone with a petro-dollar or a peso, time and time again, while they stand firmly behind their "wonder Crawford cowboy leader of the free world ".
at December 25, 2007 7:11 PM
I remember my mom being concerned about Bush, the Elder's oil ties. Now, the "Justice" Dept. under W's watch has jailed at least four law enforcement people for trying to protect the border. There may be more coming from that corner, too, because those two dead burglers were illegal aliens. Also, our Representative at the Bali Conference allowed herself to be bullied into going along with the Global Warming agreement and the POTUS just signed an energy bill that leaves us dependent on imported oil.
I, too, favor the lower tier candidates because they are more up front about the threats we face from Global Jihad, the reconquest of Aztlan (SW America for the unaware), and the resurgence of the Middle Kingdom or China, Inc. Yes, friends come and go; but enemies accumulate.
Too bad we can't include Charles "The Hammer" Martel, Vlad The Impaler, or the people who took on the Barbary Pirates in our list of candidates.
Meanwhile, we better get serious about energy independence before we find ourselves over a barrel. Score a point here for Ron Paul.
Posted by: JeromeFromLayton at December 26, 2007 12:12 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)