This is essentially an anti-Trump screed, but it has more sweeping and ominous implications. Petraeus has “grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.” He is clearly referring to Trump’s proposal for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration, from which Trump himself is now retreating.
Petraeus doesn’t just oppose this as a policy measure. He is saying that such proposals shouldn’t even be made, for just to state them is damaging: “the ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.” They will “compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.”
How will they do that? Well, you see, “those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.”
Petraeus doesn’t offer any alternative suggestion as to how jihad terrorists can be prevented from entering the U.S. He just doesn’t like Trump’s former proposal, and what he terms “hate speech against Muslims” in general, because it will, he says, enrage Muslims and make more of them join the jihad against the U.S. So the upshot of Petraeus’ argument is that we must not say things to which Muslims might object, because this will just make more of them become jihadis. His prescription for minimizing the jihad against the West is for the West to practice self-censorship in order to avoid offending Muslims.
There has been, of course, a comprehensive effort to compel the West into doing just this, and it is going very well. In the wake of the jihad attack on our free speech event in Garland, Texas last year, there were widespread condemnations of our event for daring to “provoke” Muslims. After the Danish Muhammad cartoon riots and the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoonists, mainstream media outlets all over the West refused to publish the cartoons in solidarity with the victims and in defense of the freedom of speech, instead opting to publish transparently hypocritical explanations of how they were declining to publish the cartoons out of “respect” for Muslims and Islam.
The lesson of all this is one that no less a figure than General Petraeus has imbibed and is now propagating himself: Muslims don’t like when we say we should stop Muslim immigration for awhile, and they join the jihad. So we must stop saying it, so that they won’t join the jihad. This argument will only encourage them to tell us they’re joining the jihad because of other things we do as well (which they’re already doing), so that we will stop doing those things as well. Petraeus is saying that in the wake of violent intimidation by Muslims, the West’s proper response is to give those violent Muslims what they want, by conforming our speech to suit them. In reality, this will only encourage more violent intimidation.
So if we take Petraeus’ advice, it will not result in less jihad, as he claims, but more: more aggressive Muslim demands on the U.S., more rage, and more “revenge.” Petraeus is giving us a recipe for setting the world on fire even more than it is now.
“David Petraeus: Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamist terrorists,” by David Petraeus, Washington Post, May 13, 2016:
…Moreover, the fact is that free and open societies such as ours depend on a sense of basic security to function. If terrorism succeeds in puncturing that, it can threaten the very fabric of our democracy — which is, indeed, a central element of the terrorist strategy.
For that reason, I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.
Some justify these measures as necessary to keep us safe — dismissing any criticism as “political correctness.” Others play down such divisive rhetoric as the excesses of political campaigns here and in Europe, which will fade away after the elections are over.
I fear that neither is true; in fact, the ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.
As policy, these concepts are totally counterproductive: Rather than making our country safer, they will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens. As ideas, they are toxic and, indeed, non-biodegradable — a kind of poison that, once released into our body politic, is not easily expunged.
Setting aside moral considerations, those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.
At the same time, such statements directly undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.
During the surge in Iraq, we were able to roll back the tide of al-Qaeda and associated insurgents because we succeeded in mobilizing Iraqis — especially Sunni Arabs — to join us in fighting against the largely Sunni extremist networks in their midst. Later, we took on the Iranian-backed Shiite militia, with the important support of the Shiite-majority Iraqi security forces.
Likewise, the rapid ouster of the Taliban regime after 9/11 was made possible by our partnership with Muslim fighters of the Afghan Northern Alliance. And in Southeast Asia, it was by working with the government of Indonesia — the most populous Muslim-majority country in the world — that Jemaah Islamiah, once one of al-Qaeda’s most capable affiliates, was routed.
The good news is that today, hundreds of thousands of Muslims are fighting to defeat the terrorists who wish to kill us all. This includes brave Afghan soldiers fighting the Islamic State and the Taliban, as well as Persian Gulf forces in Yemen battling both Iranian-backed Houthis and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And it includes Arab and Kurdish forces who are battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In fact, we should do more to support these partners of ours.
Inescapably, clearing territory of entrenched terrorist networks and then holding it takes boots on the ground. The question is — whether in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria or Mali — do the bulk of those boots need to be our own or those of local Muslim partners?
I fear that those who demonize and denigrate Islam make it more likely that it will be our own men and women who ultimately have to shoulder more of this fight — at greater cost in dollars and lives….
But it is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric. Demonizing a religious faith and its adherents not only runs contrary to our most cherished and fundamental values as a country; it is also corrosive to our vital national security interests and, ultimately, to the United States’ success in this war.

Christianblood says
I hear you!
Polk1970 says
My God,they were portraying this man as the second coming of McArthur,Eisenhower,and Patton all in one
This man headed the CIA while having pillow talk with Paula Broadwell,betraying State Secrets
Pere LaChaise says
General Betray-us is a craven coward.
ainu888 says
The general is a knowledgeable man with lots of practical experience and theoretical credentials, so a criticism of him should not be casual.
While the general seems to make a coherent point, it is flawed — our experience in India is an easy counter-example. We created a constitution and a political system in India that prefers the muslims over the majority hindus in practice, even though everyone is equal on paper. Did that ensure a minority muslim population that is grateful ? As an example, we subsidize the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca at the taxpayer’s expense.
The problem of extremism can only be solved by education and enlightened principles that originated in the renaissance, after one cannot force modernity upon anyone and violence if out of the question. But toward that goal, everyone needs to be willing to live in the modern era and not in the seventh century. A reply to an insult should be another insult, and not a chopped off neck.
This is not a level playing field.
hmmm says
agreed, Petraeus is certainly actin/speaking like a pet. Anything to stop Trump, but Trump continues to warn:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-refugees-will-launch-911-style-attacks/article/2591402
Debi Brand says
“General Betray-us is a craven coward.”
Indeed.
The proof ‘ in the pudding.
David says
Ah, the logic of the Left:
“Islam is a religion of peace, its adherents are just like any other religion; it should be forbidden to speak of murderous jihad, else there could be murderous jihad”.
Polk1970 says
yep,heads they win,tails we lose
Polk1970 says
and come to think of it,
Let’s hope he never is asked to speak at West Point to scramble Cadet’s thoughts.
Dave says
General David Petraeus was at one point giving up all “military intelligence” he had to satisfy his sexual desires. Now he wants to educate the American People on how we should react to the actions of Islam, Muslim and isis or any terrorist organization already in this country and to those that obviously will soon be here.
My father was in the Pacific Isle during WWII. I and my son were in the US Army as enlisted men and dedicated 3 and 4 years respectively. None of us revealed any “secrets” for any reason. And for your information, sir, I was in ASA and proud of it!
You, sir, need to keep your mouth shut and enjoy what our treasonous POTUS has “forgiven” you for. You, sir, are not an example of patriotism in the USA. You are a brother to the POTUS.
Debi Brand says
Amen.
Well said, Dave.
paul says
General Betrayus is a muslim
Westman says
From my perspective, Gen Petraeus has the needed action completely backwards. Right now there is only one Islam in core ideology. There is no “moderate” Islam.
It took the Protestant Reformation to defang the middle-age abuses of the Catholic Church and demote it from inquisitions and the control of national and private armies. This is exactly what is needed in Islam.
Islam needs continual pressure on both its dogma and behavior until Muslim leaders are forced to draw a line and declare openly, in Mosques, without reservation, that militant Islam is both wrong and refuse to support it; effectively declaring a reformation.
The stigma of militant Islam needs to be so embarassing and divisive that a split within both Sunni and Shia’a Islam is the only road to economic survival for Muslims. That means not buying oil from Saudi Arabia or Iran. That also means when Iran plays games with our sailors, they lose their oil loading platforms and if they continue they lose their oil fields.
Islam, as now constituted, deserves no respect until it declaratively reforms itself into education and equality for women, stops demanding Sharia, and participates civily in the democracies in which it resides.
It is time for free societies, as when Moses came down from the mountain, to declare that there is no mealy-character middle ground as Petraeus claims or wants, and demand that Islam either abides by the civil law or is given non-religious tax status and no special treatment under civil law. That means no polygamy(civil prosecution), no foreign-sponsored-paid Imams, no praying to hold up traffic(fines, jail), no seditious illegal demonstrations(fines, deportation), immediate “hate crime” prosecution/deportation for sexual or violent crimes in which Allahu Ackbar is uttered. If a particular Mosque is found to be a source of violent jihadists it should be closed, permanently. Even Muslim countries shutter troublesome Mosques. Losing a Mosque should be adequate incentive for members and Imams to report militancy.
Frankly, we should be pointing out the unjust practices, and the polarizing Muslim/Infidel aspects of Islam until Muslims are so annoyed that the dogma is officially changed to fit the apologetic taqiyya that is, so prevalent in the media.
Lord Wrath says
“Islam, as now constituted, deserves no respect until it declaratively reforms itself into education and equality for women, stops demanding Sharia, and participates civily in the democracies in which it resides”
I have spoken to the muslims that I work with and they have assured me that an “Islamic Reformation” is in progress… Islam is trying to purge itself of all modernism and moderation and trying to get back to fundamental Koranic doctrine… When Islam returns to its root teachings and Sharia law has been imposed in all corners of the world the “Reformation” will be complete…
nic says
ROFL.
Such cynicism in one so young.. 😛
Good post, Lord Wrath.
Dean says
He is simply a reminder of the American wisdom why military men are told who to kill and what to blow up to achieve politically approved objectives, despite the failure of democracy to determine rational objectives. Petraeus did an excellent job as tactical leader and architect in Iraq and Afghanistan but his grasp of the bigger picture is naïve and clueless at best. He commanded operatives to develop and manage tactical alliances with one group of savages against another and when American criticism of Islam is felt to threaten those temporary alliances and personnel in the field, he can’t see any farther.
I believed that he was elevated to CIA because Obama was using his popularity and already had something on him to control him. When he was silent during the aftermath of Benghazi I was telling friends that I wished I was on social media just to raise that question about what Obama was holding over him. Immediately after the election we got the answer. He is not only short-sighted regarding the larger Islam issue, no one like him would ever be allowed near a position of power in this administration if he couldn’t be controlled. Conservatives tend to credit military leaders with unearned political and political respect because of their special competence destroying the assigned enemies of America.
brenrod says
so who paid petraeus to write this…. ?
V says
It’s called freedom of speach….they need to get over it.
V says
Wow…this guy has LOST it!
Reuben Scratton says
Small wonder the Iraq war went as it did, with brains like his in charge.
Graham McGBH says
Iraq was/is a failure so there’s your answer
Polk1970 says
Now it is thanks to Obama
KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM says
I believe Barry deserves a severe bottom spanking. You agree Morti?
Custos Custodum says
What ELSE do they have on Petraeus?
Petraeus was never as much of a genius as is generally thought, although he had definite strengths in executing well-defined strategies.
On the other hand, remember that when he was head of the CIA, Petraeus thought that saving “draft” messages to be viewed by his mistress on a joint Gmail account (rather than actually sending the messages) would actually protect them from NSA snooping.
Barry’s team would not have been appointed Petraeus to head the CIA in 2011 had they not had several reliable “hooks” into Petraeus life to ensure his complete loyalty to their cause (Islamization, “Fundamental Transformation,” destruction of traditional American values).
Waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Polk1970 says
249 days and a wake-up
Polk1970 says
UPDATE
248 days and a wake-up
IOt is crawling,but it’s moving.
At least there’s no “time-outs” stopping the clock.
Polk1970 says
He was deliberatlly using “trade-craft” to avoid internet transmission
That IS a crime ,in the ACT of BETRAYING State Secrets
It also shows INTENT to CONCEAL the ILLEGAL ACT.
Custos Custodum says
The sad thing is, this is the “trade-craft” of a two-year-old who covers his eyes to make himself “invisible.”
Petraeus is clearly not a man who is interested in learning about reality beyond comforting conventional assumptions.
Jay Boo says
How can we trust anything David Petraeus says?
Obama has gotten to him.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/15/silencing-general-petraeus
Christianblood says
His name should be David-Betray-Us!
Michael Nollet says
Quite right. And it’s ironic that that moniker was bestowed upon him by the Left, when he was heading up the Surge Strategy that won the war for us in Iraq. Or would have if it hadn’t been thrown away by O’Bambi and Hillary Clinton. None of which prevents him now from saying that she would make a “tremendous President.” Is there ANY humiliation that this bootlicking toady WON’T subject himself to?
Polk1970 says
WHERE the the Great American Generals in these times?
They were THROWN OUT by Obama,leaving the Petraeus’; of the world.
Petraeus can’t hold Gen McCrystal’s boots
Jay Boo says
bigger picture
Petraeus silenced about Hillary / Obama
(it is the film) terrorism cover up in Libya
Polk1970 says
Considering his life,like Hillary’s is in their hands,he’ll jump in the air,and then ask them how high to go in the air.
JawsV says
Stop calling Islam a religion! Who knew a four-star general could be such a coward? Go ahead and submit to Islam you moron! P.S. Islam SUCKS!
Polk1970 says
A guy with his “misdeeds” being held over his head.
For him to endorse Clinton after having a front row seat to her CRIMES ,well draw your own conclusions.
quotha raven says
Stick a fork in it. We;re done.
Polk1970 says
NOT YET!
Quote:
America’s first Naval Hero,John Paul Jones”-Revolutionary War
We have NOT BEGUN to fight”
VOTE TRUMP!!!!
Michael Nollet says
Actually, Petraeus was the architect of the “surge strategy” that saved the situation from collapsing when G.W. Bush was President. It isn’t Petraeus’ fault that O’Bambi and Hillary Clinton threw Petraeus’ victory away.
Nevertheless, Petraeus is the supreme careerist hack and bootlicker. He s unfit for high office and must be kept firmly away from it. He’s on the Retired List now. Good. That’s where he needs to stay.
mortimer says
Fair enough. Petraeus called for throwing freedom under the bus. If we are not fighting for freedom, what are we fighting for.
If Muslims hate freedom, why would they want to come to free countries? They should not come.
Salome says
Because free countries have more cool stuff than sharia hellholes. They just haven’t worked out the connection. And, of course, the freeish countries of Europe have more free stuff–and that’s a definite attraction.
gravenimage says
Mortimer wrote:
If Muslims hate freedom, why would they want to come to free countries? They should not come.
……………………..
They don’t come here for freedom, Mortimer. They come here to take over and turn our free nations into Shari’ah hellholes, all while living on the dole and exploiting our wealthy and productive societies.
Mr. Lucky says
The surge strategy was not a success. What worked was bribing the warlords with millions of dollars to stand down. That is when the violence abated.
Polk1970 says
Now ,he won’t be able to get anywhere near Trump
GOOD!
Cecilia Ellis says
Petraeus: “But it is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric. Demonizing a religious faith and its adherents not only runs contrary to our most cherished and fundamental values as a country; it is also corrosive to our vital national security interests and, ultimately, to the United States’ success in this war.”
Mohamed Atta: “Just stay quiet and you’ll be okay. … Everything will be okay.”
Rev g says
When he says “demonizing” he really means “telling the truth”.
billybob says
How can you demonize a religious faith that is already demonic?
gravenimage says
Mohamed Atta: “Just stay quiet and you’ll be okay. … Everything will be okay.”
………………….
Grimly apt.
Thyme says
It’s a political ideology hiding behind the guise of a religion. Read the Quran and become Islamawise.
mortimer says
Stop denigrating the Nazis or more Germans will want to follow Hitler.
gravenimage says
Mortimer wrote:
Stop denigrating the Nazis or more Germans will want to follow Hitler.
………………..
Spot on, Mortimer.
Peter Charles says
Funny, nothing about muslims stopping inflammatory speech or actions, like , say, screaming allahu akbar as they kill Christians , Jews and other “apostates”. Or how about an apology and restitution for the 28,000 plus FATAL terrorists attacks since 9-11-2001 . Or for that matter, how about an apology for 9-11 and before. . General P., let’s hear your answer.
mortimer says
Petaeus wants us not to mention the jihad doctrine.
Polk1970 says
MacArthur is rolling in his grave
And you can be sure he NEVER betrayed military secrets.
It would have been better if Patraeus had hired a hooker .
re: Broadweell,
Petraeus the “genius” traded his country for sex
mortimer says
Petraeus is wrong to think censorship, rather than debate is the answer.
I cannot understand a general who does not realize that FREEDOM is what we are willing to die for, not for enduring under censorship!
We fought for Europe’s liberation two times in the 20th century. We will not surrender to his CENSORSHIP when we refused Hitler’s, Mussolini’s and Tojo’s CENSORSHIP.
We don’t want cultural Marxist censorship or any Marxist or other CENSORSHIP.
Shmooviyet says
Yes, amusing how these fellows always see islam as the victimized ‘religion’… or as a religion at all.
Betraytor, “a sense of basic security” WILL be punctured if sane people continue frowning on bloodshed and terror? Thought that had already been done. I would ask him to NAME the *numerous* Western pols who are proposing “blanket discrimination”. If only he could!
We are offending ‘them’ by merely existing– how would islam fix that? Another bends over and bites the dust…
Polk1970 says
By the way,
This is a guy that MISTREATED his wife by CHEATING on her.
Broadwell’s sexual prowess must have driven him wild ,,to BETRAY country and wife
Bill says
“Inescapably, clearing territory of entrenched terrorist networks and then holding it takes boots on the ground. The question is — whether in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria or Mali — do the bulk of those boots need to be our own or those of local Muslim partners?”
We are fighting the damn fight right here in this country with civilian boots on the ground and targets on our backs! Where has he been hiding? NYC, Washington DC, Chattanooga, Little Rock, San Bernadino and other cities. Meanwhile Obama and the Democrats are ushering in Jihad soldiers as we speak, while seeking to disarm us and strip away our Second Amendment rights at the same time. This “perfumed prince” (credit Col. Hackworth for that apt description) urges more appeasement and elimination of the First Amendment rights he was sworn to protect. Of course to Petraeus, any truth written or spoken about Islam, or criticism of Islam is “hate speech”. What a loser. Then, now and forever.
Jaladhi says
The world is full of gutless idiots!! Such a call from Gen. Petraeous doesn’t make sense. He should be the one taking this fight to Muslims, instead he caves in!! Doesn’t he know the self censorship doesn’t work with them. Even then our mere presence offends Muslims – so what does he suggest we should kill ourselves? Totally moronic call!1 If we take the fight to Muslims they will run – they are cowards. They only show their bravery to weak, women and children.
b.a. freeman says
yup. that’s how they started out, too – killing, robbing, raping, and looting unarmed civilians. most of the highly-touted “battles” from the beginning of islam were really pirate raids by cowardly killers of innocents. the tradition continues after 1400+ years….
Polk1970 says
He KNOWS
He has an pendulam over his head re:Probation
Polk1970 says
Six-Day War–1967
The road to the Suez Canal thru Sinia littered with Arab/Egyptian military wapons,equiptment,uniforms,boots,including Soviet tanks,abandoned by the FLEEING Egyptians.
There was a joke that the Soviet leader phoned Israeli PM Eshkol prior to the start of the war asking him what types of weapons Israel would like,and then he provided them to Egyptknowing they would fall,intact and ,in many cases,unused into Israeli hands.
Iraq War —–2003
REPLAY,only this time it was Saddam Husseins Iraqi Army and Republican Guards and it was the US Army and USMC on their tails
Champ says
I see Betrayus not Petraeus!
mortimer says
Petraeus’s thinking is typical of many military, police or other elitists. The common people don’t need to be informed because they get in the way. He wants the voters to get out of his way.
However, those ‘common people’ are being asked to pay his SALARY! Who does he think is the boss, him? or the voters?
How arrogant that he thinks we the voters should be lied to while we pay for programs we hate and don’t understand because the elitists are keeping us in the dark! He is actually describing a form of fascist government which the US government appears to be practicing at the top.
The big lie they kept repeating is that Islam is ‘the-religion-of-peace’ and that there is a benign, non-jihadist Islam. All Islam is jihadist! Jihad is the core of Islam, but we must not describe jihad or tell anyone jihad’s ominous, totalitarian implications…which all Muslims understand already. Will Muslims be surprised to learn that Islam is totalitarian? Hardly. The only victims are Western people who are being lied to and told to pay for endless wars against ‘terror’, when the source of the terror is ISLAM. (K.8.60 – turhibunna…terrorized them). We need a discussion about the deep hatred of Islam for the part of the human race that isn’t Muslim. Trump is asking for that open and free discussion. Islam is evil, and I believe most Muslims know it already.
If we are not fighting to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of information and the freedom of assembly, what the heck are we fighting for?
Anyone agree?
b.a. freeman says
yes, i agree, but trump is backing off now. i see a deal in the future…
mortimer says
Disagree with b.a.f. – Trump is a NEGOTIATOR. He thinks on his feet. He doesn’t start knowing where he’s going. He’s tentative. He’s fishing for a deal.
If anyone can get deals for America and the West, it’s Trump. My only concern is Trump’s philosophical shallowness. He has no idea that freedom of expression is the corner stone of the American republic.
That’s not acceptable in a presidential wannabe.
Polk1970 says
Don’t worry
It’s election time
His GUT is in the right place and unless he beats Hillary or any other Democrat,he can’t do anything.
The problem is today’s technology,because the cameras and bright lights are never turned off,and like any reasonable normal human being Trump is capable of altering his views based on new facts,evidence,and changing circumstances
Strict ,unwavering ideologs,whether Left or Righ ,t,cannot suceed at governing,because they’re always trying to squeeze round pegs(current realities) into square pegs(unwavering “principled” ideology pegs.
.
Mark Swan says
Agree Absolutely
Is this all He has to say, that, we face a real threat from Islam, but can not say so—because, the powers-to-be, refuse to come to terms with Islam.
Maybe letting Islam come-to-a-head is the best way to get it aired-out and move-on.
What He seems to say, here, is that those people, who already know they don’t want
any more Islam, in their midst, are correct, but they should not say so, because of what
we have been doing, and it is in so many ways, obviously the opposite of what we should have been doing, we have already destroyed thousands of American lives, bankrupted our economy, stirred up people in so many other lands to hate us, forever, and we just can not admit Islam is still truly the ongoing problem, and His only urging is, stay the course.
quotha raven says
Morti – I agree with you. What you say is what’s behind my often saying “Welcome to Post-Constitutional USA.
IMHO we are undeniably in the early stages of WWIII. Anyone agree?
Cheers!
quotha raven
Mark Swan says
Yes
Papa Whiskey says
To truly follow Petraeus’s logic, one should also forbear from criticism of right-wing extremists for fear that they’ll get angry and commit violence. So liberals should all shut up about that. Think they’ll do it?
OK, you can stop laughing now.
mortimer says
Exactly. If we tell Muslims their religion teaches violence against the disbelievers, they’ll kill us.
Jay Boo says
Not if we kill them first.
Am I allowed to say that.
Are you saying that Muslims are genocidal?
mortimer says
Your program is called genocidal supremacism. You are advocating crimes against humanity. You are morally at the same level as Islam.
Jay Boo says
Relax kafir snorty morty, I am just messing with your knee jerk fascination and begrudging admiration of Muslims who you claim are not responsible for their actions.
But if they wish to kill us we must read their ‘holy’ book and learn to show them that we are their friends. Right!
Muslims are genocidal
Mirren10 says
”Muslims are genocidal.”
No, they’re not. Genocide of all non-mohammedans would mean no jizya, no slaves, no dhimmis. mohammedans would actually have to work productively.
islam teaches that islam must prevail, but they’ll wait until the end times, when ‘isa’ comes to break all the crosses, and kill all the pigs. (us).
I thought you knew all this.
Champ says
mortimer wrote:
Your program is called genocidal supremacism. You are advocating crimes against humanity. You are morally at the same level as Islam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Mortimer is lying. This isn’t what Jay Boo is advocating, and Mortimer should be ashamed of himself! There you go AGAIN Mortimer, claiming things against Jay Boo that aren’t even remotely true. Good giref.
Hey if think that Jay Boo made a “genocidal” remark then report it to Robert Spencer, because he will remove it lickety-split! But you won’t report it because it ISN’T a “genocidal” comment as you allege. LIAR!
Jay Boo says
Ooooooh …………….”they’ll kill us”
News Flash
Muslims also have no respect for infidels who always take that (defensive) posture.
Mort 101
1 Muslims have no choice but to want to kill us blah .. blah it is not their fault, the Koran tells them so blah .. blah … It is our responsibility to “Deprogram” them.
mortimer says
You should be deprogrammed, but have the basis in philosophy to follow it.
Jay Boo says
mortimer
Killing indiscriminately is genocide.
Self-Defense is not.
Learn the difference.
Mortimer is offended by the thought of killing Muslims who wish to kill us.
gravenimage says
Mortimer wrote, replying to Jay Boo:
You should be deprogrammed, but have the basis in philosophy to follow it.
……………………
Self defense is *not* genocide, Mortimer–nor is it morally equivalent.
Why should anyone be “deprogrammed” from thinking we have the right to fight back against Jihad?
And Jay Boo, I do *not* believe that Mortimer actually admires Muslims–but he *is* quick to condemn Anti-Jihadists as (supposedly) advocating the genocide of Muslims, usually based in next to nothing.
I think he is terrified that we will sink to the level of Jihadists–although we never do.
By the way, Papa Whiskey, good to see you posting again. Spot on comment.
CogitoErgoSum says
Petraeus offers further proof that Islam is not a religion of peace. He is arguing that to offend Muslims is to run the risk that they will turn violent and attack us. So don’t do anything that might offend them …. which, I might add, is just the sort of attitude one should look for in a choosing a general (if you don’t mind losing all of your battles, that is).
Polk1970 says
Battles?
What Battles?
Immediatlly ask for “Terms of Surrender”
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Petraeus rates respect on things Islam because of the putative success of his surge. The surge, you’ll remember, was where the General showered tribal leaders with truckloads of dollars to tamp down the killing. When the flow of U.S. taxpayer money stopped, the violence started anew.
He’s more of a military academician that a fighting general, and that shows in the naive Hearts and Minds strategy he pursued in Dar al Islam. It’s one thing to take this dope’s advice on buying peace with cash, it’s another to self-censor to stop Moslems from being themselves, being what they’re going to be anyway. But on TV and in the newspapers, where it counts, Petraeus is given high regard by news entertainers and politicians alike. This is disastrous in and of itself, but moves beyond that when he interjects his delusions into a presidential campaign to stop the first ever candidate to approach speaking of Moslems and Islam for what they really are.
Polk1970 says
Where was he when they were taught Vietnam”?
“Hearts and Minds” did NOT work in Vietnam and NEVER will work with Muslims.
NEVER.
EVER
mortimer says
It’s the ideology, stupid.
Jay Boo says
No Mortimer it is not the ideology to blame.
Wake up!
It is the filthy dirty Muslims
Their hearts and minds only use the ideology to excuse their filthy dirty Muslim depravity.
gravenimage says
Alarmed Pig Farmer wrote:
Petraeus rates respect on things Islam because of the putative success of his surge. The surge, you’ll remember, was where the General showered tribal leaders with truckloads of dollars to tamp down the killing. When the flow of U.S. taxpayer money stopped, the violence started anew.
…………………….
And APF, often the violence did not really stop at all–it just moved to another spot where we weren’t currently “surging”.
It was like a giant game of Whack-a-Mole, where we were paying the moles to back off for a while…
Mark Swan says
Exactly
Jack Holan says
General Petraeus first you remove classified documents from a secure Government Site and give it to someone without clearance in an unsecured environment. Now you are suggesting that the most treasured basic American Freedom, Freedom of Speech/Expression should be muted to accommodate people whom we are opening the door to out American generosity. No sir, in life usually voluntary becomes involuntary. As Hillary said everyone will need to shun those that break the rule. Of we know if that doesn’t work then illegal laws will be enacted, Americans lose their G-d Given Rights for one religion most of us don’t believe in. It’s almost traitorous to suggest that we adhere to blasphemy laws of Sharia. If this is how the Newbies want to live that’s fine they should remain in aMuslim Country ruled by Sharia it is not my job to conform to the religion they bring with them.
They have murdered and destroyed my people all over the Mid East and plan to destroy and murder every Jew in Israel and you think I’m going to respect them? Today they are murdering Christians in the Muslim World burning downChurches and clear about. Petraeus you betray us!
Polk1970 says
Yea,but he great sex with Broadwell.
Lord Wrath says
Don’t be so sure about the great sex… I’d venture to say that he probably had trouble rising to the occasion… It seems more likely to me that he was the recipient of her strap on!!!
pennant8 says
On the upside, since all jihadists attacks have as their goal the imposition of sharia with its laws against blasphemy and slander, if we just go ahead and adopt those laws on our own then the jihadists won’t have to attack us anymore.
marblew says
General, very well said as one would expect from a member in good standing with the Rockefeller CFR
and a Bilderberg attendee. Don’t forget to send us a post card from Dresden, Germany, next month, and say “hi” to Teufele Merkel for us. That policy of silence as civilised countries are having their populations raped (whether male or female) and murdered is consistent with your policy of having our troops walk about in Afghanistan and be willing to please the enemy by openly receiving fire.
The motives of those leading us should be obvious to all. They are opposed to Judeo-Christian values and patriotic national sovereignty. They are Globalists looking for complete control of humanity in a world population that will not meet their goal until at least six billion people are killed. In my opinion, they are Luciferians trying to fulfill Satan’s plan. Clergy, wake up!
Jack Diamond says
The best and brightest at work here. Former Commander of Central Command, former director of the CIA. Rarefied air. But no match for Paula Broadwell (or Jill Kelley). And no match for the Jihad either.
The waste of life and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, having everything to do with the failure to understand what victory should look like, and everything to do with not understanding the enemy and his motivation and aims; having everything everything to do with false and dangerous (and often fatal) assumptions about the Muslim world and our infidel place in it…forget all that. We still need those Muslim allies to fight those extremists and by-golly it’s gonna happen someday, then our problems are over. Just like in Iraq when we paid off all the tribesmen, I mean, won their “hearts and minds”, during the surge. And just like Iraq, in America, we really need to be nicer to Muslims and not antagonize them, and force them to have to kill us. The poison is not in Islam and its teachings, it is us.
Patraeus could have done his duty and learn the subject at hand, Islam, but he never did. That was the real dereliction of duty. Instead of recommending his officers read and study Jihad doctrine he was apparently recommending T.E. Lawrence, the notorious charlatan with his myth-making about “winning the Arab tribes” as a model for Iraq (see Hugh Fitzgerald’s series at JW on “Arabia Petraea”). His memoir needs to be called “The March of Folly”; or maybe he’ll call it “Turn of the Screw.”
Polk1970 says
Think about this:
While he was screwing Paula B,he was screwing America at the same time.
Imagine that pillow talk,with her using sex as a “tool”
dsinc says
He was so busy emailing and messaging he didn’t have time to be a general.
gravenimage says
Jack Diamond wrote:
(see Hugh Fitzgerald’s series at JW on “Arabia Petraea”).
………………………
Yes–excellent stuff, Jack:
“Fitzgerald: Arabia Petraea, Or General Petraeus’ Middle East (Part I)”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/fitzgerald-arabia-petraea-or-general-petraeus-middle-east-part-i
“Fitzgerald: Arabia Petraea, Or General Petraeus’ Middle East (Part 2)”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/fitzgerald-arabia-petraea-or-general-petraeus-middle-east-part-2
Bill says
I detest the politics of David Petraeus. He is an enemy of the Constitution. He assumes that the only threat to the West is from violent Islamicists. In other words, if we succumb to the demands of violent Muslim jihadis, they will leave us alone. He fails to perceive the greatest threat: the immigration, demographics and politics of “moderate” Muslims.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Clown admonishments like this one from the failed General are the reason why the public knows so little about Islam. They sense Moslems are rotten murderous troublemakers, and they are that, but there is no education about them because public discussion of the scriptures, the doctrines and the history is regarded as verboten, a sure recipe for career suicide, or even a knife in the chest in the parking lot going home from work. Silent night, dark night, benighted.
somehistory says
Until someone opens their mouth and speaks, they may convince others of their wisdom. This from the adulterer:
“…Moreover, the fact is that free and open societies such as ours depend on a sense of basic security to function. If terrorism succeeds in puncturing that, it can threaten the very fabric of our democracy — which is, indeed, a central element of the terrorist strategy.”
***********************************************************************************************
“free and open” means being “free* to speak and think as a citizen chooses.
“open” means not being afraid to say and do what the government doesn’t necessarily like. The *basic security* comes from being able to freely say we don’t like the policies…or even the person…of a politician. If a citizen is not allowed to say what they think unless what they think agrees with the one deciding who gets to speak and about what to speak, that citizen is not *free* and the society is not *open.*
If a citizen must censor their speaking in order to be *free*…that citizen is not *free.*
If a citizen must censor their speaking in order to live *openly*…that citizen is not living *openly.*
If this guy wishes to keep quiet about what islam is…an evil unlawful way of behaving and treating others according to the speaking of satan the demon, then that is his choice. But that makes him a slave to islam and the moslim adherents. It makes him a slave to satan and the wild beast of islam.
Being against islam and its evil is not *bigotry.* It is self-preservation.
Being against islam in recognition of its true nature is to be informed. And to speak about the evils of islam is as necessary as breathing…if one wishes to keep living free.
How can society stay *free and open* if people are afraid to speak as they think?
He began this nonsense back when he went after the man in Florida who was planning to burn the unholy book of islam. He called for this man to be stopped by the government in order to *keep safe* from terrorism.
That didn’t work out so well as the general said, as there are no *mass burnings* of the unholy book…but terrorism in the name of the book and its author and its unlawful evil has not stopped.
There has been much appeasement of moslims since then…women given the *freedom* to wear the scarf in all kinds of jobs and situations that others are not allowed to wear their choice of apparel…moslims paid to not do their job, such as hauling beer for their employer…moslims given high government jobs…security jobs as airports…little terrorists given tours of the white house and the u.n….
Government training manuals being re-written to suit moslims who advocate for terrorists….
This is just as ignorant as the woman who said fat people should not be told by their doctors to lose weight even if it would benefit their health because it is *fat shaming* and might hurt their feelings.
moslims…if the don’t already know…need to be told their belief is evil and against the Creator of heaven and earth. And if they do know that, they can’t be allowed, in any case, to force that evil onto others.
gravenimage says
somehistory wrote:
He began this nonsense back when he went after the man in Florida who was planning to burn the unholy book of islam. He called for this man to be stopped by the government in order to *keep safe* from terrorism.
………………….
You aren’t wrong, somehistory:
“Petraeus Says Quran Burning Endangers War Effort”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703806304576240643831942006
“Every security force leader’s worst nightmare is being confronted by essentially a mob, if you will, especially one that can be influenced by individuals that want to incite violence, who want to try to hijack passions, in this case, perhaps understandable passions,” Gen. Petraeus said in the Sunday interview…
“This was a surprise,” Gen. Petraeus said. The Quran burning in Florida, he added, was “hateful, extremely disrespectful and enormously intolerant.”
So–slaughtering innocent people because someone half-way around the world bbq’d a Qur’an is an “understandable passion”, but critiquing the contents of the violent Qur’an is “hateful”.
And this guy was supposed to be defending American values…
Jack Diamond says
Which also brings to mind this:
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S. apologized Tuesday for the burning of Muslim holy books that had been pulled from the shelves of a detention center library adjoining a major base in eastern Afghanistan because they contained extremist messages or inscriptions.
The White House echoed military officials in saying that the burning of Qurans and other Islamic reading material that had been tossed in a pile of garbage was an accident.
Demonstrators who gathered outside Bagram Air Field, one of the largest U.S. bases in Afghanistan, shouted, “Die, die, foreigners!”
A Western military official with knowledge of the incident said it appeared that the Qurans and other Islamic readings in the library were being used to fuel extremism, and that detainees at Parwan Detention Facility, which adjoins Bagram, were writing on the documents to exchange extremist messages. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
In April 2011, Afghans protesting the burning of a Quran by a Florida pastor turned deadly when gunmen in the crowd stormed a U.N. compound in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif and killed three staffers and four Nepalese guards.
Gen. John Allen (apologized) to the president of Afghanistan, the government of Afghanistan and “most importantly … to the noble people of Afghanistan.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-apologizes-quran-burnings-afghanistan-195626659.html
—————-
Allen, to complete the circle, was investigated for trading sexually explicit emails with the third person in the Petraeus-Broadwell triangle, Jill Kelley.
The joke here, of course, is that the Qur’an itself contained the “extremist messages” they were only finding scribbled in the margins. I suppose the other joke (on the infidels) is that
Muslims traditionally disposed of old, faded, or broken-down Qur’ans by means of burial, placing it in flowing water, or BURNING them.
No such apologies were made when the U.S. military confiscated and burned Bibles that had been translated into Afghan languages, because they would be used to “try to convert Afghans” according to the Defense Department.
Cecilia Ellis says
Jack, a U. S. military person, who was stationed at the site at which Qur’ans were burned, revealed to me the following:
1. The Qur’ans were being checked out from the detention center library by the prisoners.
2. The prisoners were exchanging site intelligence information, riot strategies, escape plans, and kill lists, all of which were being written on the pages of those checked-out Qur’ans.
3. The American military discovered the Qur’anic pipeline.
4. American military personnel were ordered to remove and to destroy all copies containing handwritten messages.
5. American military personnel were ordered to burn those copies, as they burned all other trash.
While I can not verify that the above information is correct, I have no reason to doubt this individual. There should have been no American apology . . . from anyone.
Jack Diamond says
No there should have been no apologies. Quite the contrary. But apologizing to Muslims so they won’t scream “die, die die!” or shoot up a UN compound, seems to be the default position. And so what happened after they were burned? Was the library closed to prisoners? Were Qur’ans, their manuals of war, no longer made available? Or were just pencils no longer available?
Cecilia Ellis says
Jack, I asked the very questions that you asked. Again, according to the individual with whom I spoke, the Qur’ans were replaced with new copies. Because the individual was not assigned to the detention center, further information was unknown. The number of replacement copies was unknown. For that reason, I suspect that library privileges remained, though perhaps modified.
DJ says
You ain’t no Charles Martel bruv.
KB says
I respect Muslims who only practice the peaceful and more human portions of the Koran. Same thing with the Christians and the Jews who do not do live sacrifices anymore. The Islamic/ Muslim Mohammad worshipping folks who want to live a thousand years ago, beheading need to modernize or die.
ponchard colin says
“…Demonizing a religious faith…” – it is not a religious faith – it is a totalitarian political, militarist, psychological brain washing noetic and physiological dynamic disguised as a religion for the raison d’etre of the universal global submission to this mono culture to the in toto exclusion of other social systems. Go read some books and travel to these totalitarian mono cultures [ eg.:- Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc., ].
Angemon says
“Political correctness” is a term hailing from Soviet Russia, where it meant that Soviets had to have the “correct” positions on “political” matters – meaning that they had to toe the party line or else there was a vacancy in the Gulag Archipelago with your name on it
Toe the party line or else bad things will happen to you. Sounds familiar?
Wellington says
Just substitute Nazism for Islam, General. Would you still state what you did? And if you don’t know, General, that Islam is spiritual fascism, then shame on you for not knowing this because the evidence is voluminous that it is. Please consult both Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill to learn what Islam is really all about, General.
Right now I’d have to put you in the pathetic category. Easily so. With people in the military like you, I fear for the future of freedom. Wake up, damn it.
Rob says
Petreaeus – the Christian Noam Chomsky.
Wellington says
With respect, Rob, Chomsky is a complete loon who sees the US as the Darth Vader of nation states. Comparing Petraeus to Chomsky is off the mark and actually diminishes criticism of Petraeus, which must be accurate in order to be effective. Frankly, Petraeus is far more troublesome than Chomsky PRECISELY because he is not a loon and comes across as mainstream in sundry ways.
mortimer says
Petraeus is asking for censorship for the duration of the war against Islamic terrorist groups, but that could take many years. In the meantime, we are not to criticize the atrocities committed by our erstwhile Islamic allies…even crimes against humanity. We are not to discuss the ideology that allows the genocide of kafirs, the suppression of women’s rights, theocratic dictatorship, press freedom, freedom of assembly, etc.
We must not talk about all the things we love that Muslims hate.
His making the mission more important than our core philosophy is what is at fault.
rubiconcrest says
Let me see if I understand David. We cannot tell the truth about Islam because Muslims will fee demonized and denigrated and this will result in us losing our two-faced allies in the ME. When we put boots on the ground again more Americans will die. We also have to be careful not to be too honest at home because we run the danger of losing the wonderful cooperation between the Muslim community and the police in the USA. Let’s continue to do what we have been doing but ‘do it smarter’….
Mark Swan says
That’s pretty much it rubiconcrest
mgoldberg says
So to petraeus, if you call out ‘Islam’ for what it teaches and is canonical and the historical actions indicate as it’s history, those muslims will become violent and kill even more.
So… let’s reason this out. If we were to to that to Jews, to Christians, to Buddhists, to Hindus, to zoroastrians, to Bahai, would any of those groups then pose any kind of danger of killing others….
No, they would not.
So, the answer is, it is no muslims we call out, but Islam, and the tyrannical governments that impose their Sharia upon all others as well as muslims.
And if the reality is that ‘muslims’ will then be so malleable as to hate others enough to kill them even more than now…. what have we learned.
That we should have called out Islam as well as all our appeasers all the sooner, and have merely entered the reality that is going on but without blinders.
All homicidists of the muslim variety should be buried in dead pig carcasses.
Edward says
Here we go again…..the aged old question…..”What came first the chicken or the egg”
Petraeus cited:
“For that reason, I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion”
Appeasement, the Liberal style. A liberal mindset; side with the enemy and thought hoping (w/crossed fingers) they will reason with us.
Knowingly, It’s only prudent that we will not pat a cobra in it head for we are cognizant that a cobra cannot be domesticated or a Muslim will not assimilate with other social cultures for that matter.
Back to the question; was it the egg or the chicken……saying whom antagonized the early Muslims to begin with?
The reference found on this noted website affirms that the innate attributes of the early Muslims terrorist acts were the very beginning of what we now see as our cross to bear.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/antagonizing.htm
Here’s are two excerpts from that treatise:
“It is our intention to show in this paper that the claim that the pagans were the ones who first persecuted Muhammad is not supported by the Islamic data. We will see that the Islamic evidence actually shows that it was Muhammad who first attacked and antagonized the pagan Meccans by assaulting their religion and family values, thereby igniting the anger of the Meccans and instigating their subsequent retaliation against Muhammad and his followers.”
“Another point worth emphasizing is that it is the Islamic sources themselves that do not support the common Muslim theory that the pagans were the ones who antagonized Muhammad. For nearly every conflict in this world, whether wars between nations or arguments between individuals, if one were to ask one of the parties involved, one will almost always get the answer that the other side started it. The others are guilty that this confrontation ever went so far. It is common sense that in order to determine the truth, one needs to look at the arguments from both sides. History is usually written by those who were victorious. That does not necessarily mean that their view of things is objectively true.”
From there on Muhammad and his followers have continued with their complaint to this day! We have to expose the Muslim warring mindset to prove that they have been on an unjustifiable campaign to preserve their honor of which they don’t deserve!
The Muslims started their own inflicted dilemma at the price of thousand innocents for +1400 years!
“And because of this fact, Muhammad was wrong for insulting and antagonizing the Meccans, wrong for mustering up an army to conquer Mecca, wrong for creating a religion that has ensnared billions of lives throughout the centuries, and which has caused countless deaths and sufferings till this very day.”
– http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/antagonizing.htm
Islam is certainly not their answer to their REDEMPTION!
shoehorn of africa says
‘blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.’
Some might call it ‘discernment’.
More Ham Ed says
Time for another cartoon contest.
With a ham themed buffet.
David says
Yes! With some plump little piglets in the petting zoo!
Where can I buy my advanced tickets?
R Cole says
Because freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution in the US – they have to beg you to give it up willingly!!
David says
He is “concerned about blanket discrimination “????
He must be in a very small bubble of warped space-time!
The rest of us, who must live in this reality, are very concerned with Islam’s Blanket discrimination against: ALL THE REST OF HUMANITY! !!
It has got to be the drinking water in and around Washington, D.C.
Steve Klein says
Hard to believe this man was (possibly still is) such a hero among conservatives.
Stephen says
Not really.
Polk1970 says
That was before Broadwell got hold of his “head”
Hope says
“those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.”
For many people with whom I have debated islam, this one is their favorite line from the liberal playbook. They’ve heard it from Barack Obama and they’ve heard it on CNN and they parrot it dutifully. They believe it with all their hearts because it serves several needs for them.
1.It gives them someone to blame other than muslims, who must remain the blameless victims (it’s YOU people who are provoking them).
2. It gives them a “logical” explanation of why islamic terrorism continues to accelerate (if only we would stop offending them, muslims would stop killing us).
3.It provides them with a false sense of security and control over the situation, as though our behavior is the deciding factor in muslims choosing to wage jihad (Gosh, I know Allah commands me to kill these people, but I won’t because well, they’ve just been so darned nice to me…)
4. Since it explains so neatly and completely the origins of jihad and how to stop it, it absolves them of any need to actually pick up a koran and read it. It absolves them of any need to investigate further and find out some really inconvenient truths they do not want to know.
vlparker says
Yes, we must protect freedom of ‘religion’ at all costs even if the ‘religion’ has a mass murderer for a prophet and a doctrine of world conquest. Libtard idiot.
mortimer says
Supremacist theocratic fascism will never be compatible with pluralistic, liberal democracy.
vlparker says
That’s pretty obvious to anyone with a brain. Unfortunately, our leaders seem to be brainless.
Steve Klein says
I’m going to say, because Donald Trump retreated, saying his proposed ban on Muslim immigration was only a suggestion, not a policy proposal, men like David Petraeus sensed a weakening, a softening. Patraeus ‘smelled blood in the water’ so to speak.
Anke L. says
It is my opinion, that belief systems (religion) do not deserve respect. Only the truth of proven facts deserve that.
Also people with good social and moral behavior deserve respect, regardless of their belief. Clearly not
all Moslems are bad people, but Islam is a bad Religion. Actually it is a political system with overtones
of Religion,which contents is largely stolen material from the prlor existing wisdome and teaching of Judaism and Christianity…Most Moslems do not know their own “religion” and they definitely have no
respect for the religion of others. It is truely worthwhile studying this….it is eyeopening, and you
will understand that we cannot give any allowance of power to this evil ideology.
reyol says
Sucking up to Islam was the keystone to his Counterinsurgency Strategy. Anyone who stands up to Islam is losing according to his playbook.
lminterests says
I am willing to take on risk if that is necessary for truth. The government, military, Christians both individually and corporately seem to have become cowards. To many in out culture seem to have developed a self loathing with an unwillingness to stand up for our principles.
gravenimage says
So the upshot of Petraeus’ argument is that we must not say things to which Muslims might object, because this will just make more of them become jihadis.
………………………
How many times have we heard *this* before, from (ostensibly) lesser men than General Petraeus?
Especially in the context of Trump’s call for a temporary halt to Muslim immigration while we determine a practical way of vetting terrorists (whether such a method is possible is another issue), this means that Petraeus would have us continue to let in hordes of Muslims which he openly admits here are apt to become violent Jihadists should they become offended over anything at all.
Remember that this man had command in Iraq at one point. Chances are that that venture never had any chance of success, given that it is a Muslim hell hole–but with men of this appalling caliber in charge failure there was a virtual certainty.
Nabi says
Like so many of his irresolute ilk it never seems to have entered his empty head to consider Islamists as the bigots although with his own integrated, tolerant society he uses the word fast and loose. Disgusting creature!
pdxnag says
Can I say that someone yelling the Islamic war cry of Allahu Akbar! (my god is greater than your god, prepare to die for Allah) is “inflammatory political discourse”? (Terrorism: violence to achieve political goal.)
Can we ask a Muslim to become an apostate from Islam, precisely because of the inherent commands within Islam to wage violent and non-violent sedition, and to commit evil generally against non-Muslims?
No Fear says
“demonising a religious faith” is fine if the religious faith is supremacist, racist and dangerous.
Jeff says
Since when is speaking or acting upon the truth considered hate?
Only in a godless society does this mindset have room to grow.
This man is a coward and has no credibility. islam is an offense to God and to all of humanity, it is a culture of death, it always has been and always will be. If muslims are offended by hearing the truth, so be it, no one should ever use self censorship or be censored by others when confronting this satanic cult or any other group of people or individuals who adhere to a doctrine or lifestyle that imposes its will upon others while demanding tolerance, acceptance of or outright submission to it/them. islamic doctrine speaks for itself and anyone who blames non muslims for the behavior of muslims ought to look into the 1400 years that this cult has existed and study these past 1400 years of murder, rape, slavery, supremecist ideology and every other vile belief and action that comes from those who belong to it, as those very things are rooted in the foundations of this abomination called islam. It is indeed sad to see how liberalism has turned our once great nation into a delusional wasteland of people who cannot come to terms with reality, much like the muslims who make excuses for all that is unrighteous.
citycat says
Who is it that one must not offend?
That is usually someone like God, or the boss man, or a violent psychopath, or someone to be feared for various reasons.
Being careful not to offend Muslims is giving Muslims an artificial status to be feared of, and thus more confidence on top of the already present underlingering confidence from the belief that Muslims are superior to infidels who are to be conquered, infidels are inferior and therefore deserve to be downgraded, which the infidels are doing to themselves, by self downgrading through treachery, cowardice, lying, fear, or else a total warped perception of the ongoing creeping breeding Vampiric Entity called Islam/Muslims.
“against people on the basis of their religion”
is not the same as
‘against Muslims on the basis of their war machine manual called the Qur’an.’
Petraeus is either stupid, or a Muslim, or frightened of speaking the truth.
Unbelievable
CrossWare says
“The globalists LOVE Islam. It’s everything they could possibly want in a false religion. They love its brutality, the way it viciously polices its own and crushes dissent from within. They love its dehumanization, how it turns its followers into little more than human ammunition, eager to be spent in the slaughter of infidels. They love its crushing of spirit, how it keeps entire populations ignorant of history and science while living in destitute poverty, convincing them that fighting the infidels is more important than civilian infrastructure. They love its real rape culture, the way it reduces women and girls to mere livestock, to be raped or beaten or killed or sold on a whim. But most of all, they love its system of unquestioning loyalty, how its followers wouldn’t dare think twice if their imams told them to butcher that person or blow up that kindergarten or beat their own daughter to death. This is why the demonic death cult of Islam has been chosen by the globalists as the official false religion of their new world order.” – cyberjacques
I found this on another site but it perfectly sums it up!
A.T. Halmay says
I would hate to have him head our army if we get into any war. He looked much brighter than he is.
nic says
“During the surge in Iraq, we were able to roll back the tide of al-Qaeda and associated insurgents because we succeeded in mobilizing Iraqis ….”
Umm… yeeeeess…. and how well does the good General think Iraq and Afghanistan are turning out ? Extremists in retreat are they ?
Oh wait.. no.. they’re not.
Rev g says
Such reformation as you seek in Islam would be detrimental, not beneficial.
The Protestant reformation brought scripture to the people, and forged a return to biblical ideals.
Such a thing, for islam, has been happening, and isn’t pretty.
To create a benign form of islam is to make it no longer islamic.
Kasey says
After reading General Petraeus’ comments on Islam, its rather obvious that he just doesn’t get it at all.
Islam is not a religion but an IDEOLOGY akin to totalitarianism, which masquerades as a religion to get its advantages and deflect criticism and the reality of “Islam in action”.
Until he and other major players in the West get to understand that and behave accordingly towards it, [as well as many Muslims themselves] the conflict will continue until Islamic hierarchies everywhere and the OIC come to grips with that reality and reform it from its grass roots.
Otherwise most people who face its reality will continue to see The Koran and other Islamic texts as manuals with directives for lethal terror and which lay the seeds of radicalization in every Islamic youth’s mind or convert to it.
Baucent says
“But it is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric.”
So is talking and educating people about “the danger of Islamist extremism” also anti-muslim bigotry? It could be if versed in certain terms, but it doesn’t need to be, nor is generally from my observation. The General appears to be advocating a head in the sand approach, say nothing and hope for the best.
Jon says
Very disappointing to read Petraeus’ comments. One would think that his experience fighting radical Muslims would have made him more sensate about the threats facing the rest of us.
Politicallyincorrectistruth says
Well here we go again,another fool that thinks if we just all hold hands and sing songs everything will be ok. Petraeus says “Demonizing a religious faith and its adherents not only runs contrary to our most cherished and fundamental values as a country; it is also corrosive to our vital national security interests and, ultimately, to the United States’ success in this war.” so, according to him, religious faiths are OFF LIMITS to any sort of analysis,comparison or TRUTH. All religions are not equal and it`s blindingly obvious islam is not compatible with modern society which constantly seeks for better justice, equality etc. As long as there is the koran and hadiths, we will always have those who follow it to the extreme of wanting to destroy democracy and freedom.
duh_swami says
“O how the mighty are falling…Plop, plop, splat…Self censorship translates into ‘please do9n’t hurt me’…The cowards song..t.hey don’t make Generals like they used to…Would Patton talk like that?
Always On Watch says
Gad!
Denial of the threat of Islam has reached pathological proportions.
Richard Paulsen says
General secretary Hillary Clinton is very elegant, I must say, With a powerful rhetoric. Scaring to be her opponent.
Cindy Mccoy says
This is one big coward. I bet his own men are ashamed of him!!!! Tell me I should be careful in what I say so I don’t offend the muslims!!!! What about how they offend me???? Does that matter??? Not according to you!!!!
I’m tired of being told I have to bend over backward not to offend people who come here with such hate in their hearts for us. I am told don’t fly my flag it offends them, don’t play my national anthem it offends them. To that I say…..TO HELL WITH THEM!!!!! Then they will have to be offended!!!! I am offended that someone in my country who is part of the military would ask me to hide the flag that MANY heroes have died to protect!!!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!! I am deeply offended!!!!!!!
Jan D'haene says
It is unbelievable and unbecoming for this ” 4 star general” to make such appeasing comments to the enemy. You would think, since he was in command of the troops in Afganistan and Iraq, that he would have learned something about Islam. Now I know why a decisive victory was out of the question from the beginning with this type of mindset. He seems not to have heeded the advice of the late general McCarthy who said that there is no substitute for victory when fighting a war. There is also no substitute for western civilization so that we should defend it to the teeth. Shame on you, Patraeus.
I also suggest you read Sun Tsu ” the Art of War”, as appeasing your enemy is not an option.
Ver Auger says
I was taught that American soldiers are sworn to uphold and defend our Constitutional freedoms. How can an American General advise us to surrender our First Amendment freedom of speech without protest, without a struggle? Have our Army, Navy and Air Force all been defeated in battle? Is he a coward, or an enemy agent? Regardless, failure to uphold the Constitution is grounds for court-martial. Petraeus should resign his military commission and rank immediately because his words disgrace them and dishonor all American soldiers who have given their lives to defend our freedoms.
Troybeam says
Traitor against America, when one of our Military, elected official tells the American people they must watch what they say as not to offend anyone than they should leave office. The Constitution does not tell us to be quiet, it states “FREEDOM OF SPEECH” We the People need to speak up loudly when anything that may prevent us from speaking up for anything that threatens our nation in any manner.
Peggy says
Another name to add to the list of traitors to be dealt with later on.
Elizabeth in The First State says
I know David Petraeus was taught American history. What has caused him to forget how our country was born? Since that very moment in 1776, the United States of America has demonstrated that freedom is more important than security. It is that urge to be free that is in fact the fuel and the guarantee of our democratic way of life, not the craven, timorous huddling in fear for the mistaken idol of “security”. Petraeus once again disgraces himself by whimpering we should not hurt the feelings of anyone who will strike back at us, living out their own values of submission or death. Apparently he prefers the defining American image to be a mouth plastered with Stars and Stripes duck tape. I am more moved than ever by an image much, much older, a rippling flag that reads, “Live free or die”.
Dave says
Petraeusis is either delusional or he has sold himself out.
Stephen says
Does anyone know when Petraeus converted to Islam and joined jihad?
Dale Netherton says
The Two Prong Attacks of Islam
A false dichotomy is afoot. The notion that Islam is only composed of “Radical” extremists and the other Muslims are simply peaceful is actually a two prong effort to instill Sharia law by two methods of infiltration. First ,the one that gets the most attention is the bloody acts of killing and maiming witnessed most recently by the attacks in Paris. Here the suicidal fanatics demonstrate to the innocents and the muslim population at large how dedicated and ruthless they can be. Willing to blow themselves up to instill terror in the hearts of the innocents they simultaneously instill that same terror in the Muslims passively going along who dare not speak up against their fanatical brothers acting out the atrocities of Mohammad. This method of spreading Islam has been the strategy of Islamists from the first days of this religion. The objective of creating Sharia law and the killing of infidels, the worldwide conquest of all nations, and the establishment of a caliphate drive this movement.
Once the terror is established by the fanatics the road is clear for the passive Muslims to make their move by infiltration and non-assimilation into countries primarily of another persuasion. Relying on the altruism and fear of their victims, mobs of Muslims take over by majority as in the town of Hamtramck Michigan. It is equivalent to a mopping up operation after the blitzkrieg of the fanatics. This follow up movement must be reinforced by periodic acts of violence and terror to reinforce the followers belief that the movement is inevitable.
Americans and many others have not wised up to this approach and have excused the followers as deserving of innocence. The taking over of pockets of formerly non-muslim areas proves otherwise.
If you couple this approach with a willingness to lie to promote Islam you have a potent objective that can only be stopped if it is recognized as the devious monstrosity it is. The intellectual defense of claiming islamaphobia when “innocent followers” are accused of compliance to this spread of Islam works well in a country willing to give the benefit of the doubt and turn the other cheek .
This war is a different war than those of the past. It is not a war of identified enemies with uniforms and national loyalty. It is a war of subversives willing to connive and infiltrate, perform suicidal carnage and simultaneously slither into the population of the unsuspecting in two different forms. One is the fanatic and one is the follower but both have the same objective and only perform differently to obtain this goal.
The term radicalized has real meaning when the follower becomes the fanatic. Passively infiltrating and avoiding assimilation is a more subdued method so those who want to speed up the process and inspire the followers to comply become who we call “ radicalized” which means they are now of the fanatic class and will do violence to intimidate and strike terror.
So what is to be done in such a war? First identify the strategy for what it is and realize how attitudes and mores are affecting our ability to counteract the movement. Calling the followers innocent is a major mistake. When the followers do not denounce the fanatics you can be sure they are being compliant. How many Muslims did you see condemn the killings in Paris?
This logically leads to the need to identify and root out those who are plotting against the people who are innocent. The source of propaganda is wherever the notion of a caliphate and Muslim dominance is taught. These centers whether in America or the Middle East or the Far East must be targeted as seeds of conquest and infiltrated and monitored and/or destroyed. Hiding behind the “sacredness” of a religious temple or sanctuary is only another tool the true Muslims hide behind just as they hide behind women and children in battle.
Once the enemy knows we are onto their game, the game is over. When they talk we know they lie. When they seek peace we know they seek dominance. When they claim innocence we know they only use a different method to overtake us. When they cry discrimination, we simply tell them we discriminate against all criminal behavior. We need to give no quarter to this enemy that is doing everything it can to overtake us. They think they are being clever but the identification of their methods and connivance puts us in the position of strength they fear. Once they know that we know what they are up to, trepidation will begin, doubt will spread and the cleverness they were sure was undecipherable will disappear. Know your enemy is the first requirement of victory.
quotha raven says
To Dale Netherton, who ends his comment with ” Know your enemy is the first requirement of victory.:
Thank you, Dale. Your whole comment is clear, smart and exactly right on the money.
Hope it will be read by all with focused attention.
Cheers!
quotha raven
Wellington says
Excellent analysis, Dale. Spot on.
Florida Jim says
MUslims cannot be trusted Sharia, Jihad, beheading and Taqiyya all rule them as anti-American and anti-freedom . their religion is a political philosophy rapped as a Religion Of Peace, it is neither.They cannot or will not assimilate anywhere they simply move in and start the take-over using our freedoms to destroy ourselves.
jewdog says
We should respect people’s religious beliefs, but not when they are violent, coercive or hateful. Islam has purely religious components which do not affect others, but then there are the more problematic elements involving the universal imposition of Shariah law, by force if necessary. There are also many passages in Islamic scripture which denigrate unbelievers in a violent and contemptuous way.
Petraeus either is not sufficiently aware of those elements, or he knows about them and chooses to ignore their implications. What I find truly infuriating about his views is that they imply that totally innocent people are guilty simply by expressing some justifiably negative opinions about something that richly deserves condemnation. Go to Hell, Petraeus, you lowlife scumbag!
Wes Stewart says
Arthur Neville Chamberlain FRS (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940. Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the German-speaking Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany. However, when Adolf Hitler later invaded Poland, the UK declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and Chamberlain led Britain through the first eight months of World War II. Appeasement invites aggression. You can submit to your enemy incrementally through appeasement or all at once. It’s surrender either way.
TJFreedomjihad says
So many actual, and imagined, greats throughout time, as so many lessers, have ethical flaws that arise, among the gamut of pathos-ethos-logos. Too often the greats, apparent or real, get fatal flaws which lead to great consequence, for self or more. A true human problem, involved with ‘absolute (and lesser) power corrupts!’
Sex opportunity in the greats, and self-imagined greats, is real, outrageously so, clearly at least as far back in Roman and Biblical times as well. Power is even a greater attractant, than wealth, although typically hand in glove.
Betrayus somehow made General staff, and we thought he was fantastic, the wonder boy, until……but he was and is still deeply flawed, with both islam the gang, and ego. It is too clear he has not yet learned.
The problem is so common, and real, and consequential, it ought to be taught as a valued vaccine course in military college and every college in the land, (along with the bitter truth of the islam gang!). Unfortunately, the ‘course on flaws and prevention’ (Ethics 101 and remedial, of course), would be more effective when combined with Belief in G-d, and His commandments, either faith’s (Christian-Jew) commandments, which is antithetical to today’s collegiate realities, not to mention societies, who have tended to be suckered into following the stance of the formerly oh so fine ‘smart’ perfessors. Starting at the so called top, Harvard, (and even such as MIT, whose Gruber lacked ‘ethics’ en masse as well) as explained on Fox today, about which Harvard as way too often stepped in it in its most recent, new and current debacle. Even college administrations show their culpability.
Gruber and Rhodes not to mention so many others are prime examples of this failure-flaw, which involves great lacks of dedication to PATHOS-ETHOS-LOGOS.
Robert Half says
The entire invasion of Islam stems from our own sins. We ourselves are to blame. Since Roe v. Wade, 57 million + babies have been murdered in the United States, while billions more have been destroyed from birth controls. Keep in mind Roe v. Wade as you read the Mind of the Almighty as He responds to the blood of the unborn screaming to Him for vengeance:
Woe to the makers of wicked laws. The Assyrian shall be a rod for punishing Israel: but for their pride they shall be destroyed: and a remnant of Israel saved.
10:1. Woe to them that make wicked laws: and when they write, write injustice:
10:2. To oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people: that widows might be their prey, and that they might rob the fatherless.
10:3. What will you do in the day of visitation, and of the calamity which cometh from afar? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?
10:4. That you be not bowed down under the bond, and fall with the slain? In all these things his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
10:5. Woe to the Assyrian, he is the rod and the staff of my anger, and my indignation is in their hands.
10:6. I will send him to a deceitful nation, and I will give him a charge against the people of my wrath, to take away the spoils, and to lay hold on the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
10:7. But he shall not take it so, and his heart shall not think so: but his heart shall be set to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few.
Nations not a few? Like all of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand? All of western “civilization” is now condemned. Pray the Rosary!!!
Stephen says
I’m pretty sure Petraeus became a Mohammaden once he heard it’s teaching on polygamy. 90% of treason is usually with issues below the belt.
Doug Mayfield says
At the time, I felt regret for Petraeus and his career ending affair.
Now I’m beginning to believe we’re well rid of him.
Self censorship to avoid offending Muslims is the refuge of a
thorough and complete coward. I say ‘thorough and complete’
because the evidence pouring in from around the world makes it
crystal clear that Islam is an absolutely evil belief system.
To not speak against Islam is to embrace and nurture evil.
Dean says
The vast majority of military officers are only good for destroying the enemy in the field and we can’t expect too much more from them. He was elevated to CIA because the admin knew he could be controlled and he is now only echoing what he is told. Some officers have excellent understanding of the big picture but they are not the rule and can be easily identified by how they consistently handle themselves away from tactical issues. You will notice how the left just ignores their opinions and the Conservatives and the general public should be more skeptical The excellent education at West Point only qualifies in one occupation just like MIT graduates can be absolutely irrational beyond limited scientific expertise.
solange silverman says
What I want to know is when will he and the rest of the world get “concerned” about the dialogue and actual hateful acts against the Jews? So far, attacks against Muslims have been virtually nil. I guess he thinks that telling the truth qualifies as an “attack.” I write and try to educate others about the truth of Islam and what is happening in the world because of the threat that it poses, only to be told I am “spreading hate.” But I, like you, will not be silent. I feel like this is what it must have felt like to be a lone voice warning the world about the rise of Hitler and what was going on in those camps. People need to wake up.
Doug Mayfield says
I think people are awake. But due to corrupt education, the twin forms of blackmail used by the Left political correctness and multiculturalism, and above all, a lack of confidence in reason and their own minds, they give in as, in my view, Petraeus has.
You mention the rise of Hitler. I remember reading about America in the 30s, that some very prominent people thought pretty well of Hitler, including Charles Lindberg, Henry Ford, etc. America was also quite isolationist. Pearl Harbor swept all of that away.
I hope we don’t have to go through the equivalent of a Pearl Harbor in order for people to see that Islam is absolutely evil.
TJFreedomjihad says
For me it was 9-11, as updated Pearl Harbor, perhaps an even greater tragedy will befall or be needed. I pray not,
Certainly such was known to the scholarly class in the ancients of Greece, as this comment of relevance: “Nothing FORCES us to know what we do not want to know, except pain”. – Aeschylus
It really is a statement most profound, when one explores all the incarnate manifestations. Even the force of the quotation hurts, knowing sometime personally, as we all do, of the this profound Greek truth. Writ little or large, it operates through time.
rabrooks says
But in the same light, wouldn’t anti-American statements form mudslimes ‘naturally’ cause anti-mudslime actions by Americans?
Dean says
Conservatives tend to expect too much from military officers. From my experience in the military, beyond some expertise on killing and destroying the enemy officers have every variety of political and ideological views. I was never impressed with Patraeus except his tactical efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even then he was concerned about enemy reactions to American criticism as it might affect his operatives and their temporary alliances with Islamic partners in those wars. I was sure that Obama had something on him to elevate him to CIA because that admin wouldn’t let anyone in that position they couldn’t control, and absolutely convinced when he was silent about Benghazi and we found out about what they had all along after Obama’s re-election. I am not saying that he is not reaching irrational conclusions about these issues with all the info but it is just as likely that he doesn’t think beyond his command responsibilities and is otherwise clueless and takes his lead from others echoing his original theater level of understanding.
TJFreedomjihad says
Never is it to much to expect honor, integrity, and diligence, and a measure of intelligent wisdom from our military officers. Brilliance of command may be an exception, but not the former. Even the ranks carry some of the stuff of brilliance, for time and circumstance, if wrought well, in modern forces.
Actually getting these attributes can sometimes disappoint. In Petraeus, the question is did he secretly convert, or did he fail to study and know his enemy, truly. Either way, he fails to live up to the example of Patton, or the lessons of Sun Tzu, and others of the same advice to know well your enemy.
It has always been a variable hell to work under civilian commanders in chief, some worse than others, easily the worst of all time the chief betrayers in office, which does well include shrillary shroo, et al. Brain washing and blackmail taken to an high art form.
rabrooks says
But why is it OK for the mudslimes to have a “full blanket discrimination” policy against non-mudslimes?
Debi Brand says
Debi Brand says
Petraeus makes the case for our need of, “…namely, Muslims.”
http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2016/05/petraeus-makes-case-for-our-need-of.html
Edward says
Respect from others is earned and not to be expected!
What can be expected from others that are known to hate other religions simply because a human conceptualized an ideology that justified their own wrong doings to mask their real actions as documents have contradicted their own accounts.
The Muslims started their own inflicted dilemma (of not being respected) at the price of thousand innocents for +1400 years!
“And because of this fact, Muhammad was wrong for insulting and antagonizing the Meccans, wrong for mustering up an army to conquer Mecca, wrong for creating a religion that has ensnared billions of lives throughout the centuries, and which has caused countless deaths and sufferings till this very day.”
– http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/antagonizing.htm
Edward says
The Blame Game that Deception Prone People Use to Gain Prominence:
The cunning expertise of the Islamic adherents has snared many to believe they are the main victims in any human account that may undercut their dignity, when in fact they are the perpetrators to begin with, which has caused many horrendous crimes. Evidence of such atrocities is flagged by many resources, i.e. Jihadwatch.org and ThereligionofPeace.com among others that have proved such veracity without doubt!
Here is example of such an attribute that beleaguers many innocents.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-philosophy-of-terrorism-why-blaming-victims-offers-no-justification-for-terrorist-attacks
Lulu says
Simple…. he is a mouthpiece… For them…. …….. TRUMP2016
Mark says
“They will “compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.” They already want to kill us. How in the world can you “compound” that? Who is this guy, anyway?
Rev. William Cook says
I believe the Japanese call it seppuku or hari-kari. At Jonestown, Guyana in 1978, cyanide-laced Kool-Aid was used. Jim Jones called it “revolutionary suicide.”
duh_swami says
Percival…Hear no evil, see no evil, hear no evil, speak o evil…Percival was a pure fool who had a very short life span…
Demsci says
Petraeus says he is pro our free and open societies, and safety in them. i believe that he is. But his choice of strategy is so dumb and uninformed. We can be very anti-Islamic precisely we are so pro-democratic! And we let Muslims be anti-Democratic because they are so pro-totalitarian!
Why can’t he acknowledge that Islam is a pre-modern-democratic, un-democratic and anti-democratic ideology. Islam is in favor of Totalitarian society. It is either that or a hell of a lot of Muslims misunderstand Islam in that way.
People, including Muslims, should be required to choose the one or the other and live in the one they prefer, not in the one in opposition to that. Isn’t that reasonable and rational?
We can respect people’s choice for one of the 2 sorts of societies, but Petraeus still thinks we insult Muslims when we simply ban them for preferring a totalitarian society over a democratic society.
I know it sounds simplistic, but plenty of surveys clearly show many anti-democratic, totalitarian values, in varying degrees, among Muslims. And we do have the means to describe the difference between societal systems. And so we can let people choose and hold them accountable for that choice.
Angry Citizen says
“David Petraeus: Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamist terrorists,” by David Petraeus, Washington Post, May 13, 2016:
So America has a Dopey Dave the same as the UK.
To BOTH Dopey Daves,
Anti-Muslim bigotry DOES NOT aid Islamist terrorists. WEAK TWO FACED LEADERS aid Islamist terrorists, or more correctly, AID muslims.
gary fouse says
Petraeus is absolutely wrong. If we in the West close our mouths as to the threat facing us and refuse to question the ideology that is driving it, we only embolden the jihadists. Our good will means nothing to them. They only respect strength and will exploit weakness.
Long live the First Amendment. They don’t have it in Europe, and Europeans who speak out and tell the truth risk being imprisoned by their own governments. We dare not surrender our rights here.
comnp1958 says
Why do we give a S**t if we offending Muslims, this love affair with a murderous, false religion, that believe Muhammad was a god is a joke. Why this love affair of the satan and his practice.
This BS that Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamist terrorists is insane, they want to KILL YOU, they don’nt care what you say.
Stop the insanity and grow a pair, Petraeus was a great leader what happen
Draki says
Petraeus is a statist. Anything that the state doesn’t approve is a no no. Screw him.