Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 29, 2015, 08:44:51 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
84536 Posts in 2264 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Articulating our cause/strategy against Islamic Fascism
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Articulating our cause/strategy against Islamic Fascism  (Read 16445 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12280


« Reply #100 on: January 18, 2015, 09:16:56 AM »


The vast majority of Muslims ruin it for all the rest.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4294


« Reply #101 on: January 18, 2015, 11:53:46 AM »

Jindal's Brilliant Take on Radical Islam
 
Friday, 16 Jan 2015 08:18 PM

By Larry Kudlow

“Let’s be honest here. Islam has a problem.”

Those are key sentences in an incredibly hard-hitting speech that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give in London on Monday.

 It is the toughest speech I have read on the whole issue of Islamic radicalism and its destructive, murdering, barbarous ways which are upsetting the entire world.

 Early in the speech Jindal says he’s not going to be politically correct.

 And he uses the term “radical Islamists” without hesitation, placing much of the blame for the Paris murders and all radical Islamist terrorism on a refusal of Muslim leaders to denounce these acts.

 Jindal says, “Muslim leaders must make clear that anyone who commits acts of terror in the name of Islam is in fact not practicing Islam at all. If they refuse to say this, then they are condoning these acts of barbarism. There is no middle ground.”

Then he adds, specifically, “Muslim leaders need to condemn anyone who commits these acts of violence and clearly state that these people are evil and are enemies of Islam. It’s not enough to simply condemn violence, they must stand up and loudly proclaim that these people are not martyrs who will receive a reward in the afterlife, and rather they are murderers who are going to hell. If they refuse to do that, then they’re part of the problem. There is no middle ground here.”

I want to know who in the Muslim community in the United States has said this. Which leaders? I don’t normally cover this beat, so I may well have missed it. Hence I ask readers to tell me if so-called American Muslim leaders have said what Governor Jindal is saying.

 And by the way, what Bobby Jindal is saying is very similar to what Egyptian president al-Sisi said earlier in the year to a group of Muslim imams.

 Said al-Sisi, “It’s inconceivable that the thinking we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.”

He then asks, “How is it possible that 1.6 billion Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live?” He concludes, if this is not changed, “it may eventually lead to the religion’s self destruction.”

And what Jindal and al-Sisi are saying is not so different from the thinking of French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy.



Special: Live Better in Retirement With the Baby Boomer Survival Guide

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he calls the Charlie Hebdo murders “the Churchillian moment of France’s Fifth Republic.”

He essentially says France and the world must slam “the useful idiots of a radical Islam immersed in the sociology of poverty and frustration.”

He adds, “Those whose faith is Islam must proclaim very loudly, very often, and in great numbers their rejection of this corrupt and abject form of theocratic passion. . . . Islam must be freed from radical Islam.”

So three very different people — a young southern governor who may run for president, the political leader of the largest Muslim population in the world, and a prominent Western European intellectual — are saying that most of the problem and most of the solution rests with the people of the Islamic religion themselves.

 If they fail to take action, the radicals will swallow up the whole religion and cause the destruction of the entire Middle East and possibly large swaths of the rest of the world.

 Lévy called this a Churchillian moment. And London mayor Boris Johnson argues in his book The Churchill Factor that Winston Churchill was the most important 20th century figure because his bravery in 1940 stopped the triumph of totalitarianism.

 So today’s battle with the Islamic radicals is akin to the Cold War battle of freedom vs. totalitarianism.

 But returning to Governor Jindal, the U.S. is not helpless. Jindal argues that America must restore its proper leadership role in international affairs. (Of course, Obama has taken us in the opposite direction, and won’t even use the phrase “Islamic radicals.”)

And Jindal invokes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher by saying, “The tried and true prescription must be employed again: a strong economy, a strong military, and leaders willing and able to assert moral, economic, and military leadership in the cause of freedom.”

Reagan always argued that weakness at home leads to weakness abroad. A strong growing economy provides the resources for military and national security.

 Right now we’re uncomfortably close to having neither.

This is the great challenge of our time. In the early years of the 21st century, it appears the great goal of our age is the defeat of radical Islam.

 Jindal gets it.​

To find out more about Lawrence Kudlow and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Finance/jindal-islam-radical-religion/2015/01/16/id/619154/#ixzz3PCAQDGyE
 Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 12:07:37 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12280


« Reply #102 on: January 18, 2015, 09:51:00 PM »

Hooray for Jindal! At least someone is showing leadership.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32267


« Reply #103 on: January 20, 2015, 02:27:07 PM »

This is over one hour, but everyone is very intelligent and thoughtful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUGmv5TGaTc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVK-O2VD_x0
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 06:35:56 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12280


« Reply #104 on: January 20, 2015, 04:23:17 PM »

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/01/suppose-islam-had-holocaust-and-no-one_19.html?m=1

Should be any minute now.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12280


« Reply #105 on: January 21, 2015, 06:06:02 PM »

But props to him for inviting Bibi to address congress.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32267


« Reply #106 on: January 21, 2015, 06:39:36 PM »

In conjunction with the Sanctions vote coming up in Congress, this could be the beginning of a major power play.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32267


« Reply #107 on: January 22, 2015, 05:12:19 PM »

Terror Goal: Behavior Modification Of The West
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 22, 2015
President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron both missed the point in their characterization of the terror attacks in Europe.
 
Obama was way off the mark calling it "violent extremism" "terrorism" but studiously avoiding the mention of Islam.
 
Cameron was closer to the truth, bluntly saying that the attacks represented "a very serious Islamist extremist terrorist threat" advancing a "poisonous and fanatical ideology."
 
But both leaders really missed it.  The Paris attacks are a new form or terrorism not aimed at random death and mayhem but rather specifically targeting Western institutions and seeking to modify our behavior. 
 
Today the terrorists attack anyone who depicts the prophet Mohammed in satirical form.  Tomorrow, they may attack hog farms or what they consider pornography or institutions that promote freedom for women.
 
As Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy reminds us, the goal to terrorism is the global imposition of Sharia Law.  By refining the target of their attacks, the Paris bombings represent a very specific escalation.  Their goal was not to spread fear and insecurity but to punish violations of Sharia Law.
 
Islamic terrorists are going to use terror more and more as a method of de facto imposing Sharia on us all.
 
And they have succeeded!  No media, except for the magazine Charlie, targeted in the attack, and a brave German paper have printed the image that provoked the attack.  No publication, media outlet, or internet site will dare publish or post the Prophet's image.  Not because of respect for the religious beliefs of others but because of simple fear and prudence.
 
The terrorists are likely to capitalize on their success and use targeted attacks to spread Sharia Law throughout our society.  We may expect attacks on schools that prohibit girls from wearing burkas, films that depict Islamic terror in a negative light, and other institutions that promote freedom.
 
That is the nature of the enemy we face and its real goal.
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12280


« Reply #108 on: January 23, 2015, 12:23:50 AM »

Submission.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32267


« Reply #109 on: January 24, 2015, 01:19:59 PM »

Obviously playing with fire on this, but the point is not without merit , , ,

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

(Pam Gellar) She called on Muslim groups in the U.S. “to renounce the aspects of Islam that contradict constitutional freedoms, or face sedition charges if they try to advance those elements.”****
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32267


« Reply #110 on: January 27, 2015, 04:20:10 PM »

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/islamism-and-the-left
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 642


« Reply #111 on: January 28, 2015, 07:32:32 AM »

The Imaginary Islamic Radical

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On January 28, 2015

The debate over Islamic terrorism has shifted so far from reality that it has now become an argument between the administration, which insists that there is nothing Islamic about ISIS, and critics who contend that a minority of Islamic extremists are the ones causing all the problems.

But what makes an Islamic radical, extremist? Where is the line between ordinary Muslim practice and its extremist dark side?

It can’t be beheading people in public.

Saudi Arabia just did that and was praised for its progressiveness by the UN Secretary General, had flags flown at half-staff in the honor of its deceased tyrant in the UK and that same tyrant was honored by Obama, in preference to such minor events as the Paris Unity March and the Auschwitz commemoration.

It can’t be terrorism either. Not when the US funds the PLO and three successive administrations invested massive amounts of political capital into turning the terrorist group into a state. While the US and the EU fund the Palestinian Authority’s homicidal kleptocracy; its media urges stabbing Jews.

Clearly that’s not Islamic extremism either. At least it’s not too extreme for Obama.

If blowing up civilians in Allah’s name isn’t extreme, what do our radicals have to do to get really radical?

Sex slavery? The Saudis only abolished it in 1962; officially. Unofficially it continues. Every few years a Saudi bigwig gets busted for it abroad. The third in line for the Saudi throne was the son of a “slave girl”.

Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? The “moderate” Islamists we backed in Syria, Libya and Egypt have been busy doing it with the weapons and support that we gave them. So that can’t be extreme either.

If terrorism, ethnic cleansing, sex slavery and beheading are just the behavior of moderate Muslims, what does a Jihadist have to do to be officially extreme? What is it that makes ISIS extreme?

Our government’s definition of moderate often hinges on a willingness to negotiate regardless of the results. The moderate Taliban were the ones willing to talk us. They just weren’t willing to make a deal. Iran’s new government is moderate because it engages in aimless negotiations while pushing its nuclear program forward and issuing violent threats, instead of just pushing and threatening without the negotiations. Nothing has come of the negotiations, but the very willingness to negotiate is moderate.

The Saudis would talk to us all day long while they continued sponsoring terrorists and setting up terror mosques in the West. That made them moderates. Qatar keeps talking to us while arming terrorists and propping up the Muslim Brotherhood. So they too are moderate. The Muslim Brotherhood talked to us even while its thugs burned churches, tortured protesters and worked with terrorist groups in the Sinai.

A radical terrorist will kill you. A moderate terrorist will talk to you and then kill someone else. And you’ll ignore it because the conversation is a sign that they’re willing to pretend to be reasonable.

From a Muslim perspective, ISIS is radical because it declared a Caliphate and is casual about declaring other Muslims infidels. That’s a serious issue for Muslims and when we distinguish between radicals and moderates based not on their treatment of people, but their treatment of Muslims, we define radicalism from the perspective of Islamic supremacism, rather than our own American values.

The position that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate and Al Qaeda is extreme because the Brotherhood kills Christians and Jews while Al Qaeda kills Muslims is Islamic Supremacism. The idea of the moderate Muslim places the lives of Muslims over those of every other human being on earth.

Our Countering Violent Extremism program emphasizes the centrality of Islamic legal authority as the best means of fighting Islamic terrorists. Our ideological warfare slams terrorists for not accepting the proper Islamic chain of command. Our solution to Islamic terrorism is a call for Sharia submission.

That’s not an American position. It’s an Islamic position and it puts us in the strange position of arguing Islamic legalism with Islamic terrorists. Our politicians, generals and cops insist that the Islamic terrorists we’re dealing with know nothing about Islam because that is what their Saudi liaisons told them to say.

It’s as if we were fighting Marxist terrorist groups by reproving them for not accepting the authority of the USSR or the Fourth International. It’s not only stupid of us to nitpick another ideology’s fine points, especially when our leaders don’t know what they’re talking about, but our path to victory involves uniting our enemies behind one central theocracy. That’s even worse than arming and training them, which we’re also doing (but only for the moderate genocidal terrorists, not the extremists).

Secretary of State Kerry insists that ISIS are nihilists and anarchists. Nihilism is the exact opposite of the highly structured Islamic system of the Caliphate. It might be a more accurate description of Kerry. But the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood successfully sold the Western security establishment on the idea that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism was by denying any Islamic links to its actions.

This was like an arsonist convincing the fire department that the best way to fight fires was to pretend that they happened randomly on their own through spontaneous combustion.

Victory through denial demands that we pretend that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. It’s a wholly irrational position, but the alternative of a tiny minority of extremists is nearly as irrational.

If ISIS is extreme and Islam is moderate, what did ISIS do that Mohammed did not?

The answers usually have a whole lot to do with the internal structures of Islam and very little to do with such pragmatic things as not raping women or not killing non-Muslims.

Early on we decided to take sides between Islamic tyrants and Islamic terrorists, deeming the former moderate and the latter extremists. But the tyrants were backing their own terrorists. And when it came to human rights and their view of us, there wasn’t all that much of a difference between the two.

It made sense for us to put down Islamic terrorists because they often represented a more direct threat, but allowing the Islamic tyrants to convince us that they and the terrorists followed two different brands of Islam and that the only solution to Islamic terrorism lay in their theocracy was foolish of us.

We can’t win the War on Terror through their theocracy. That way lies a real Caliphate.

Our problem is not the Islamic radical, but the inherent radicalism of Islam. Islam is a radical religion. It radicalizes those who follow it. Every atrocity we associate with Islamic radicals is already in Islam. The Koran is not the solution to Islamic radicalism, it is the cause.

Our enemy is not radicalism, but a hostile civilization bearing grudges and ambitions.

We aren’t fighting nihilists or radicals. We are at war with the inheritors of an old empire seeking to reestablish its supremacy not only in the hinterlands of the east, but in the megalopolises of the west.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!