OK, I get the feeling that the Dear Leader, President Obama, does not really think we are in a long term struggle to defeat radical Islamics and or their allies.
The National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, pretty much said so this past Friday in a speech regarding long-term national security goals of the United States.
But it was the Dear Leader, President Obama, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this past Thursday that rankles me and many who disagree about the most pressing long-term national security struggles of the United States.
In the speech, as he is wont to do, the Dear Leader, President Obama, found the need to remind the Christians assembled that hey, we did some pretty gnarly things in the name of Christ many a moon ago. And even in that portion of his remarks, the Dear Leader, President Obama, conveniently left out some pertinent facts to make the case that really, Christians are no better than the radical Islamic conflagration gripping the Middle East especially, but many other nations as well.
Here is the exact part of the speech that has many of us scratching our collective heads:
Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
Where, oh where to begin?!
Of course he started where all moral equivalency advocates start and that is The Crusades.
The Crusades as bandied about these days never, ever, tells the whole story and reasons of The Crusades in the first place.
One of the most suppressed, yet important, reasons of The Crusades was to restore safety for European Christian pilgrims making their way to the Holy Land. The reason that pilgrims' safety was at risk is because of the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land and Jerusalem. By 1076, when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, travel to and from was extremely dangerous.
Thus in 1096, Pope Urban ordered what is now referred to as the First Crusade. By 1100, Jerusalem was in the hands of the Crusaders.
But of course it did not occur without bloodshed.
As this link notes, the monk, Fulcher, is the one that chronicled the bloodshed that occurred. Basically the Christian Crusaders killed anyone and everything that they could. The fact is that the Muslims are the ones that claimed upwards of 70,000 people were killed. Those that survived got the pleasure of taking the dead, rotting bodies out of the walls and gates of Jerusalem. As far as the Jews were concerned, they through their lot with the Muslims and fought along side of them to defend Jerusalem. Needless to say, when the Crusaders went on their blood lust, there was no difference to them regarding Jews and Muslims and anyone else.
Yes, there was a conquest and irrational bloodshed. This was a time where might was right. And once the Crusaders defeated the Jews and Muslims, they made the most of their might.
Again, most observant Christians know about this history. And yes, we are talking about 800 years ago.
Another aspect was the Inquisition that the Dear Leader, President Obama, made a very similar passing reference to.
Since he said inquisition with a broad brush, most people, Protestant and Roman Catholic, knew the reference is to the Spanish Inquisition.
No question that the Spanish Inquisition is the one of the numerous inquisitions that the Roman Catholic church had over the years. Looking at this link, it is clear that there were many others. But it is the Spanish Inquisition that was the most brutal and longest lasting.
If you note the timeline, the Spanish Inquisition began under the reign of Kind Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. It was shortly after the Christian unification of the Spanish peninsula. Before that, Spain was an Islamic foothold in Western Europe. Not unlike the Crusades, this was a case of the might makes right gone off the rails. One difference between the Spanish and numerous other inquisitions of the day is that Spain and the monarchy totally controlled it. It was as much a political as well as spiritual set of actions.
One of the reasons for the eventual decline of the inquisitions is the rise of Protestant Christianity. Not to say that Prostestants did not have problems as well, but no where near the extent of the inquisitions.
So, in the short and very sorry attempt for the president to lecture us on the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllllsssss of historical Christianity but made it to Christianity in the United States.
Of course we were lectured as to the fact that many Christians supported and defended slavery and the Jim Crow laws.
Major face palm and headshaking.
What the Dear Leader, President Obama does not mention that in the two subjects he brought up, the church was at worst divided. What the president does not point out is those who would be referred to today as Evangelical Christians, were some of the most ardent abolitionists. The leader agaisnt the Jim Crow laws and the horrible indignities that black Americans suffered was a Christian minister by the name of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Christians have evolved from the Crusades. The Inquisitions. Slavery. Jim Crow. Really, we have. We are not perfect and can always do more.
So lets come to today, Monday, February 9, 2015.
The most brutal religious force in the world today is Radical Islam. It is the Wahhabi's of Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda. And the most awful of all, the Islamic State.
There nothing, not one thing in modern Christendom and or Judaism. In fact, one of the great debates in modern Christendom is the death penalty in general. Do we see that in any form of Islam?
What is happening in the Middle East especially has far reaching implications. No matter what our Lecturer In Chief says.
Say all of Iraq and Syria fall to the Islamic State. How long will Jordan last? Lebanon? The Arabian peninsula? And Northern Africa?
Even though we are told that the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorists are not all that worrisome, it is that attitude that led to 9/11. And yes, it was bipartisan inertia that pervaded.
Today there is not one bit of credible numbers as to the size of and the strength of the Islamic State. It is the most successful of all the groups because they have actual territory. They are setting up the paradisaical Islamic governance right before our eyes. They are scarring several generations of young people with it's meting out of "justice". And while they may be stalled in taking more territory now, they have no problem in throwing hundreds of thousands of fighters as little more than cannon fodder.
The game the Dear Leader, President Obama, is playing is that of moral equivalence.
In other words, look we Christians have not been all that great in our history. We have done some bad things. So now it's Islam's turn one supposes. But you know, the overwhelming number of Muslims just want to live in peace and be left alone. This is but a few at most. Maybe not even a percent of all the Muslims in the world. If we give them credibility, well we make them more than they are.
Actually, in poll after poll in the Muslim world, even among Muslims in the United States, the percentages of those that have at least sympathy with terror groups is much higher than a percent. Anywhere from 10 to 20%. Of course any poll can be skewed especially in the way questions are asked and in context. But it is almost constantly those numbers.
The reason the Dear Leader, President Obama's logic is flawed is because he has to go back really far in religious history to make the case that we should not get on our high horse about this radical Islam. Islamic radicals are running roughshod all over Northern Africa and especially Nigeria. It is so bad that the government recently announced that is has to postpone elections scheduled for this Saturday until next month. And yes, Christians in the Central African Republic have been committing atrocities. In reaction to Muslim atrocities. When there is a civil war and religion is one of the main reasons, there are going to be bad things that happen to the innocent people in the middle. The CAR violence is used by some modernist Christians as a moral equivalency. But there is not one here. It is simply a breakdown of law and order and religious groups have taken advantage of the situation.
What I would like to see our president, no my president, do is not lecture us about some events that happened eons ago. Most Americans know of the Christian atrocities. Most Christians today do not look to all Muslims as evil. We can really tell the difference between the radical extremists and the people just wanting to live in peace and practice their religion.
What I want to see the president have is a basic blueprint as to how we are going to defeat the radical Islamics. And I want him to say the fateful words. Radical Islam. By not saying that and trying the lecture about historical Christian evils, it makes many Americans wonder more about whether or not all of Islam is some bad deal. And is that not what we want to avoid?
To be blunt Mr. President, you need to stop lecturing and start planning to defeat radical Islam. Period.
Showing posts with label radical Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radical Islam. Show all posts
Monday, February 09, 2015
Friday, January 09, 2015
72 Hours Of Islamofacist Terror Ends In France
There is so much information to digest regarding the Islamofascist attack on the headquarters of the left-wing satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo this past Wednesday that I will start with the latest update of the killing of the suspects today near Paris.
As of this writing, two suspects that were wanted by French authorities in the Islamofascist terror attack on the left-wing satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were killed outside of Paris today.
But in the interim, another terror situation unfolded in a Jewish neighborhood in Paris as two Islamofascist terrorist, including one woman, seized a market and held hostages.
The main suspects in the assault on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters, two brothers named Cherif and Said Kouachi, were on the run yet seized a print shop near Charles deGaulle international airport and held a hostage.
In Paris itself, two people seized the Hypercacher (Hyper Kosher) market and held an undetermined number of hostage. One of the Islamofacist terrorists, Amedy Coulibaly, was killed in the assault on the Hypercacher. However, it appears that Mr. Coulibaly had an accomplice and she escaped. Her name is Hayat Boumeddiene. According to the Fox News Channel report, these two are suspected in the murder of police officer Clarissa Jean-Philippe as she was in the process of investigating a routine traffic accident in Paris.
In simultaneous raids, French police raided both locations killing the main suspects in the Charlie Hebdo massacre and Mr. Boumeddiene. And as noted Miss Boumeddiene apparently escaped and there is now a manhunt for her.
Also, it appears that four of the hostages in the Hypercacher were killed but it is undetermined if it was during the raid/rescue operation or at the hands of the terrorists themselves.
The following link to CNN is informative as to what is known and what is unknown. Most important is what is known and three out of four Islamofascist terrorists are dead.
On Wednesday, three Islamofascist terrorists at the lunch hour shot their way through the headquarters of a left-wing satirical magazine known as Charlie Hebdo and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others.
Charlie Hebdo is a left-wing satirical magazine that has mocked the three monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judiasm) with some racy, vile cartoons. But of course it is the fact that they had cartoons of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, well we all know how that upsets the radical Islamics.
Apparently, they don't know such Western ideas such as freedom of the press. And if they did not like it, hey lead a boycott.
No, no, no.
Three heavily armed and well trained Islamofascist terrorists sent a message to this magazine. You will NOT, EVER, in ANY way draw and or mock the prophet, Mohammad. And to remind you of that, we will kill, wound and maim as many as we could.
In ensuing assault, at least one of the Islamofascist terrorists sought out one of the villains in the mocking of Mohammad by name. That name was that of Stéphane Charbonnier, also known as Charb. He was the editor of Charlie Hebdo. And he was savagely executed along with 11 others for daring to poke at the main dude of Islam.
Say, notice something here?
Why as I noted, Charlie Hebdo mocked Christians and Jews. Religion was not something to revere but to mock for these folks. But why hadn't any Christian terrorists done such a deed? Jewish terrorists? Because these are advanced religions that would resort to reason rather than savagery and intimidation.
Here is a good place to show you what got Cherif and Said Kouachi and a third suspect all riled up. Here are some of the cartoons that pissed these Islamofascists off
That Charlie Hebdo is a pretty equal opportunity offender.
And yes, there are other cartoons I choose not to share. Not because I am scared or worried. Because I will at a later date.
And you know what?
This stuff is not my cup of tea.
I mean, again this is a left-wing publication that I would not be attracted to in the first place. I would not be thrilled if one on my side was doing such things. And really, the cartoons are sort of not all that great to my taste again.
But you know what I would do if something really, really pissed me off?
I would encourage and or lead a boycott. It's what we do in the United States. If we do not like something, we point it out and we find peaceful ways to deal with such things.
Yet there are those influential in the radical Islamic world that are celebrating. That are happy of the event that took place. And of course, defending it, albeit at the edges.
A debate took place between Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity and a radical Islamic cleric, Anjem Choudury, who operates freely in London, England.
Mr. Choudury tries to play down the middle not outright supporting the terror spree that took place in Paris. I will give Mr. Choudury credit in that he is down with the explanation of Islam as its meaning, submission, and that in that submission, its cool to take out those that "insult" Mohammad. Here is a transcript of the salient part of Mr. Hannity and Mr. Choudury's discussing the events and Mr. Choudury's rather defense of what happened. Here is also the video because it is worth watching.
It does not behoove an idea, the idea of Islam, when three gunmen, who did not commit the attack on their own, decide that they will determine what is right and wrong.
Not only did these thugs kill those inside the Charlie Hebdo headquarters but in the most cowardly manner force an unarmed policeman, laying on the ground, to beg for his life. Of course they killed him. And he was also a Muslim. Such a sad irony.
And they were not alone in terror. With the hostage drama that unfolded in a Jewish market in Paris, these terrorists forced a nation literally on its knees.
But to the credit of the French police, they did not stay on their knees. They took out the bastards before more harm can come to those being held against their will.
It has been a frightening 72 hours of Islamofascist terror that gripped Paris and a great deal of France. But they do have to look as we all do at why this scourge has taken root not only in Europe but in the United States as well.
Because some day, it could be as soon as tomorrow, we will face an event such as France just got over.
We must be vigilant and honest. That there is a very radical strain of Islam. That there are many that will die for that radical Islam. That we can not allow this cancer to metastasize any further.
Then we will not face terror of the nature that spews from the bowels of radical Islam.
As of this writing, two suspects that were wanted by French authorities in the Islamofascist terror attack on the left-wing satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were killed outside of Paris today.
But in the interim, another terror situation unfolded in a Jewish neighborhood in Paris as two Islamofascist terrorist, including one woman, seized a market and held hostages.
The main suspects in the assault on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters, two brothers named Cherif and Said Kouachi, were on the run yet seized a print shop near Charles deGaulle international airport and held a hostage.
In Paris itself, two people seized the Hypercacher (Hyper Kosher) market and held an undetermined number of hostage. One of the Islamofacist terrorists, Amedy Coulibaly, was killed in the assault on the Hypercacher. However, it appears that Mr. Coulibaly had an accomplice and she escaped. Her name is Hayat Boumeddiene. According to the Fox News Channel report, these two are suspected in the murder of police officer Clarissa Jean-Philippe as she was in the process of investigating a routine traffic accident in Paris.
In simultaneous raids, French police raided both locations killing the main suspects in the Charlie Hebdo massacre and Mr. Boumeddiene. And as noted Miss Boumeddiene apparently escaped and there is now a manhunt for her.
Also, it appears that four of the hostages in the Hypercacher were killed but it is undetermined if it was during the raid/rescue operation or at the hands of the terrorists themselves.
The following link to CNN is informative as to what is known and what is unknown. Most important is what is known and three out of four Islamofascist terrorists are dead.
On Wednesday, three Islamofascist terrorists at the lunch hour shot their way through the headquarters of a left-wing satirical magazine known as Charlie Hebdo and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others.
Charlie Hebdo is a left-wing satirical magazine that has mocked the three monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judiasm) with some racy, vile cartoons. But of course it is the fact that they had cartoons of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, well we all know how that upsets the radical Islamics.
Apparently, they don't know such Western ideas such as freedom of the press. And if they did not like it, hey lead a boycott.
No, no, no.
Three heavily armed and well trained Islamofascist terrorists sent a message to this magazine. You will NOT, EVER, in ANY way draw and or mock the prophet, Mohammad. And to remind you of that, we will kill, wound and maim as many as we could.
In ensuing assault, at least one of the Islamofascist terrorists sought out one of the villains in the mocking of Mohammad by name. That name was that of Stéphane Charbonnier, also known as Charb. He was the editor of Charlie Hebdo. And he was savagely executed along with 11 others for daring to poke at the main dude of Islam.
Say, notice something here?
Why as I noted, Charlie Hebdo mocked Christians and Jews. Religion was not something to revere but to mock for these folks. But why hadn't any Christian terrorists done such a deed? Jewish terrorists? Because these are advanced religions that would resort to reason rather than savagery and intimidation.
Here is a good place to show you what got Cherif and Said Kouachi and a third suspect all riled up. Here are some of the cartoons that pissed these Islamofascists off
Here's a depiction of the Islamic
prophet, Mohammad
As noted, this publication is not specifically
anti-Muslim as this cartoon
mocks Islamics and Jews.
And here is what Charlie Hebdo
has done to the three great
monotheistic religions.
Mock 'em.
Now what do you notice in the few cartoons that I have shared with you?That Charlie Hebdo is a pretty equal opportunity offender.
And yes, there are other cartoons I choose not to share. Not because I am scared or worried. Because I will at a later date.
And you know what?
This stuff is not my cup of tea.
I mean, again this is a left-wing publication that I would not be attracted to in the first place. I would not be thrilled if one on my side was doing such things. And really, the cartoons are sort of not all that great to my taste again.
But you know what I would do if something really, really pissed me off?
I would encourage and or lead a boycott. It's what we do in the United States. If we do not like something, we point it out and we find peaceful ways to deal with such things.
Yet there are those influential in the radical Islamic world that are celebrating. That are happy of the event that took place. And of course, defending it, albeit at the edges.
A debate took place between Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity and a radical Islamic cleric, Anjem Choudury, who operates freely in London, England.
Mr. Choudury tries to play down the middle not outright supporting the terror spree that took place in Paris. I will give Mr. Choudury credit in that he is down with the explanation of Islam as its meaning, submission, and that in that submission, its cool to take out those that "insult" Mohammad. Here is a transcript of the salient part of Mr. Hannity and Mr. Choudury's discussing the events and Mr. Choudury's rather defense of what happened. Here is also the video because it is worth watching.
I think that Mr. Hannity hits it out of the ball park with this wrap up:
All right. Anjem Choudary, I still think you're an evil SOB.
Damn straight, Sean Hannity!
Understand that Mr. Choudury is able to spew his vile interpretation of Islam freely in a nation that, if he had his way, would not have the very freedom he abuses.
Part of the development of Western culture has been the idea of education and the free exchange of ideas. It is why, by and large, the West has lived in peace with each other. When we have not, it has been at the hands of non-believers in either Christianity and or Judiasm. Communism, Nazism, Fascism are but some of the examples of when the Western experiment has almost failed. But all were defeated in the theatre of war and the theatre of ideas. It does not behoove an idea, the idea of Islam, when three gunmen, who did not commit the attack on their own, decide that they will determine what is right and wrong.
Not only did these thugs kill those inside the Charlie Hebdo headquarters but in the most cowardly manner force an unarmed policeman, laying on the ground, to beg for his life. Of course they killed him. And he was also a Muslim. Such a sad irony.
And they were not alone in terror. With the hostage drama that unfolded in a Jewish market in Paris, these terrorists forced a nation literally on its knees.
But to the credit of the French police, they did not stay on their knees. They took out the bastards before more harm can come to those being held against their will.
It has been a frightening 72 hours of Islamofascist terror that gripped Paris and a great deal of France. But they do have to look as we all do at why this scourge has taken root not only in Europe but in the United States as well.
Because some day, it could be as soon as tomorrow, we will face an event such as France just got over.
We must be vigilant and honest. That there is a very radical strain of Islam. That there are many that will die for that radical Islam. That we can not allow this cancer to metastasize any further.
Then we will not face terror of the nature that spews from the bowels of radical Islam.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Islamics Take Over The Parish Of St. Peter And St. Paul In Washington, D. C.
JUST SAY NO TO RADICAL ISLAM
And it is known by the more familiar name of the Washington National Cathedral.
Last Friday, the dean of the cathedral, essentially the rector, the Very Rev. Gary Hall, hosted an unusual event. That event was the Friday prayers of practicing Muslims led by the ambassador to the United States from South Africa, Ebrahim Rasool
Now, the fact that it was held on the very day of the 100th anniversary of the last caliph of the Ottoman Empire declared a jihad and, surprise, 1,000,000 Armenian Christians were massacred is to be igorned, I'm sure. However, this piece over at Breitbart is a reminder to Mr. Rasool. And Mr. Rasool has an interesting response to it:
“It’s deliciously appropriate.”
On it's own, it is very damning. But there is more:
“We stand in a Christian cathedral, make common cause with the Christian middle ground, and make a commitment, that never again must there be intolerance towards Christians or any other faith. We stand up against extremism from the house of Islam and wherever it else it may emanate.”
Why it all sounds great, doesn't it?
But, Mr. Rasool then goes on to give the Muslim Brotherhood victim status along with a lot of other questionable groups.
I will let you read that for yourself.
And this is what was seen in the Washington National Cathedral
St. Peter and St. Paul and the Washington National Cathedral are part of the diocese of Washington, D. C. and part of The Episcopal Church.
As most who even glance at this blog know, I am a Christian and worship in The Episcopal Church (to be referred to from here as TEC).
And as I wrote on my Facebook page it was an embarrassing moment as a Christian and an angry moment as an Episcopalian.
For some inexplicable reason, there are many, especially in leadership, that place the highest value on ecumenical relations. Such a value that it is above everything else including the basic Christian witness of baptising the nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost and seeking to serve Christ in all.
To say that this has created a firestorm is putting it very mildly.
Why do I think that it was not a good idea?
One very important reason is optics to radical Islamics.
Does anyone not think for a moment, to repeat a phrase, how delicious it is for the Islamic State and or their allies and fellow travellers to see the above photo and not see that Islam has taken over a Christian church? A church that is of national importance in the United States? The very church that then president George W. Bush held a true interfaith service on the Friday after the horrors of 9/11?
Maybe it pays to understand that the Very Rev. Hall is as modernist as they come in his view of the Christian church. Here is the Hall story courtesy of the Washington National Cathedral website. The Very Rev. Hall served for a time in ministry at All Saints Episcopal church here in Pasadena, California. If you go to the All Saint's link, or as I am prone to refer to it as All Socialists, you will find the plethora of leftist causes and activities. Not really a lot about Jesus Christ and his ministry on earth nor much about spreading the Gospel. The Very Rev. Hall when named as dean of the cathedral in our nation's capital went on a gun control rant and began to perform same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriage is legal in the District of Columbia. Oh yeah, and he does not really think as a Christian minister he should be bringing people to Christ.
So this is why I think it is easy for the Very Rev. Hall to put his ecumenical outreach above everything else.
OK, what else is wrong with what happened last week?
It was a closed service. It was not open to the public. In fact, a mosque can not be used for non-Islamic activities. But to be fair, a mosque in Sacramento in 2012 did allow it's space to be used by a Christian church that lost it's lease for Easter Sunday services. But even in the link, the article notes that it is not common practice for any mosque to do such a thing. So again, in an ecumenical spirit, the Muslims not only worshiped in a Christian church, but got to set the guidelines.
Which leads to an addendum to the point I made above about perception.
The worst aspect of the appearance is that the Washington National Cathedral and it's leadership looked like dhimmis.
Those are the non-Islamic people in jihad-conquered lands. And as part of being "protected", the dhimmis are expected to pay a special jizya, or tax. And as part of their second-class status, they can not do anything that would promote their non-Islamic faith. Which is aimed directly at Christians.
This is what really happened in the Washington National Cathedral last week.
I do not believe that is the intent, but to those who are radical Islamics, that is what they see and will use in their propaganda to recruit more men to the death cult known as the Islamic State.
Who were the participants of the closed Friday prayer service?
Well, as noted, the South African ambassador to the United States, Mr. Rasool. But one group that has been mainstreamed yet is really extreme is the Council of American-Islamic Relations. CAIR is very much an Islamic victimology group and is known to have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the extremist group that assassinated the late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat. Another of the Islamic groups participating in the service is the Islamic Society of North America. Both organizations have been somewhat tied to terrorist groups. ISNA was particularly tied to the Holy Land Foundation which was convicted of funding terrorist groups. So was CAIR. Both groups are also accused of promoting the radical Wahhabi sect of Islam, which is what is practiced in Saudi Arabia. For balance, why was not M. Zhudi Jassar and his organization, American Islamic Forum For Democracy, a participant? If any does not know Dr. Jassar, he is one of the leading people involved in modernizing Islam and trying to defeat the vocal and dangerous radical element. I can maybe give the benefit of the doubt and maybe the Christian folks that helped set up this service do not know of this group. Maybe they are just tuned in to more well-known groups. Or maybe, just maybe, the Christians do know of Dr. Jassar and his group but because they are not of the victimless cult, they are not deemed legitimate by people like the Very Rev. Hall and his sycophants.
Well, as noted, the South African ambassador to the United States, Mr. Rasool. But one group that has been mainstreamed yet is really extreme is the Council of American-Islamic Relations. CAIR is very much an Islamic victimology group and is known to have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the extremist group that assassinated the late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat. Another of the Islamic groups participating in the service is the Islamic Society of North America. Both organizations have been somewhat tied to terrorist groups. ISNA was particularly tied to the Holy Land Foundation which was convicted of funding terrorist groups. So was CAIR. Both groups are also accused of promoting the radical Wahhabi sect of Islam, which is what is practiced in Saudi Arabia. For balance, why was not M. Zhudi Jassar and his organization, American Islamic Forum For Democracy, a participant? If any does not know Dr. Jassar, he is one of the leading people involved in modernizing Islam and trying to defeat the vocal and dangerous radical element. I can maybe give the benefit of the doubt and maybe the Christian folks that helped set up this service do not know of this group. Maybe they are just tuned in to more well-known groups. Or maybe, just maybe, the Christians do know of Dr. Jassar and his group but because they are not of the victimless cult, they are not deemed legitimate by people like the Very Rev. Hall and his sycophants.
To me the bottom line is this.
I am all for knowing of and learning about other religions and or faiths. In doing so it can actually challenge why I believe the way I do. Or it can cement why I believe the way that I do. I would probably not find an interfaith service being held in the Christian Washington National Cathedral a big deal. But, when the Christian leadership asks a group of Muslims not only to pray but close the prayers and celebrate the Islamic religious practice, in a very heady time in Islamic history, I wonder if the people laying out the welcome mat get what people think of such things. I laid out the case as to the overall perception the world sees, like it or not. But the fact is that it is a done deal. What I would like to see is a more serious discussion on how Islam can rid itself of such a dangerous and deadly radical element. I would like to see modernist Christians not go back to the Crusades to suggest that somehow Christians have such a radical element today. I would like to see the so-called mainstream Islamic groups stop playing victim and mainstream themselves and their fellow Muslims into American society without giving up their religion and practices. I don't see how this service in the Washington National Cathedral did anything but stir up trouble.
And why did I insert the Islamic crescent with a slash through it above?
Because of what I wrote. We have to speak with one voice about defeating, not accommodating, radical Islam. We can not give such perceptions of Muslims taking a Christian house of worship as their own. That is what was wrong about the prayer service.
Because of what I wrote. We have to speak with one voice about defeating, not accommodating, radical Islam. We can not give such perceptions of Muslims taking a Christian house of worship as their own. That is what was wrong about the prayer service.
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
The Islamic Caliphate Revealed
It is a map of the Caliphate of the Islamic State as envisioned by the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq.
In this photo of the Islamic map as envisioned, it is in Arabic. But in this accompanied article, we are treated to the names of regions in English.
In the linked article, The Islamic State wants the map to be a reality within the next five years.
I suppose that many if not most of the brain trust in the Western world pretty much dismisses all of this as wishful thinking.
But these are the same people that did not see the rise of ISIS in the first place and how they all but became the dominant force in the Syrian civil war. And with their power expanded that war directly into Northern Iraq with little to any resistance. This is the current area under control of The Islamic State.
I do not know about you, but this is a very wide area under control of what we have been told is but a rag-tag army of maybe 10,000 men. And consider that as the Iraq army in Northern Iraq essentially turned tail and ran, The Islamic State obtained a lot of hardware including many, many American arms including HumVees and tanks and possibly fighter planes, and most important, new recruits.
When one puts all of that together, it does show the above caliphate map to be as The Daily Mail wrote, Chilling.
Maybe The Islamic State picked their battle in the weakest areas of the Middle East and by doing so are stronger than they appear.
But then what about this parade of the spoils of war? Does anyone think that The Islamic State does not have some people knowledgeable enough to use a SCUD missile? And forget that they would only be happy to do what Saddam Hussein did during the First Gulf War and lob some to Israel. They would be more than glad to use them against Shi'a fighters in Iraq. Needless to say that they also are freshly gaining conventional weaponry as well.
Make no mistake about this.
The Islamic State will make trouble around the region beyond what they control. They will try to undermine Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arabian peninsula. They will then try to wrest control of Lebanon from the Shi'a, Syrian and Hezbollah influence. At this writing, Lebanon has the largest Christian population in the region. If The Islamic State takes over, they will flee as fast as the Iraqi Christians are doing today.
But, as is wont of many Americans, there is a substantial minority that would like to bury it's collective head in the sand and retreat to a semi-Fortress America. While most of those who would, essentially, like to do nothing, are on the left, there is a substantial number of libertarians and yes, some conservatives that want us out of the region entirely. Many believe that the United States is simply blindly following an "Israeli" foreign policy. That if the United States was not so enamored with Israel, we might even get some love from those that are now our enemies.
Sadly, this is where they are wrong.
This radical Islamic hate for anything non-Islamic precedes the founding and, before that, settling of the United States. As the United States has developed and became the world's superpower, radical Islam sees the United States as a threat period. The nation's third president, Thomas Jefferson, had the first encounter with Islamics in Tripoli and this quote is worth reading. Pretty current, isn't it?
And as far as Israel goes, let me point out something that I have said before with this caveat. What I have said is actually happening before my scenario. If tomorrow, Israel ceased to exist for whatever reason, after the two minutes of joy among all of its enemies in the Arab, radical Islamic world, they would turn their guns on each other. That is what we are seeing now in Syria, Northern Iraq and between Sunni and Shi'a and everything else in between. There is even hope against hope among some that current allies of The Islamic State will turn against them because of their strict interpretation of Islam.
This the radical Islamic figures that eventually, they will just wear down those opposed to it. It may be on it's way in Western Europe. However there are people waking up to the real threat. Note that the map of The Islamic State goes to the. . .Gates of Vienna. That is why they fight. That is why they show the brutality. That is why they propagate fear to wear down opposition. Maybe this is why the army in Northern Iraq fled. They just are tired of fighting. Being that the current Iraq army is pretty corrupt (and the biggest mistake Team Bush made, disbanding the Iraqi army after ousting Saddam.)
and they are defending a predominantly Sunni area, many thought better to defend their Shi'a brethren in Baghdad and the south of the country than people in the north.
We in the United States have to take this The Islamic State seriously. The fact that they have such a wide swath of territory and are bold enough to proclaim their new caliphate is a serious matter. If they didn't have advanced weapons of war, they sure as hell do now with the retreat of the Iraqi army and leaving behind advanced American weaponry.
The caliphate has been revealed and the protagonists believe they can fulfill their dream in five years or less. The job of the West is not just to contain that threat but to defeat it.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
The Games The Sudan Are Playing With Meriam Ibrahim
Yes, yes, Sudan is playing games is regards to the continuing saga over Meriam Ibrahim.
Mrs. Ibrahim is the Christian woman that had been charged with apostasy for "rejecting" Islam under the Sudanese interpretation of Sharia law. Mrs. Ibrahim was convicted in a kangaroo court based on so-called relatives "evidence" who essentially turned her in to Sudanese "authorities". And she was pregnant with her second child at the time of conviction. A conviction of 100 lashes for adultery (she is married to a Christian man), and once the baby is born two years after the child is weaned death.
Yeah, that Sharia law is no joke especially when interpreted in the worst way.
Well, this past weekend, a Sudanese appeals court voided the lower court sentence and the court ordered Mrs. Ibrahim freed. It seemed like sanity was about to prevail, right?
Oops! My bad!
So sorry to fib about that because as Mrs. Ibrahim was with her husband, Daniel Wani, and both of her children were at the Khartoum International airport waiting to get the hell out of the hellhole known as Sudan, she faced the wrath of the crazies once again and was rearrested on a unique charge to say the least.
Mrs. Ibrahim was arrested and charged with forging her travel documents. And this time, the Sudanese "authorities" had the whole family to throw in jail.
The best part of the second arrest?
That one of Mrs. Ibrahim's half brothers went to the "authorities" to claim that she was kidnapped from the Islamic side of the family and should not have been returned to her Christian husband, Daniel.
Such a wonderful family they are.
It is important to explain that Mrs. Ibrahim did have an Islamic father and a Christian mother. The dad left the family high and dry when Mrs. Ibrahim was a young child. Mrs. Ibrahim's mother raised her in the Ethiopian Orthodox church. In fact, the mother remarried a Christian man and the marriage certificate is available. For some reason not really explained, a relative from the dad's Islamic family turned her in to the "authorities" claiming that she is really an Islamic woman and committed adultery by "marrying" a Christian man. Thus charges were filed and a trial was commenced. Now Mrs. Ibrahim could have prevented this from going where it did. So long as she renounced being a Christian and nullified her marriage to Daniel Wani. But Mrs. Ibrahim did not renounce the only faith that she knew. That of the Christian faith. And according to Sharia law, it was wrong for her to be raised as a Christian because even though daddy left mommy, one has to be raised in the faith of the male.
Kind of neat that the males can marry whoever they want but if one is a gal, too bad. That's Sharia law for you.
Again, all this occurred because a half-brother that Mrs. Ibrahim did not know by the name of Al Samani Al Hadi Mohamed Abdullah. The real reason he used Sharia law is so that he and his Islamic wife could take Mrs. Ibrahim's successful businesses.
Sharia law my a*s!
But the court that the trail was held found Mrs. Ibrahim guilty of rejecting a religion she never knew, Islam, and being an adulterer because she married a Christian man that she should not have done. She was supposed to marry an Islamic man. Even though she said throughout everything that she was never, ever Islamic.
Thus came the development of her sentence being thrown out on appeal and the appeal court freeing Mrs. Ibrahim.
And the rearrest of Mrs. Ibrahim, her husband, Daniel Wani, her 21 month old son, Martin and one month-old daughter, Maya, born in a horrible women's prison named Omdurman Federal Women's Prison. As I noted, the whole family was jailed.
But today, it appears that the whole family has been released from jail under the condition that they remain in The Sudan for the time being.
While that seems to be good news, there is no word as to when the family can leave the hellhole of The Sudan for freedom. Originally, the family was going to go to the Christian South Sudan. But now once they are allowed to leave The Sudan, they will all come to the United States.
But this just shows what happens when a government implements Sharia law. A law that totally discounts anything that a woman may or may not say. A law that takes whatever a male says, even if it is all lies, as the truth. That is exactly what happened here. What has to really gall the fanatics is that at no time, even while giving birth to Maya, Mrs. Ibrahim would denounce her Christian faith. She was going to be a martyr for the faith.
Radical Islam claims a lot of things but it claims Islam is so much the only way, truth and light that one can be killed if they renounce that religion. Islam is such a loving, life giving religion in these fanatics' eyes that one has to be kept in that religion at the point of a sword. Or the end of a gun.
And the fanatics in The Sudan that lied about Mrs. Ibrahim almost were going to get their pound of flesh.
The reason that they did not is that in the end, such a sentence could not be carried out because many disparate forces unified to point out what a horrible act the carrying out of the sentence would be.
Yet the "authorities" played some more games quite possibly in a last ditch effort to get Mrs. Ibrahim to reject Christianity and become Islamic and her children become Islamic. And while using a trumped-up charge, they gave it their best shot.
Hopefully very soon, Meriam Ibrahim, Daniel Wani, Martin and Maya will be on a plane for the United States and real freedom.
The Sudan government will not be able to play their games with the family here in the United States.
Mrs. Ibrahim is the Christian woman that had been charged with apostasy for "rejecting" Islam under the Sudanese interpretation of Sharia law. Mrs. Ibrahim was convicted in a kangaroo court based on so-called relatives "evidence" who essentially turned her in to Sudanese "authorities". And she was pregnant with her second child at the time of conviction. A conviction of 100 lashes for adultery (she is married to a Christian man), and once the baby is born two years after the child is weaned death.
Yeah, that Sharia law is no joke especially when interpreted in the worst way.
Well, this past weekend, a Sudanese appeals court voided the lower court sentence and the court ordered Mrs. Ibrahim freed. It seemed like sanity was about to prevail, right?
Oops! My bad!
So sorry to fib about that because as Mrs. Ibrahim was with her husband, Daniel Wani, and both of her children were at the Khartoum International airport waiting to get the hell out of the hellhole known as Sudan, she faced the wrath of the crazies once again and was rearrested on a unique charge to say the least.
Mrs. Ibrahim was arrested and charged with forging her travel documents. And this time, the Sudanese "authorities" had the whole family to throw in jail.
The best part of the second arrest?
That one of Mrs. Ibrahim's half brothers went to the "authorities" to claim that she was kidnapped from the Islamic side of the family and should not have been returned to her Christian husband, Daniel.
Such a wonderful family they are.
It is important to explain that Mrs. Ibrahim did have an Islamic father and a Christian mother. The dad left the family high and dry when Mrs. Ibrahim was a young child. Mrs. Ibrahim's mother raised her in the Ethiopian Orthodox church. In fact, the mother remarried a Christian man and the marriage certificate is available. For some reason not really explained, a relative from the dad's Islamic family turned her in to the "authorities" claiming that she is really an Islamic woman and committed adultery by "marrying" a Christian man. Thus charges were filed and a trial was commenced. Now Mrs. Ibrahim could have prevented this from going where it did. So long as she renounced being a Christian and nullified her marriage to Daniel Wani. But Mrs. Ibrahim did not renounce the only faith that she knew. That of the Christian faith. And according to Sharia law, it was wrong for her to be raised as a Christian because even though daddy left mommy, one has to be raised in the faith of the male.
Kind of neat that the males can marry whoever they want but if one is a gal, too bad. That's Sharia law for you.
Again, all this occurred because a half-brother that Mrs. Ibrahim did not know by the name of Al Samani Al Hadi Mohamed Abdullah. The real reason he used Sharia law is so that he and his Islamic wife could take Mrs. Ibrahim's successful businesses.
Sharia law my a*s!
But the court that the trail was held found Mrs. Ibrahim guilty of rejecting a religion she never knew, Islam, and being an adulterer because she married a Christian man that she should not have done. She was supposed to marry an Islamic man. Even though she said throughout everything that she was never, ever Islamic.
Thus came the development of her sentence being thrown out on appeal and the appeal court freeing Mrs. Ibrahim.
And the rearrest of Mrs. Ibrahim, her husband, Daniel Wani, her 21 month old son, Martin and one month-old daughter, Maya, born in a horrible women's prison named Omdurman Federal Women's Prison. As I noted, the whole family was jailed.
But today, it appears that the whole family has been released from jail under the condition that they remain in The Sudan for the time being.
While that seems to be good news, there is no word as to when the family can leave the hellhole of The Sudan for freedom. Originally, the family was going to go to the Christian South Sudan. But now once they are allowed to leave The Sudan, they will all come to the United States.
But this just shows what happens when a government implements Sharia law. A law that totally discounts anything that a woman may or may not say. A law that takes whatever a male says, even if it is all lies, as the truth. That is exactly what happened here. What has to really gall the fanatics is that at no time, even while giving birth to Maya, Mrs. Ibrahim would denounce her Christian faith. She was going to be a martyr for the faith.
Radical Islam claims a lot of things but it claims Islam is so much the only way, truth and light that one can be killed if they renounce that religion. Islam is such a loving, life giving religion in these fanatics' eyes that one has to be kept in that religion at the point of a sword. Or the end of a gun.
And the fanatics in The Sudan that lied about Mrs. Ibrahim almost were going to get their pound of flesh.
The reason that they did not is that in the end, such a sentence could not be carried out because many disparate forces unified to point out what a horrible act the carrying out of the sentence would be.
Yet the "authorities" played some more games quite possibly in a last ditch effort to get Mrs. Ibrahim to reject Christianity and become Islamic and her children become Islamic. And while using a trumped-up charge, they gave it their best shot.
Hopefully very soon, Meriam Ibrahim, Daniel Wani, Martin and Maya will be on a plane for the United States and real freedom.
The Sudan government will not be able to play their games with the family here in the United States.
Monday, September 23, 2013
A Terror Attack In Kenya And A 1990s Movie
The minute that I heard about the Islamofacist assault on an upscale shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, a movie came to mind.
That would be The Siege, a mid 1990s movie that is worth watching for it deals with Islamofacists (before 9/11) committing terror attacks in the United States.
It does go a wee bit off the rails because it implies that the president of the United States can declare martial law any time, anywhere in the United States. That is not true as it would take congress to approve such an action.
But I digress.
The movie deals with acts of Islamofacist terror at an escalating rate that culminates with the destruction of the New York City FBI headquarters and over 600 casualties.
And what happened in Nairobi?
An attack that engulfed an entire shopping mall and as of this writing is still possibly going on as information regarding the government soldiers and the terrorist fighting is still very confusing.
Remember another attack in Nairobi in the 1990s?
Yes that is when the United States embassy was bombed there as well as Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on the same day.
That caused 297 deaths and over 4,000 injuries.
But one of the attacks occurred in Kenya. Kenya is a Christian majority nation that borders Somalia, an apocalyptic land in which the majority are adherents to Islam. But, sadly, the overwhelming majority are the victims of the radical Islamics that have taken advantage of the anarchy that is Somalia.
One of those groups is al-Shabaab and it is believed that they took part in the attack.
Yes, al-Shabaab is just one of those misunderstood terror groups under Islam, aka the Religion of Peace.
This is not to indict all Islamic people. Not in the least. But to point out that there is a strain of the religion that is, how does one say it, militant and extreme that it will even take on it's fellow adherents if they are not Islamic enough.
Kenya invaded Southern Somalia to assist the latest fledgling attempt to empower a strong central government and rid the nation of such terrorists.
And of course, al-Shabaab is not happy with that at all. So what if these people are not just waging their jihad within Somalia proper? So what if they would wage their jihad within the borders of Christian Kenya? After all, they should not resist the wonders of the Religion of Peace, right? Especially those rules and laws under Sharia, right?
So why did this terrorist assault remind me of a movie?
Because of this.
A terrorist act occurred on United States soil. Some people were convinced that it was a one-time event, little if anything to worry about. Some saw a larger more sinister picture. And the latter group was correct. And the one event, the bombing of the FBI office in New York City, the president wanted to clamp down and get those responsible. And, unconstitutionally, declared martial law and pulled an FDR Islamic style and rounded up Islamic males and interring them in camps in Brooklyn, New York.
Or the way to look at it is that there were some that believed there was an enemy and we have to fight them.
And of course there were those that felt it was a police action and up to law enforcement and "the system" to take care of things.
And that is what is going on right now.
Because too few people actually listened to former President George W. Bush when he said over and over again that the War Against Islamofacist Terror would be a long one. That more than likely there would not be the parade down Broadway in Manhattan, New York as was the case at the end of World War II in Europe. And that there would be different ways to deal with different situations. To be blunt, these are the people that don't want to fight the terrorists. They believe that at best it is a law enforcement and court issue.
And does anyone really think that the events unfolding in Nairobi will not happen at some point here in the United States? How about Islamofacists running up and down Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, California asking people if they are Islamic and can recite a certain prayer and if so, they live but the others are shot to death? Or maybe any other upscale area in the United States?
I am here to tell you that it WILL at some point happen in the United States, It is only a matter of time.
The question is will you be willing to take the fight to the radical Islamics and kill them or treat such matters as a law enforcement situation and those that may commit the act live and get their day in court.
And somehow I thought of a movie because it is indicative of how it thinks about the War Against Islamofacist Terror.
That would be The Siege, a mid 1990s movie that is worth watching for it deals with Islamofacists (before 9/11) committing terror attacks in the United States.
It does go a wee bit off the rails because it implies that the president of the United States can declare martial law any time, anywhere in the United States. That is not true as it would take congress to approve such an action.
But I digress.
The movie deals with acts of Islamofacist terror at an escalating rate that culminates with the destruction of the New York City FBI headquarters and over 600 casualties.
And what happened in Nairobi?
An attack that engulfed an entire shopping mall and as of this writing is still possibly going on as information regarding the government soldiers and the terrorist fighting is still very confusing.
Remember another attack in Nairobi in the 1990s?
Yes that is when the United States embassy was bombed there as well as Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on the same day.
That caused 297 deaths and over 4,000 injuries.
But one of the attacks occurred in Kenya. Kenya is a Christian majority nation that borders Somalia, an apocalyptic land in which the majority are adherents to Islam. But, sadly, the overwhelming majority are the victims of the radical Islamics that have taken advantage of the anarchy that is Somalia.
One of those groups is al-Shabaab and it is believed that they took part in the attack.
Yes, al-Shabaab is just one of those misunderstood terror groups under Islam, aka the Religion of Peace.
This is not to indict all Islamic people. Not in the least. But to point out that there is a strain of the religion that is, how does one say it, militant and extreme that it will even take on it's fellow adherents if they are not Islamic enough.
Kenya invaded Southern Somalia to assist the latest fledgling attempt to empower a strong central government and rid the nation of such terrorists.
And of course, al-Shabaab is not happy with that at all. So what if these people are not just waging their jihad within Somalia proper? So what if they would wage their jihad within the borders of Christian Kenya? After all, they should not resist the wonders of the Religion of Peace, right? Especially those rules and laws under Sharia, right?
So why did this terrorist assault remind me of a movie?
Because of this.
A terrorist act occurred on United States soil. Some people were convinced that it was a one-time event, little if anything to worry about. Some saw a larger more sinister picture. And the latter group was correct. And the one event, the bombing of the FBI office in New York City, the president wanted to clamp down and get those responsible. And, unconstitutionally, declared martial law and pulled an FDR Islamic style and rounded up Islamic males and interring them in camps in Brooklyn, New York.
Or the way to look at it is that there were some that believed there was an enemy and we have to fight them.
And of course there were those that felt it was a police action and up to law enforcement and "the system" to take care of things.
And that is what is going on right now.
Because too few people actually listened to former President George W. Bush when he said over and over again that the War Against Islamofacist Terror would be a long one. That more than likely there would not be the parade down Broadway in Manhattan, New York as was the case at the end of World War II in Europe. And that there would be different ways to deal with different situations. To be blunt, these are the people that don't want to fight the terrorists. They believe that at best it is a law enforcement and court issue.
And does anyone really think that the events unfolding in Nairobi will not happen at some point here in the United States? How about Islamofacists running up and down Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, California asking people if they are Islamic and can recite a certain prayer and if so, they live but the others are shot to death? Or maybe any other upscale area in the United States?
I am here to tell you that it WILL at some point happen in the United States, It is only a matter of time.
The question is will you be willing to take the fight to the radical Islamics and kill them or treat such matters as a law enforcement situation and those that may commit the act live and get their day in court.
And somehow I thought of a movie because it is indicative of how it thinks about the War Against Islamofacist Terror.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Why We Should Not Get Involved In Syria's Civil War
UPDATE:
To show that the opposition to bombing Syria is making for strange bedfellows, even The Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, is noticing that maybe the opposition may not be a bunch of Freedom Fighters seeking mom, falafel and democracy. Do read this article here. Although it describes a brutal act, it still does not top the brutality of the link I left you with at the end of the original post.
09-04-2013
I know that the few people totally with the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new found love of the armed forces of the United States will say to me, "Why did you favor the war against Iraq? Because it was your guy, Bush? Don't you remember that Bush lied and people died?"
OK, I will address those legitimate points later.
But what is before us, now the congress of the United States, is whether or not to support the Dear Leader, President Obama, in his mission to use the air force of the United States to bomb Syria because allegedly the dictator, Bashar Assad, used some kind of chemical weaponry on his people in the two-year old civil war last month.
And absent absolute, compelling evidence and the willingness of the Dear Leader, President Obama, to want regime change with allies, not enemies, of the United States, I can not support that at this time.
Today the senate foreign relations committee voted to authorize the Dear Leader, President Obama, to use force in response to the use of chemical weapons. The vote was 10-7 with newly elected senator Edward Markey (D-Mass (of course)) voting present. And it was not a strict party line vote either as this break down shows. FTR, here is the vote by party:
YES
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz.)
NO
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.),
Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
The link above points out a lot of interesting political implications of this and the expected subsequent vote for the resolution next week.
But back to the point as to whether the United States should at this point become a player in this quagmire.
The link to Wikipedia shows that this is one helluva mess. The government has a coalition of forces that is about 341,000. The rebels also have a coalition of about 146,000.
Syria is supported by Iran with about 150 advisors as well as the Iranian puppet Hezbollah and about 1,500 to 5,000 fighters. It also has support in the international community from Red China and Russian. Most important, and the reason we may be getting involved is that they have the secret weapon of chemical weapons that they have already allegedly used on their people.
The rebels are a motley crew to say the least. The largest group is the secular Free Syrian Army with a strength of about 50 to 80.000. Then it gets mostly murky and more radical Islamic. The next largest group is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front with about 37 to 40,000. Then there is the Syrian Islamic Front with a force of about 13,000. Oh of course they want to set up an Islamic state based on Sharia law, as does the former Islamic Liberation Front. Very important to keep these players separate I guess. And here comes another of the wonderful opposition fighters, the Al-nusra front. Oh these dudes are real charmers. They don't just want there 7,000 fighters to bring down the Assad government and set up an Islamic state under Sharia law but want it for the whole of the region. And just a point of note that these dudes will not protect Christians, a minority, as they beheaded a Roman Catholic priest after his monastery was destroyed by said fighters. Oh yeah, I am up for taking these dudes over Assad. And let us not forget the wandering band of Mujahideen that are about 7,000 Sunni Islamics and pretty much hate Shi'a Islamics and the Alawites, a Shi'a sect of which Assad is a part of.
As I wrote, the opposition groups are just more and more radical Islamic and now overshadow the Free Syrian Army.
And note that there is a lot of divisions within divisions that make who we should have been or are now supporting all the more difficult.
This civil war is a direct result of the so-called Arab Spring which saw uprisings against long-time mostly pro-West dictators and autocrats. The Arab Spring, hows that going? Er, not so well. Islamic regimes are now in power in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. But Egypt's military just said no and threw out the government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is totally ungovernable and Tunisia is ready to throw out their Islamics. And Syria is the most drawn out and longest of the wars of the Arab Spring.
The whole Arab Spring has turned into Islamic Winter. And the worst aspect is that that last hold out, Bashar Assad, is not even a remote friend of the United States. In fact he is as unsavory as they come. But if you look at the potential that can win this God forsaken civil war, Assad actually starts looking good.
First reason why the United States should not get involved in this dispute is that there is no discernible American interest in siding with either side. Assad is a brutal dictator that is in bed with the Iranians and radical Shi'a Islam. The opponents who want to dislodge Assad are a rogues gallery of radical Sunni Islamics. We blew our chance to actively support the Free Syrian Army straight away and they are being overtaken by the radicals. What is being proposed will not make a difference.
Second reason why we should stay out is we have no game plan beyond our navy firing off cruise missiles in the hope of maybe scaring Assad to not use chemical weapons. There is no plan to do anything to take out any of the possible chem weapon sites. Yes there is the risk of the weapons releasing and causing more death and mayhem. But if we are trying to stop Assad from using them, don't we want to get rid of them? And since we are not taking sides and seeking regime change then this is a recipe for disaster and embarrassment for the United States.
The third reason why we need to stay out is we really do not know for absolute certain what side did use the chem weapons in the first place. The specter of Iraq hangs very high on this. After all, we were told by many intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and yet none were found. Thus many who were for the invasion of Iraq felt that they were lied to and wanted to turn tail and run so fast. Many went so far as to suggest that Afghanistan was a "good" war and Iraq was a "bad" war not realizing that they are theatres in the War Against Islamicfacist Terror. So, in a nation at civil war and rebel forces holding a great deal of territory, one has to at least think that they have some access to chem weapons. And that they may, may have staged the whole event to get exactly the outcome of outrage against Assad and a little help with air power to get rid of him. Why should we believe the intelligence on this blindly if not even more blindly than we did in regard to Iraq? It is as if George W. Bush is still in the White House, right?
Forth reason is simple. We don't know what we want to happen in Syria. There is no one saying that there is a desired outcome of bombing Syria. Do we want the rebels to win? Eh, not really. Do we want to bomb Assad into submission? Maybe. If we do not have a total game plan, then forget it.
The reason that we are in this mess is simple. It is because we have blown the whole Arab Spring. By not guiding it away from the radical Islamics taking power in Tunisia, Egypt and held off in Syria, we tacitly accepted Islam beginning to unify and form an Islamic Crescent and the reinstitution of the Caliphate. To be blunt it is amateur hour in Washington from the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down.
The bottom line is that we, the United States, should not get involved in Syria unless we radically change course. And since we will not, lets work harder to verify who actually used chem weapons. And where are the chem weapons depots. That would be a good start. I leave you this link as to what we could be supporting, tacitly, by bombing Syria.
To show that the opposition to bombing Syria is making for strange bedfellows, even The Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, is noticing that maybe the opposition may not be a bunch of Freedom Fighters seeking mom, falafel and democracy. Do read this article here. Although it describes a brutal act, it still does not top the brutality of the link I left you with at the end of the original post.
09-04-2013
I know that the few people totally with the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new found love of the armed forces of the United States will say to me, "Why did you favor the war against Iraq? Because it was your guy, Bush? Don't you remember that Bush lied and people died?"
OK, I will address those legitimate points later.
But what is before us, now the congress of the United States, is whether or not to support the Dear Leader, President Obama, in his mission to use the air force of the United States to bomb Syria because allegedly the dictator, Bashar Assad, used some kind of chemical weaponry on his people in the two-year old civil war last month.
And absent absolute, compelling evidence and the willingness of the Dear Leader, President Obama, to want regime change with allies, not enemies, of the United States, I can not support that at this time.
Today the senate foreign relations committee voted to authorize the Dear Leader, President Obama, to use force in response to the use of chemical weapons. The vote was 10-7 with newly elected senator Edward Markey (D-Mass (of course)) voting present. And it was not a strict party line vote either as this break down shows. FTR, here is the vote by party:
YES
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz.)
NO
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.),
Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
The link above points out a lot of interesting political implications of this and the expected subsequent vote for the resolution next week.
But back to the point as to whether the United States should at this point become a player in this quagmire.
The link to Wikipedia shows that this is one helluva mess. The government has a coalition of forces that is about 341,000. The rebels also have a coalition of about 146,000.
Syria is supported by Iran with about 150 advisors as well as the Iranian puppet Hezbollah and about 1,500 to 5,000 fighters. It also has support in the international community from Red China and Russian. Most important, and the reason we may be getting involved is that they have the secret weapon of chemical weapons that they have already allegedly used on their people.
The rebels are a motley crew to say the least. The largest group is the secular Free Syrian Army with a strength of about 50 to 80.000. Then it gets mostly murky and more radical Islamic. The next largest group is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front with about 37 to 40,000. Then there is the Syrian Islamic Front with a force of about 13,000. Oh of course they want to set up an Islamic state based on Sharia law, as does the former Islamic Liberation Front. Very important to keep these players separate I guess. And here comes another of the wonderful opposition fighters, the Al-nusra front. Oh these dudes are real charmers. They don't just want there 7,000 fighters to bring down the Assad government and set up an Islamic state under Sharia law but want it for the whole of the region. And just a point of note that these dudes will not protect Christians, a minority, as they beheaded a Roman Catholic priest after his monastery was destroyed by said fighters. Oh yeah, I am up for taking these dudes over Assad. And let us not forget the wandering band of Mujahideen that are about 7,000 Sunni Islamics and pretty much hate Shi'a Islamics and the Alawites, a Shi'a sect of which Assad is a part of.
As I wrote, the opposition groups are just more and more radical Islamic and now overshadow the Free Syrian Army.
And note that there is a lot of divisions within divisions that make who we should have been or are now supporting all the more difficult.
This civil war is a direct result of the so-called Arab Spring which saw uprisings against long-time mostly pro-West dictators and autocrats. The Arab Spring, hows that going? Er, not so well. Islamic regimes are now in power in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. But Egypt's military just said no and threw out the government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is totally ungovernable and Tunisia is ready to throw out their Islamics. And Syria is the most drawn out and longest of the wars of the Arab Spring.
The whole Arab Spring has turned into Islamic Winter. And the worst aspect is that that last hold out, Bashar Assad, is not even a remote friend of the United States. In fact he is as unsavory as they come. But if you look at the potential that can win this God forsaken civil war, Assad actually starts looking good.
First reason why the United States should not get involved in this dispute is that there is no discernible American interest in siding with either side. Assad is a brutal dictator that is in bed with the Iranians and radical Shi'a Islam. The opponents who want to dislodge Assad are a rogues gallery of radical Sunni Islamics. We blew our chance to actively support the Free Syrian Army straight away and they are being overtaken by the radicals. What is being proposed will not make a difference.
Second reason why we should stay out is we have no game plan beyond our navy firing off cruise missiles in the hope of maybe scaring Assad to not use chemical weapons. There is no plan to do anything to take out any of the possible chem weapon sites. Yes there is the risk of the weapons releasing and causing more death and mayhem. But if we are trying to stop Assad from using them, don't we want to get rid of them? And since we are not taking sides and seeking regime change then this is a recipe for disaster and embarrassment for the United States.
The third reason why we need to stay out is we really do not know for absolute certain what side did use the chem weapons in the first place. The specter of Iraq hangs very high on this. After all, we were told by many intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and yet none were found. Thus many who were for the invasion of Iraq felt that they were lied to and wanted to turn tail and run so fast. Many went so far as to suggest that Afghanistan was a "good" war and Iraq was a "bad" war not realizing that they are theatres in the War Against Islamicfacist Terror. So, in a nation at civil war and rebel forces holding a great deal of territory, one has to at least think that they have some access to chem weapons. And that they may, may have staged the whole event to get exactly the outcome of outrage against Assad and a little help with air power to get rid of him. Why should we believe the intelligence on this blindly if not even more blindly than we did in regard to Iraq? It is as if George W. Bush is still in the White House, right?
Forth reason is simple. We don't know what we want to happen in Syria. There is no one saying that there is a desired outcome of bombing Syria. Do we want the rebels to win? Eh, not really. Do we want to bomb Assad into submission? Maybe. If we do not have a total game plan, then forget it.
The reason that we are in this mess is simple. It is because we have blown the whole Arab Spring. By not guiding it away from the radical Islamics taking power in Tunisia, Egypt and held off in Syria, we tacitly accepted Islam beginning to unify and form an Islamic Crescent and the reinstitution of the Caliphate. To be blunt it is amateur hour in Washington from the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down.
The bottom line is that we, the United States, should not get involved in Syria unless we radically change course. And since we will not, lets work harder to verify who actually used chem weapons. And where are the chem weapons depots. That would be a good start. I leave you this link as to what we could be supporting, tacitly, by bombing Syria.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Attacking Christian Churches In Egypt By The Religion Of Peace
The Religion Of Peace, aka Islam, Islamic, or Muslim, ahh they tend to get worked up pretty easy in some parts of the world, don't they?
I mean, I guess if I was an Islamist in Egypt and did not like the fact the armed forces removed the democratically elected president, Mohammad Morsi, who would I take my rage on?
Why the Egyptian Coptic Christians of course.
And they are doing so with vengeance that is usually reserved for the really big bogeyman in the radical Islamic world, the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll JEWS!
According to Ed Morrissey over at Hotair.com, ABC and to a lesser extent CNN are actually reporting this horrible aspect of theDay of Rage Endless Rage of the Islamics.
Here is a little bit of the radical Islamics handiwork.
Beautiful, isn't it?
Why of course the reason that Mr. Morsi and by extension the Muslim Brotherhood, were ousted from office is because of the immense power of Pope Tawadros II.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Fat chance!
Egyptian Christians under the Coptic Church has lived in more or less subjugation since the 12th century. Even though the religion has been allowed, first under the Jizya tax that is only for non-Islamics it was only in the mid-1800s that the church came out from under the thumb of Islamic rulers.
And since the Radical Islamics got their taste of power in the last year, they sure made it known where the Christians stood in the New Egypt.
Back to the bad old days.
But because their numbers are not much, a mere 10% or there abouts or about 8,500,000 of a total population of 85,000,000, and their relative lack of serious influence, it is very doubtful they had much to do with the military removal of Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. But the fact that they support it, well that is all the Radical Islamics need to whip their supporters into such a frenzy as to harass and take out a part of their Endless Rage on their Christian co-citizens.
Why is this so important?
Because the Christian church in the Middle East is dwindling at an alarming rate. The fact of the matter is that the Coptic Church in Egypt is the highest concentration of Christians in North Africa or the Middle East. The only other nation with a large number of Christians is in Lebanon.
The Middle East is where the faith was born. In fact, the Christian presence in the Holy Land is all but non-existent. And no doubt the radicalization of Islam and their influence even in non-radicalized groups is pervasive, makes it difficult for Christians to freely practice the faith without a genuine fear of one's life.
Oddly enough, the freest one can practice Christianity in the Middle East with out government threat or undue influence is Israel.
But Egypt is important and the Christians need to be supported in all ways. It is almost a line in the sand to defend the faith and it's adherents in this region. They are being unduly attacked because they have held on to what they believe. And that is the antithesis to the Radical Islamics. They believe for no reason that the Church poses a threat to them and their religion.
It does not.
The powers that be within Islam in Egypt need to forcefully oppose and denounce this clear coordinated attack against the Christians within their nation. It needs to support their freedom, limited as it is even now, to practice their faith with little interference from the government no matter who is in office. And it needs to help protect the churches throughout the nation that have and have not been a part of the Endless Rage of the Radical Islamics.
The Religion Of Peace, Islam, can take a real stand in regards to the abuse that Egyptian Christians are facing here and now. So long as the violence continues against the Christians with little condemnation from those within Islam in Egypt, then I will call all of Islam out on this.
And thus, Islam cannot be a serious religion of peace when it commits near genocide against Christians.
I mean, I guess if I was an Islamist in Egypt and did not like the fact the armed forces removed the democratically elected president, Mohammad Morsi, who would I take my rage on?
Why the Egyptian Coptic Christians of course.
And they are doing so with vengeance that is usually reserved for the really big bogeyman in the radical Islamic world, the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll JEWS!
According to Ed Morrissey over at Hotair.com, ABC and to a lesser extent CNN are actually reporting this horrible aspect of the
Here is a little bit of the radical Islamics handiwork.
Why of course the reason that Mr. Morsi and by extension the Muslim Brotherhood, were ousted from office is because of the immense power of Pope Tawadros II.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Fat chance!
Egyptian Christians under the Coptic Church has lived in more or less subjugation since the 12th century. Even though the religion has been allowed, first under the Jizya tax that is only for non-Islamics it was only in the mid-1800s that the church came out from under the thumb of Islamic rulers.
And since the Radical Islamics got their taste of power in the last year, they sure made it known where the Christians stood in the New Egypt.
Back to the bad old days.
But because their numbers are not much, a mere 10% or there abouts or about 8,500,000 of a total population of 85,000,000, and their relative lack of serious influence, it is very doubtful they had much to do with the military removal of Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. But the fact that they support it, well that is all the Radical Islamics need to whip their supporters into such a frenzy as to harass and take out a part of their Endless Rage on their Christian co-citizens.
Why is this so important?
Because the Christian church in the Middle East is dwindling at an alarming rate. The fact of the matter is that the Coptic Church in Egypt is the highest concentration of Christians in North Africa or the Middle East. The only other nation with a large number of Christians is in Lebanon.
The Middle East is where the faith was born. In fact, the Christian presence in the Holy Land is all but non-existent. And no doubt the radicalization of Islam and their influence even in non-radicalized groups is pervasive, makes it difficult for Christians to freely practice the faith without a genuine fear of one's life.
Oddly enough, the freest one can practice Christianity in the Middle East with out government threat or undue influence is Israel.
But Egypt is important and the Christians need to be supported in all ways. It is almost a line in the sand to defend the faith and it's adherents in this region. They are being unduly attacked because they have held on to what they believe. And that is the antithesis to the Radical Islamics. They believe for no reason that the Church poses a threat to them and their religion.
It does not.
The powers that be within Islam in Egypt need to forcefully oppose and denounce this clear coordinated attack against the Christians within their nation. It needs to support their freedom, limited as it is even now, to practice their faith with little interference from the government no matter who is in office. And it needs to help protect the churches throughout the nation that have and have not been a part of the Endless Rage of the Radical Islamics.
The Religion Of Peace, Islam, can take a real stand in regards to the abuse that Egyptian Christians are facing here and now. So long as the violence continues against the Christians with little condemnation from those within Islam in Egypt, then I will call all of Islam out on this.
And thus, Islam cannot be a serious religion of peace when it commits near genocide against Christians.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Is Libya Heading To A Sharia Law State?
WOW! Who would have thought it? That the new Libya would stride nicely into becoming an Islamist state complete with Sharia law?
Well, some of us armchair analysts, you know not the Ivy-League types, kind of thought this might be the outcome of the Libyan revolution against the late dictator, Moammar Khadafy.
And it appears that we were correct.
If this report is to be believed, and why not since it is out of the mouth of the head honcho, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, that is exactly where Libya is headed.
In this post from March 23 of this year, your humble blogger asked an obvious question:
Wait, we do not even know anything about these rebels. We maybe backing forces worse, if you can believe that, than the dictator Qaddafi.
OK, lets see, they capture a wounded Khadafy then drag his possibly still alive body on the hood of a pickup truck through his hometown of Sirte.
While I do relish the end and death of Khadafy, it is not the way things are done in civilized societies.
Now there is the serious possibility that Libya will become another Islamic state. One that maybe a Sunni Islam version of Iran.
Is that what we wanted in the ouster of Khadady? Is it our national interest to oust a bad dude for a group of bad dudes?
It appears that maybe the case here.
And it is looking very likely that Tunisia will end up becoming an Islamic state if the election held today favors Islamic parties. The election is for the constitutional assembly and who will be on it. And if the majority turn out to be Islamsts, what good will have been gained?
This is the direct result of not leading but letting others do the dirty work. That is what the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats have done in this case. And in the long run, the detriment maybe a slew of Islamist regimes from Tunisia to Egypt. And all will, no doubt, be much more anti-American than the previous ones.
No question, the United States made some serious mistakes.
Like not getting some of the leaders, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt to transition. Same in Tunisia.
Part of the problem was that these were secular leaders. And they used the specter of their nations falling in the hands of Islamist fanatics. Yet their bid to hold onto power ended up doing just that.
Khadafy in Libya is a little different.
He was using some Islamic law with his own twisted socialist vision. Kind of like Saddam Hussein did to the end of his reign of terror. Thus he co opted Just enough of Islamic teaching to make him out to be a defender of the faith.
But when the opportunity arose, the true believers began a revolution. And the end result is probably going to be a hostile, anti-American Islamist state ruled by Sharia law.
Yeah, I don't have some Ivy-League advanced degree, but how could I see this coming and not the best and the alleged brightest in the highest places of American government?
Well, some of us armchair analysts, you know not the Ivy-League types, kind of thought this might be the outcome of the Libyan revolution against the late dictator, Moammar Khadafy.
And it appears that we were correct.
If this report is to be believed, and why not since it is out of the mouth of the head honcho, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, that is exactly where Libya is headed.
In this post from March 23 of this year, your humble blogger asked an obvious question:
Wait, we do not even know anything about these rebels. We maybe backing forces worse, if you can believe that, than the dictator Qaddafi.
OK, lets see, they capture a wounded Khadafy then drag his possibly still alive body on the hood of a pickup truck through his hometown of Sirte.
While I do relish the end and death of Khadafy, it is not the way things are done in civilized societies.
Now there is the serious possibility that Libya will become another Islamic state. One that maybe a Sunni Islam version of Iran.
Is that what we wanted in the ouster of Khadady? Is it our national interest to oust a bad dude for a group of bad dudes?
It appears that maybe the case here.
And it is looking very likely that Tunisia will end up becoming an Islamic state if the election held today favors Islamic parties. The election is for the constitutional assembly and who will be on it. And if the majority turn out to be Islamsts, what good will have been gained?
This is the direct result of not leading but letting others do the dirty work. That is what the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats have done in this case. And in the long run, the detriment maybe a slew of Islamist regimes from Tunisia to Egypt. And all will, no doubt, be much more anti-American than the previous ones.
No question, the United States made some serious mistakes.
Like not getting some of the leaders, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt to transition. Same in Tunisia.
Part of the problem was that these were secular leaders. And they used the specter of their nations falling in the hands of Islamist fanatics. Yet their bid to hold onto power ended up doing just that.
Khadafy in Libya is a little different.
He was using some Islamic law with his own twisted socialist vision. Kind of like Saddam Hussein did to the end of his reign of terror. Thus he co opted Just enough of Islamic teaching to make him out to be a defender of the faith.
But when the opportunity arose, the true believers began a revolution. And the end result is probably going to be a hostile, anti-American Islamist state ruled by Sharia law.
Yeah, I don't have some Ivy-League advanced degree, but how could I see this coming and not the best and the alleged brightest in the highest places of American government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)