New DVD on Islamic Terrorism


Entitled Islam: What the West Needs to Know, the new DVD is a dramatic, eye-opening, powerful presentation of how Islam is related to terrorism. It is just the kind of thing I've been looking for to share with friends. Even if I told them exactly the same thing they would learn on the video, it wouldn't be the same. People listen differently to an authoritative third party, even if you yourself are an authority.

The DVD has an impressive line-up of well-spoken experts in Islam. One of the experts is a former PLO member (and a former Islamic terrorist). What he had to say was sobering.

In contrast to what the experts were saying, the DVD shows clips of George Bush, Bill Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, and Tony Blair, all saying complimentary things about Islam, such as the old standby, "Islam is a religion of peace." Several times, while watching these speakers, you get the impression they have no clue what they're talking about. They've never read the Koran. They're really just guessing, but they're guessing wrong, or they're trying to be politically correct, but spreading misleading and potentially dangerous ideas.

The same kind of misleading statements are made in western universities and in western media.

Not all Muslims are violent fanatics, of course. Far from it. But it is important to understand some basic differences between Islam and religions we're more familiar with in the West (Buddhism, Christianity, and Judaism). Islam is strikingly different from the other religions in at least five important ways.

1. First of all, Islam is more like a political ideology than a personal religious practice, and as such requires the laws of the land to be Islamic. It is the duty of each Muslim to help make their country an Islamic state if it isn't already. This would be only mildly interesting if you didn't know that: 1) Muslims are influencing laws in several European countries already, and 2) Islamic laws are religiously intolerant, completely against free speech, and turn women into property owned by men, etc.

From its beginning, Islam has been both a religion and a system of government. Or, as one of the experts in the film put it, Islam has always been a "geopolitical project." The purpose of the project is to make the whole world submit to Islamic law.

2. The Prophet Mohammad, the man who founded the religion, was a violent ruler. He killed or exiled the men of three tribes of Jews from Arabia, taking their women as concubines. Mohammad himself once personally beheaded 600 Jewish men.

Although this kind of behavior was not unusual for a brutal warlord in his time, it doesn't seem appropriate for what we normally think of as a spiritually enlightened person. Most westerners don't know about this information, and they simply assume the teachings of Islam are similar to the teachings of other religions.

Mohammad ordered the assassination of several of his political opponents. He cut off the hands and feet of men belonging to the tribe of Urania and did not cauterize their bleeding limbs until they died.

The ex-terrorist interviewee said when he was a boy in Palestine, they taught a famous story in school about how Mohammad ordered a Rabbi tortured to find out where the Jews had hidden their gold and silver. His eyes were put out, and he was burned. This was ordered by Mohammad.

Can you imagine the founders of other religions doing something like that? For gold? This is unlike any other religion.

But unfortunately, Islam is similar to other religions in one way: Muslims look to their founder as a model. This is important to understand because it means devout religious faith and violent action are not as contradictory in Islam as they are in other religions. Mohammad is the man to imitate.

3. Islam sanctions deceiving unbelievers. And here is where you realize how important it is to know something about Islam. They have no problem at all, no internal conflict, about lying to Westerners about anything and everything. Including saying things like, "Islam means peace" and "we do not sanction terrorism."

In Terrorists Among Us - Jihad in America, Steven Emerson discovered organizations right here in the U.S. raising money for refugees, or at least that's what the unwitting and generous Americans were told, but their contributions went to funding terrorist organizations.

An Islamic fundamentalist has no problem deceiving unbelievers. He will experience no pangs of conscience. The act is completely permissible in Islamic scripture. As a matter of fact, it is encouraged. Whatever needs to be done to win the war against unbelievers is perfectly all right. Not just all right, it is a religious duty to mislead unbelievers in order to gain political advantage.

4. According to Islam, the only guaranteed way of getting into heaven is to die while fighting for Islam.

5. Muslims everywhere in the world are united by religion, daily rituals, and language. Muslims everywhere in the world have to learn Arabic. You don't get into heaven unless you read the Koran in Arabic.

If I weren't the enemy of these people, and if I was looking at this from a purely memetic point of view, I would be astonished by the brilliance of the memeplex. It provides for its own defense, creates its own relentless spread, makes devout followers that are completely consumed by the memeplex, and provides for the establishment of governments to support the dominance of the memeplex.

In a war of memes, Islam is dangerously powerful.

You might think the experts in the film are all selected to be Islamophobes or Muslim-haters. But they are saying the same thing ex-Muslims say in Leaving Islam. And the same thing an ex-Muslim wrote to us. But maybe they all hate Islam and they're all horribly biased. Ultimately, the only way to find out is to read the Koran itself. I've got a copy and I've been reading it, and unfortunately, the experts in the film were telling the truth.

But although the Koran is the single most important book in Islam, there are other books that are also important: The Hadiths, which contain official supportive material to the Koran.

In the Koran, Mohammad has conversations with the angel Gabriel, sometimes about events in his life. The Hadiths explain these events so people will know what they're talking about. The Hadiths also include instructions and clarifications of what it says in the Koran.

Among other things, the Hadiths have very clear instructions for faithful Muslims: They are to meet the infidels on the battlefield and invite them to either become Muslims or accept Dhimmi status (a subordinate status in society). If they refuse either, then devout Muslims are to kill the infidels on the battlefield.

The Koran has many contradictory statements. For example, in one place (2:256), it says, "There is no compulsion (i.e. coercion) in religion."

Yet in another place (9:5) it says, "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them...but if they repent and accept Islam...then leave their way free."

What does a devout Muslim do with such contradictions? The answer is written in the Koran itself. It says the one written later (in Mohammad's life) overwrites the one written earlier. In the two passages above, the first one has been overridden by the second one. The second one, unfortunately, was the last revelation Mohammad ever wrote.

But Allah is all-wise, because now those earlier passages can help deceive the infidels. Militant Muslims are using the earlier, more peaceful and tolerant passages, to show us. "Islam is a religion of peace. Here, let me give you a quote right out of our holy book."

Oddly enough, the notion that Islam is a religion of peace is even believed by the most violent terrorists.

How can this be? They believe that when Islam rules the world
when all other religions are wiped off the face of the earthpeace will reign. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.

The DVD is packed with interesting, illuminating information. Here are three brief nuggets from the film I found particularly surprising:

1. The ex-PLO man said there were far more applicants for suicide missions than explosives for them to carry with them.

2. If you eliminate the conflicts in the world involving Muslims, the world is a pretty peaceful place.

3. Non-Muslims think of Islam the way the think about other religions, and that is a mistake.
One of the interviewees on the film, Robert Spencer, was very articulate. It was obvious he knew the subject inside and out. Among other things, he said,

"The most important thing the West needs to know about Islam today is that it has a political character, and that it is not simply a religion. But it is a religion or a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with western society.

"Americans need to know this. Western Europeans need to know this, because Muslims are coming into western countries while holding these beliefs and intending to act upon them. They are the motivations behind modern terrorist activity and they are the goals of millions of Muslims in the United States and around the world.

"We need to know this so we can protect ourselves. But unfortunately, because of political correctness, and because of the media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism, these things remain largely unknown."

Spencer also said,

"It's unfortunate, but there's no negotiating with the Jihadists. There is no striking a deal with them. Islamic law is very clear on that...Islamic law does not allow for treaties. It does not allow for negotiated settlements between Muslim states and non-Muslim states.

"All it allows for is a temporary period of up to ten years of 'hudna' or what is commonly translated as 'truce' to allow the Islamic forces to gather their strength. But that's not the same as peace as we know it. That's not the same as the absense of a state of war. That's only a temporary lull in a war that the Jihadists consider has gone on for 14 centuries, and are willing to fight for 14 more."

I urge you to get this DVD, watch it yourself (several times) and share it with people. You can order it at here:

Watch the trailer for the movie:


Imagine No Troops In Iraq


SOME PEOPLE THINK the liberation of Iraq was a bad idea. They think we should pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis govern their own country. What would happen if we did that? Would the angry Islamists (militant or fundamentalist Muslims) leave us alone? No. They'd want us out of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan too.

Okay, let's say we did that too. Would they leave us alone? Maybe, at least for awhile, because they'd be busy taking over the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan and Turkey too. Jordan. Even Spain (it is the duty of a Muslim to re-take a country that had formerly been Islamic, and Spain once was).

Let's say we let all this go. It's their problem, I've heard people say. Let's let them work it out. Let's say we do that. What will happen? Unless something amazing happens by luck, these trained, organized, well-funded, well-armed Islamists will successfully seize control of most or all of the Middle Eastern countries. Not our problem, right? Let them do what they want.

They will remove the rights of women and freedom of the press from the countries they take over. But guess what? They also want the those rights removed from the United States, Australia, and Europe as well. Will we allow that? Not a chance. So they will do what they do best: Use terrorism to coerce us. But now the Islamists will be far more powerful and wealthy and dangerous than they are now.

If you think we should pull out of Iraq and leave them to their fate, please write to us at We would like to know what solution you have for the problem. If it is good, we'll publish it and promote it, or help you promote it if you prefer.

If you know of someone who thinks we should pull out of Iraq, please forward them this page and ask them to write to us. We would be willing to post their answer here. Or they can come to the site and leave a comment.


Should The U.S. Pull Out Of Iraq?

What to say to someone who thinks the U.S. ought to pull out of Iraq

A knee-jerk anti-war attitude is a kind of mind-virus and it is dangerous. With enough promiscuous carriers of this virus, national strength is diminished. Halfway measures and empty gestures then take the place of resolute and effective action, as they have many times in the past in response to terrorist attacks. The result is something we've seen already: September 11th. But you can act as a kind of antibody to the virus in your everyday conversations:

Virus Carrier (VC): We ought to just pull out of Iraq. Let them sort it out for themselves.

Sane Antibody (SA): If you were the President, what would you do about Islamic terrorism? (This is always a good place to start. Put them on the defensive. Allow them to come up with answers they haven't thought through. This in itself can make them at least less willing to put their virus into the memosphere in the future.)

VC: Well, I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place.

SA: That's not much of an answer. That's what you wouldn't do, but it has already been done. So let's say you became president right now. What would you do about Islamic terrorism?

VC: I would pull the U.S. out of Iraq right away.

SA: What do you think would happen in Iraq if you did that?

VC: Who cares? That's their destiny. They should be allowed to work it out on their own without interference.

SA: We should care because a sizable minority of Muslims are militant and would quickly take over the governance of Iraq and build an Islamic state, establishing Sharia law (Islamic law).

Islamists (Islamic fundamentalists) are highly motivated to seize power — literally willing to die for the cause. And they would be given (and are already being given) money and weapons by nearby Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. So that's who would very likely gain control of the government if the U.S. pulled out now.

The fledgling democracy in Iraq doesn't have the security forces yet capable of defending itself. So if we stopped "interfering," only those Islamist forces would be interfering.

Islamists want to follow the Koran to the letter. That's the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist. The majority of Muslims are "moderates" which means they would like to modify the teachings of Mohammad so they can remain a Muslim yet live in a modern democracy with human rights and freedom.

Islamists, on the other hand, are determined to follow Mohammed's teachings to the letter. And Mohammad said if you are a faithful Muslim, you must make constant war with non-Muslims (and moderate Muslims) until the whole world submits to Islam.

VC: But like you said, most of them don't believe that way.

SA: But if even only one percent believe that way (and it is probably much more than that), we're talking about ten million Muslims worldwide willing to kill and/or die to make it happen. This kind of fanaticism and commitment is powerful and effective. If the U.S. pulls out now, the fanatics would almost certainly seize control of the government. This is a near-consensus prediction of every expert on the subject. The Islamists would assassinate leaders and blow things up, and they would not stop — no matter how long it took — until they seized power.

According to Islamic tradition, the world is divided into two spheres: The House of Islam, and the House of War. Look at all the conflicts in the world and you will find almost all of them are Islamists fighting with someone, trying to gain control of a government or at least making it very difficult for the existing government to function.

It is not just Islamic countries attacking or harassing non-Muslim countries. Many of the conflicts are Islamists of one country attacking moderate Muslims of the same country.

In Egypt for example, the Islamists have been fighting against the democratic government there — a government that has been trying for a long time to have a democracy and modify their laws so they are not strictly Sharia (Islamic law). They're trying to add more human rights and rights for women and the Islamists are blowing things up and assassinating people to make sure this does not happen.

VC: Why?

SA: Because it is against Sharia law. There is only one legitimate government according to the Islamists. It is Allah's government. A man-made government (for example, a democracy) is incompatible with Sharia law — so the Islamists feel that democracies must be fought against until they are destroyed. If you are a "true believer," if you are to follow the Koran to the letter, this is what you must do whether you like it or not, according to the Prophet Mohammad.

That's why it would be foolish for the U.S. to just leave things alone and let things work out on their own. The Islamists will NOT leave things alone. The committed fanatics would take over, build up their military machine, and take over more and more countries. They would consolidate their power. They would form an Islamist Empire. That is their stated goal and they are totally committed to it. Leave it alone and the problem will keep getting worse.

VC: But part of the problem is that the United States has already interfered so much in the Middle East (usually on the wrong side and only to selfishly protect our oily interests) that now they all hate our guts.

SA: In the past, many U.S. administrations followed the Cold War foreign relations policy of "containment" which meant that we befriended anyone who would help us contain the threat of communistic expansion or the Islamist threat. So the U.S. aided Islamists in their fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, even though we knew Islamists are dangerous. The Taliban seized control of the government when the war was over.

The containment policy may or may not have been a good idea at the time, but one thing is for sure: It was immoral. The leaders of the free world were helping dictators stay in power. Not always, but even once is too often. The only legitimate government is one established by the will of the people. Dictators and anyone seizing a government by force would, in an ideal world, be as internationally outlawed as slavery.

LA: Wait a minute. Are you admitting the U.S. has been doing bad things in the Middle East?

SA: Absolutely. Previous administrations. And that's one of the good things about the Bush administration. They have changed the U.S. foreign policy. Not only is it now against foreign policy to aid a dictator, but it is now part of official U.S. foreign policy that the U.S. has an obligation to help people establish democracies.

VC: But why help? Why not let them do it on their own?

SA: Because when a government rules with an iron fist, it is almost impossible for the population to rise up and overthrow that government on their own. They have no guns, no rights of assembly. They can't get together with each other to rally or organize. The government controls the media. Anyone writing something disagreeable to the government is imprisoned or worse.

Other democracies could and should help. Especially the U.S. It is the only remaining superpower and should use that power for good — to help democracies get off the ground, to protect them from Islamists until a democratic government can establish security forces of its own.

Democracy is ultimately the long-term answer to the question, "What can be done to make Islamic terrorists weaker?" Democracies do not provide fertile ground for growing, training, or funding terrorist organizations.

LA: But some of the terrorists, like the ones recently in London, were Londoners.

SA: Yes, supported and trained by Islamic states. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and until a few years ago, Afghanistan and Iraq, all gave money, support, training, and safe haven to any Muslims anywhere who were willing to strike a blow at the infidels (non-Muslims). Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are still doing it.

If those governments, which were not voted in by the free will of the people, were replaced by democracies, the huge funds and training facilities would shrivel and disappear, leaving Islamists isolated and unsupported. They'd have to get regular jobs. They'd have to enter society. And they might find better things to do with their time. If not, they would be much easier to find and capture.

VC: But I'm still against the war because Bush lied to us to get us into the war.

SA: The notion that Bush lied is probably not true. If he was misleading (and what politician is not misleading sometimes), it wasn't nearly to the extent that the anti-Bush propaganda has asserted. It is not cut-and-dried what happened. There is some good evidence that during the waiting period (before the Iraq invasion actually started), many WMDs (weapons of mass destruction, including Sarin gas and warheads) were smuggled out of Iraq into Syria. At the time, the political party ruling Iraq was the Ba'ath party, with Saddam at the top, and that is also the party that ruled and still rules Syria.

The United Nations also had 17 UN resolutions on record that Saddam violated. And the oil-for-food program wasn't working. It was making Saddam richer and making his people poorer.

Iraq was clearly a danger to his own people and to other countries. Saddam was an aggressive dictator who paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to blow up Israeli civilians. There were also many indirect ties from Saddam to al-Qaeda, and some people who with inside information say there were direct ties. You don't hear much about these because of the political bias of most mainstream media.

Iraq was definitely a safe haven and source of financial support for Islamic terrorists — that is a fact. The number of ties to al-Qaeda specifically is in dispute and is largely irrelevant because this is a war on terrorism, not just al-Qaeda.

VC: The only reason the U.S. fought this war was for oil. Soldiers are fighting and dying for oil.

SA: So where is all this oil? I wish we'd at least take a little oil so gas prices could come down. But no. Not only are we not taking Iraq's oil, the U.S. is spending billions of dollars to help the country. The U.S. should probably demand some oil in payment but that's not going to happen.

VC: Well, Bush and his cronies didn't plan the post-war period very well and it has cost many lives.

SA: On the contrary, before the invasion even started, the Bush administration, with the consultation of the best intelligence and war experts in the country, drafted a 700-page plan for dealing with the post-war period. Even in their public statements at the time, Rumsfeld and Bush said quite clearly that establishing a democracy would be difficult and would take time.

The 700-page plan allotted seven years for the first major phase. The plan has been adapted to the circumstances, but most of their objectives have so far occurred ahead of schedule.

They have made some mistakes, of course. They have had to modify their tactics as new information became available. Even the way the invasion was conducted was new: By design, it was sudden and relied on speed, special forces reconnaissance, and advanced technology.

On the one hand this meant the war was won quickly and with few casualties, which was a major goal. But what they now know is that a slower war would probably have allowed towns to be completely taken, one after the other, and might have helped prevent the kind of resistance pockets they encountered after the war ended. That information will be put to use in the future.

VC: But the war with Iraq didn't achieve the goal it was supposed to achieve, which was supposedly to defeat terrorism. There is more terrorism now than there was before the war.

SA: In the short term, yes, that might be true. It depends on whose statistics you look at. Some show a decline in terrorist acts worldwide, and there has not been a single terrorist act on U.S. soil since the war began, and if you remember, that was a major concern before the invasion began. Many people thought there would be lots of terrorist acts in the U.S. once the war started.

A positive outcome that may have excellent long-term prospects is a large recent survey showing that support for terrorism has declined significantly in Muslim countries.

But that is all about the short-term. This project is much bigger than most people realize, mainly because Bush and his administration are lousy at public relations. The project is much bigger and the plans involve a much longer period of time than you could glean from mainstream news sources.

Let's start with what is happening now. Where is all the resistance in Iraq coming from? Part of it is, of course, the remnants of the Ba'ath party, which was the ruling party in Iraq since 1968. Understandably enough, they didn't like being ousted and they seek revenge, and/or they want to regain their lost dominance.

But much more importantly, three Islamic countries (Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia) are smuggling money, guns, and soldiers into Iraq to try to prevent a democracy from getting off the ground.

To an Islamist, the achievement of a democracy in Iraq would be a disaster. The Islamists' goal is to get the whole world to submit to Islam, by force if necessary (this is not anti-Muslim propaganda; the Islamists themselves are quite explicit in describing their goals).

A budding democracy in a major Muslim country means two things, both of them bad for nearby Islamic countries: First, this new government is definitely not going to follow Sharia law to the letter, so it is a "man-made" government, voted in by majority votes. Islamists consider moderate Muslims to be apostates. An apostate is someone who has renounced Islam. The punishment for apostasy is death, according to the Islamists.

The second bad thing (to the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran) about a democratic country right in the middle of the Middle East is that the populations of their own countries will likely demand democracy for themselves more insistently than ever before (and of course the U.S. may even help).

So the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran have a very serious stake in preventing — by every means available — a democracy from getting off the ground in Iraq. So they are fighting it tooth and nail. That's where almost all the resistance is coming from. It is not a general resistance to the U.S. "occupation." The majority of Iraqis don't think of the U.S. soldiers as an occupying force. They think of them as a temporary police force and they're grateful for them.

Of course, the Islamists are fighting against the only superpower in the world. As long as the people of the U.S. maintain their determination to finish the job, it will be accomplished, and the people in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran will start demanding democracy for themselves, and when those countries are democratic, Islamic terrorism will be enormously reduced all over the world.

This is a long term and audacious plan, but truly a solution likely to succeed and not a temporary band-aid or empty gesture, which is what previous administrations have tried.

Ideally, we wouldn't have Islamists on this planet. But we do. It would be nice if it just went away on its own. But it shows no sign of doing that. If nothing is done about it, the problem will only continue to get worse. The best long-term solution is to support democracy. Not just giving it lip service, but really.

Democracies need help getting started when there is already a repressive government in place — a government that doesn't have a free press. The only people with weapons in those countries are the rulers and their henchmen. Under those conditions — no matter how much the majority may desire democracy — it is almost impossible for them to make it happen on their own.

But with some help from western democracies, fledgling democracies can get off the ground. As they do, Islamic terrorists will lose their safe havens and support. In the meantime, to maintain the political will to finish what we've started, this project needs your active support. Help educate the people around you. Those people may be voters.

VC: I hate it that the U.S. imposes its culture on the rest of the world.

SA: What do you mean?

VC: Democracy is an American invention.

SA: No, it isn't. But even if it was, the fact is that most of the people in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc., want freedom. They would prefer their governments didn't run their media. They would prefer the freedom to criticize their government without being jailed or killed. The women would prefer to have human rights.

MOST of the people in those countries want to live in a free country. We're not imposing democracy. We're allowing it. We're acting as a police force, holding off the potential dictators who are desperately trying to sieze the government until a democratic government can take root.

The Iraqis have voted in their own people. They have had free elections, and even though the terrorists threatened to kill anyone who voted, they had a better turnout for their national election than the United States usually has! They WANT freedom. This is not being imposed on them against their will.

The Islamists are the ones objecting. And their resistance to the newly forming democracy isn't nearly as bad as it seems because of the nature of media distortion.


Is Violence The Only Thing That Breeds Violence?


We received an email that said, essentially, violence can only breed more violence. Citizen Warrior replied:

I don't know if it's true that violence can only breed more violence. I think earlier, preemptive violence could save an enormous amount of suffering. Hitler's Germany would be a good example. Everyone could see many years ahead of time what Hitler was up to, but nobody wanted to go to war because war is ugly and horrible and people die. So the nations of Europe and the U.S. ignored it, stuck their heads in the sand, and allowed Hitler to expand his powers almost past the point of no return.

Should we ignore cruel dictatorships like Saddam's or Pol Pot's? Should we ignore the subjugation of whole populations? What do you suggest as an alternative to war? Appeasement? That's what the countries of Europe were doing with Hitler, but he didn't play by normal rules (as most dictators don't), so he made agreements and allowed people to appease him, and then he stabbed them in the back. Should we have let Saddam continue to rule? Is that "right?" Is that the moral choice? What about trade embargoes and talks. They were tested. Nothing worked. Saddam was not a sane man and he didn't play by normal rules. And he wouldn't allow his people to revolt. What alternative to violence do you have?

He wrote back and said several things. First, he doesn't have an alternative to violence. He wants his elected officials to make those decisions. Also, the war in Iraq is only about oil. He said we abandoned Afghanistan and ignore Palestine because there is no oil in those places. He also said maybe we should stop this discussion because our minds are made up already. Citizen Warrior replied:

Okay, so you have no alternative to violence. It sounds like you're not so much FOR anything as against what you don't like. That's the easy way out. It is easy to criticize what others are doing. It is much harder to offer a better alternative. At a company I worked for, it was policy that if you had a complaint, your complaints were welcome as long as you also presented a possible solution. It was very productive.

Oil is only one of the things this war is about. Yes, it will probably be in our oily interest to create a democracy in Iraq. As you can see from gas prices right now, we are clearly not taking any of their oil. But it will also be in our safety interest (less money going to finance suicide bombers, for example), and it is also in the interest of the Iraqi people. What are they to us? They are human beings and deserve human rights. I understand about the oil. But I don't think it would be right to refrain from liberating Iraq just because they have oil. The fact that it is also in America's best interest doesn't cancel the fact that replacing a brutal dictator with a democracy is in EVERYONE'S interest (except Islamic terrorists, of course).

We have not abandoned Afghanistan. We still have a considerable military presence there, and we have soldiers actively fighting and dying today ridding that country of the remnants of the Taliban. Where did you get the impression we had abandoned them?

And the U.S. has been intricately involved in the Palestinian question for a long time. It is a very difficult issue because many the Islamists just want all the Israelis dead and they are willing to blow themselves up to take some Israelis with them. They don't want to negotiate. They don't want to compromise. They want the Jews driven into the sea. How do you "take a positive role" in something like that other than kill them all, which of course we can't do? Do you have any ideas? This is a serious, complicated, difficult problem that will only be harmed by glib answers.

The most dangerous thing that has happened in the last 30 years is the increasingly negative influence of mainstream media. Other media sources are available, and other facts are available, but many people, maybe a majority of people, do not ever see these sources. You apparently haven't. I don't blame you. I feel we've been hoodwinked by the mainstream media. They have gotten so good at what they do they've got us almost brainwashed.

And finally, one of the things that is really bad about what's happening is that people don't discuss this stuff. So everyone stays in "their" camp, reads and watches only "their" sources, and they let others argue it out on television. It sounds like it would be good for both of us to have this kind of dialog. All we've done so far in this discussion is make our opening remarks. Now that we know where we stand, we are ready for dialog. If you want to stop, I'm okay with that. But it seems a shame. Maybe you could open my eyes, and visa versa. Since when it is a good idea to stop learning? When did it become wise to have your mind made up? What is the point of free speech if people don't argue with each other, try to persuade each other, and try to work out compromises?

I invite you to counter my arguments with sound reason, good examples, and evidence. Let us begin now to enlighten each other.


Can Iraq Become a Democracy?

A QUESTION ASKED in many news articles, "Is it possible to create a democracy in Iraq?" is the wrong question. You can't really answer that question. It depends on how many people work on the project, how hard we try, and for how long. So many things that "everyone knew" were impossible have been accomplished that the question "can it be done" is meaningless.

The right question is something like this: "Is this a worthy goal?" If it is, persistence is what we need. Motivation. Not hand-wringing or nay-saying. Thus this web site, Part of our mission is to help create and sustain the will to finish the job, not just in Iraq, but around the world. Helping a country become a democracy is a worthy goal.

Of course some people don't want it to happen. Some "doves" don't want it to happen because it will make "hawks" look good. They might think it's great to have a democracy, but not this way. Not through war.

Terrorists don't want it to happen because they'll lose out on money and potential hiding places if this distressing trend toward freedom and democracy continues.

Writers of the front page news stories are having a field day criticizing everything about the whole attempt to create democracies. And if these writers are too successful and persuasive, they will sap the determination of people around the world, and the attempt to help tyrannized countries free themselves could die in utero. Join with us and let's keep the fires burning. Let's help each other stay motivated for the long haul. This is a great quest. A noble purpose. Let freedom ring.


Is a Terrorist's Culture as Valid as Any Other?


THE MUSLIM TRADITIONALISTS in Afghanistan, who are hell-bent on keeping people in the 7th century, have taken to attacking teachers who teach girls, and even have gone so far as to lie in wait and shoot girls on their way to school.

Read the story of Hashimi. She's been a teacher, even when the Taliban was in power and women were forbidden to teach. She was caught several times and beaten severely. But she was not deterred. Although now the Islamists are not as free to harass women teachers or female students, they still do, going so far as to kill them.

Why did I give you such bad news, and what can you do about it? I want to emphasize the importance of spreading information about terrorism. And to underscore the reason we cannot allow Islamists to take hold of Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else. These people are relentless, deadly serious, and totally committed.

What can you do about it? You can vote, of course, but you can also make a difference in your everyday interactions. You can help by sharing what you know with others, and by working to improve how well you articulate what you know.

I've said it before: This is a war of memes and you are on the front line. What the majority of people believe about terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism will decide how things turn out. You can't change what everybody believes. But you can influence what your friends believe.

I urge you to influence your friends, especially the ones who think the U.S. should try to appease terrorists and pull out of Iraq. Read how here: Influencing Your Friends.


When Will The Fighting Stop In Iraq?


DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH. In Iraq, Islamists (Muslims trying to follow the Koran to the letter) are attacking modern Muslims (people who want to update their religion and only practice the best of it) and anyone who tries to help them (U.S. troops, for example). Why? Because the modern Muslims are creating a "man-made" government (a democracy). This is against the rules for fundamentalists. Islamists are attacking modern Muslims creating a free country.

As any good Muslim can tell you, the Koran commands its followers to live under Sharia law and a Muslim who avoids doing that (A Muslim trying to create a democracy, for example) is a traitor to Islam and deserves to die.

This will probably be going on for a long time in Iraq. Islamists from around the world are jumping at the chance to fight infidels and apostates anywhere they can, and Iraq is the place to be these days.

But this process of Islamists blowing themselves up will be around long after U.S. troops leave (if they ever leave). Suicide bombers in Palestine have been at it for at least 30 years and show no sign of letting up.

The only way to curb the suicide bombings in the long run is to remove the Islamists' safe havens. In other words, the only way to stop it is to create democracies. That won't really stop it, but it will curb the number of attacks immensely. Islamists who are financed by Islamic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria have a far easier time getting recruits and weapons than people in free democracies where they find little support.

A great added bonus to helping to create democracies where none existed before is that millions of women will be able to live their lives as free human beings for the first time.

But all democracies are going to be continually harassed by Islamist suicide bombers, probably forever. They will not go away. They're like a bad dream you can't wake up from. If you ignore them, they will take control of countries, eliminating human rights, build up their strength, and then infiltrate our countries and try to kill some of us. If you appease them, they will consider you an easy target and will attack you even more. If you fight them, you are "an enemy of Islam" and must be destroyed. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are not a Muslim, you are an enemy to these people. Read why here.

This is a relentless, implacable problem that needs to be dealt with, not as a hobby but in earnest. It is unfortunate that this exists in the world, but wishing it would go away doesn't help. Many people want it to be solved quickly so they can get back to their lives. That is a mistaken and potentially dangerous attitude. Take the problem lightly or only deal with it half-heartedly, and the problem will only get worse. In fact, that is why we've got our worsened problems now: Western governments haven't been taking it seriously enough, and neither have us citizens.

The Islamist movement was successfully suppressed for 150 years, but things have changed. The cause of the suppression has been forgotten by people in the free world and the Islamists have picked up where they left off, but with new technology and oil money at their disposal. If we in the free world do not rise to the occasion, they will only grow stronger.


Wafa Sultan Blasts Islam on Al-Jazeera

WATCH A five-and-a-half minute clip from Al-Jazeera of an Arab-American psychologist (Wafa Sultan) delivering a devastating critique of Muslims and defense of Jews. Sounds like partisan bickering, but try to find a single comment she makes that you can disagree with. She does this within the framework of a debate with a muslim cleric, whose only argument is: "You're a heretic, so we don't have to listen to you." Watch the video:

An articulate rant that says something important is a beautiful thing to behold. Wafa Sultan achieves it in this clip.


EUROPE SHARIATIZED: Beating Of Wives Legitimized By German Court


The following is an article By Serge Trifkovic and we reprint it here with his permission.

The husband routinely beat his 26-year-old German-born wife, mother of their two young children, and threatened to kill her when the court ordered him to move out of their apartment in Hamburg. The police were called repeatedly to intervene. The wife wanted a quick divorce – without waiting a year after separation, as mandated by German law – arguing that that the abuse and death threats she suffered easily fulfilled the “hardship” criteria required for an accelerated decree absolute. The judge – a woman by the name of Christa Datz-Winter – refused, however, arguing that the Kuran allows the husband to beat his wife and that the couple’s Moroccan origin must be taken into account in the case. They both come from a cultural milieu, Her Honor wrote, in which it is common for husbands to beat their wives – and the Kuran sanctions such treatment. “The [husband’s] exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565” of German federal law, the judge’s letter said. [emphasis added] The judge further suggested that the wife’s Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim his honor had been compromised.

The reports in German and English do not state this, but Turkish papers have reported that the judge made specific reference to Sura 4, which contains the infamous Verse 34: Men have the authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. The wife’s lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, could not believe her eyes: a German judge was invoking Kuran in a German legal case to assert the husband’s “right to castigate” his wife. The meaning was clear: “the husband can beat his wife,” Becker-Rojczyk commented. She decided to go public with the case last Tuesday because the judge was still on the bench, two months after the controversial verdict was handed down.

The judge was subsequently removed from the case, but not from the bench. A spokesman for the court, Bernhard Olp, said the judge did not intend to suggest that violence in a marriage is acceptable, or that the Kuran supersedes German law. “The ruling is not justifiable, but the judge herself cannot explain it at this moment,” he said. But according to Spiegel Online this was not the first time that German courts have used “cultural background” to inform their verdicts. Christa Stolle of the women’s rights organization Terre des Femmes said that in cases of marital violence there have been a number of cases where the perpetrator’s culture of origin has been considered as a mitigating circumstance.

Of some 25 million Muslims in Western Europe, the majority already consider themselves autonomous, a community justifiably opposed to the decadent host society of infidels. They already demand the adoption of sharia within segregated Muslim communities, which but one step that leads to the imposition of sharia on the society as a whole. Swedish courts are already introducing sharia principles into civil cases. An Iranian-born man divorcing his Iranian-born wife was ordered by the high court in the city of Halmestad to pay Mahr, Islamic dowry ordained by the Kuran as part of the Islamic marriage contract. As Chronicles readers may recall, Europe’s elite class is ready for further surrenders. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner—a Christian Democrat—sees the demand for Sharia as perfectly legitimate, and argues that it could be introduced “by democratic means.” Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, he says, even if the exercise of that right included some “dissenting rules of behavior”: “It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed’! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy.” The same “essence” was reiterated in similar terms last July by Jens Orback, the Swedish Integration [sic] Minister, who declared in a radio debate on Channel P1, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

To all forward-looking Europeans it must be a welcome sign that continental courts are catching up with the leader in Sharia compliance, Great Britain. A key tenet of Sharia is that non-Muslims cannot try Muslims. Peter Beaumont, QC, senior circuit judge at London’s Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, accepts the commandment not only in civil, but also in criminal cases. He banned Jews and Hindus—and anyone married to one—from serving on the jury in the trial of Abdullah el-Faisal, accused of soliciting the murder of “unbelievers.” “For obvious reasons,” he said, “members of the jury of the Jewish or Hindu faith should reveal themselves, even if they are married to Jewish or Hindu women, because they are not fit to arbitrate in this case.” One can only speculate what the reaction would be if equally “obvious reasons” were invoked in an attempt to exclude Muslims from a trial of an alleged “Islamophobe.”

Here at home, The New York Times had a bone to pick with the German judge mainly because of her suggestion that Islam justified violence against women. It stated matter-of-factly, “While the verse cited by Judge Datz-Winter does say husbands may beat their wives for being disobedient — an interpretation embraced by fundamentalists— mainstream Muslims have long rejected wife-beating as a medieval relic.”

In reality “mainstream Muslims” do nothing of the sort. New York Times’ claim notwithstanding, the original sources for “true” Islam—the Kuran and Hadith—provide ample and detailed evidence on Islamic theory and the sources of Shari’a practice that remains in force all over the Islamic world today.

According to orthodox Islamic tradition, the verse invoked by the German judge (4:34) was revealed in connection with a woman who complained to Mohammad that her husband had hit her on the face, which was still bruised. At first he told her to get even with him, but then added, “Wait until I think about it.” The revelation duly followed, after which he said: “We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best.” Qatari Sheikh Walid bin Hadi explains that every man is his own judge when using violence: “The Prophet said: Do not ask a husband why he beats his wife.”

The scholars at the most respected institution of Islamic learning, Cairo’s Azhar University, further explain: “If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur’an bestows on man the right to straighten her out by way of punishment and beating, provided he does not break her bones nor shed blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous type and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!”

Physical violence against one’s wife, far from being Haram, remains divinely ordained and practically advised in modern Islam. “Take in thine hand a branch and smite therewith and break not thine oath,” the Kuran commands. Muslim propagators in the West “explain” that the Islamic teaching and practice is in line with the latest achievements of clinical psychology: it is not only correct, but positively beneficial to them because “women’s rebelliousness (nushuz) is a medical condition” based either on her masochistic delight in being beaten and tortured, or sadistic desire to hurt and dominate her husband. Either way,

Such a woman has no remedy except removing her spikes and destroying her weapon by which she dominates. This weapon of the woman is her femininity. But the other woman who delights in submission and being beaten, then beating is her remedy. So the Qur’anic command: ‘banish them to their couches, and beat them’ agrees with the latest psychological findings in understanding the rebellious woman. This is one of the scientific miracles of the Qur’an, because it sums up volumes of the science of psychology about rebellious women.

According to Allah’s commandment to men (Kuran 2:223), “Your wives are as a soil to be cultivated unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” Therefore “the righteous women are devoutly obedient.” Those that are not inhabit the nether regions of hell. Muhammad has stated that most of those who enter hell are women, not men. Contemporary Azhar scholars of Egypt agree: “Oh, assembly of women, give charity, even from your jewelry, for you (comprise) the majority of the inhabitants of hell in the day of resurrection.”

In the same spirit, courts in Muslim countries, to mention a particularly egregious legal practice, routinely sentence raped women to death for “adultery,” usually by stoning, because they follow the Sharia that mandates this punishment. To the outright divine command of every wife’s obedience to her husband, Muhammad has added a few comments of his own. When asked who among women is the best, he replied: “She who gives pleasure to him (husband) when he looks, obeys him when he bids, and who does not oppose him regarding herself and her riches fearing his displeasure.” Even in basic necessities the needs of the husband take precedence: “You shall give her food when you have taken your food, you shall clothe her when you have clothed yourself, you shall not slap her on the face, nor revile (her), nor leave (her) alone, except within the house.” The husband’s sexual needs have to be satisfied immediately: “When a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until he is pleased with her.”

Such treatment of women might be expected to make Islam abhorrent within the cultural milieu epitomized by the equal-rights obsessed European Union and the neofeminist New York Times, but this has not happened. There is a reason for this. It is the refusal of Islam to accept the wife as her husband’s closest and inseparable loving partner and companion. Islam therefore challenges Christian marriage in principle and in practice. Muslim teaching on marriage and the family, though “conservative” about “patriarchy,” denies the traditional Christian concept of matrimony. Islam is therefore an “objective” ally of postmodernity, a few beatings here and a few rapes there notwithstanding.

“I can only say, Good night, Germany,” says Ronald Pofalla, general secretary of Germany’s ruling Christian Democratic Union, of Frau Datz-Winter’s ruling. Unless the madness is checked it will be good night to us all well before this century is over.

Author: Serge Trifkovic

Read more about how Sharia law is slowly being implemented in the West.

Watch a short video of an articulate rant on the same topic: Islam In Europe And The End Of Freedom


Islam In Europe and the End of Freedom


This is quite a rant. But worth listening to. And worth sharing. It's a British man talking about the slow dismantling of freedom and human rights in European countries because politicians are making concessions to the Muslims in Europe.


What Are Terrorists Trying To Accomplish In Iraq By Blowing Up Random Cars?

Have you ever wondered? It takes time and trouble to blow up a car. It takes planning. It is dangerous. And if you're caught, you're in serious trouble. Why would anyone do it? They must have a very compelling reason.

And they do. They do it for a very specific and well-thought-out purpose.

The strategy is to keep creating chaos. They are trying to make it difficult for a peaceful democracy to take root. They're hoping to create enough negative headlines back in the U.S. to cause enough people to want to withdraw U.S. forces.

Why? What are they after? Their "own" government? Do they dislike the "occupation" and simply want the U.S. troops to leave so they can run their own democracy? No, of course not. They already have a democracy. Their government is already run by people they voted in. The ones who are blowing up cars aren't interested in a democracy because they haven't got a chance in hell of getting elected.

They don't want an election. They don't want a democracy. They want to make Iraq a Muslim country run by Sharia law. They want to bring back the old ways. They want to follow the laws laid down in the Koran. They want things to go back to the way they were when men were men and women had no rights. They want to bring back the good old days when "religious freedom" meant you could choose to be a Muslim or you could choose to separate your head from the rest of your body. When "freedom of speech" didn't exist, and when saying something critical of the Koran would be punished by death.

This is what they're after. This is what they talk about among themselves. This is what they say on their web sites in Arabic. In other words, we don't have to guess what they are after. We know.

So what? Who are these people to us? Why not let the terrorists take over the country and do whatever they want with it? It's not really our problem. Why is the U.S. "meddling" in other peoples' business? Why not let the majority of Iraqis (who earnestly want democracy) do the work themselves to get rid of the car-bombing fanatics?

Nice idea, but the terrorists are armed to the teeth and the general population is not. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria have been sending guns, money, and jihadists into Iraq. The revolt of the disarmed majority would almost certainly fail.

And if they failed, the majority would be overruled. Iraq would be governed by Muslims who are committed to fulfilling the commands of Allah.

Unfortunately for the rest of the non-Muslim world, one of those commands is to make war on infidels until the whole world is Islamic.

So by avoiding this problem now, we get a bigger problem later. That's the way it works sometimes in this little thing we call "reality." You get the choice between something that sucks and something that sucks even worse.

When you hear people clamoring to pull out of Iraq, this is serious. The move would have major consequences. The only reason people would even think about doing it is because people like you and me have been fairly silent in everyday conversations, and people who are blindly against war (regardless of the consequences) have been very vocal. And as any advertiser can tell you, if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it.

It's time to stop being silent. Bring up the subject with people. Help them change their minds. If you don't feel you're very good at this, read the book, How to Win Friends & Influence People. If you've already got a copy, re-read the section entitled, How To Change People Without Giving Offense Or Arousing Resentment. Very helpful for our purposes.

Another great little book is called, How to Win an Argument: Surefire Strategies for Getting Your Point Across. It has some simple, practical principles you can start using right away. The book is not about becoming a sarcastic, arrogant, or annoying jerk. It is very hard to win an argument that way, and almost impossible to change someone's mind using those kinds of methods. This book has better ways.

If you aren't very good at starting and maintaining a conversation, Larry King's book, How to Talk to Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere: The Secrets of Good Communication is excellent. Becoming a good conversationalist, strangely enough, is one of the most important tasks a Citizen Warrior can master.

I can't reiterate enough: This is a war of memes, the stakes are extremely high, and you are on the front line.


London Honor Killing Highlights Growing Problem

ABC News: "Banaz Mahmod was just 20 years old and her only crime was getting divorced, then falling in love with a man her family did not accept." For this, she got the death sentence, from her own family. In LONDON!

In an article in Reuters, we discover she was:

brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends...Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.
I guess this was all an effort to add more "honor" to the killing.

What's the point of all this? Why would I give you news like this? The main reason is for you to have specific facts to share with your friends when they say things like "we should pull out of Iraq so the terrorists aren't so mad at us" or "we are fighting the war in Iraq only so we can have more oil."

Islamic fundamentalists are determined to defeat the West and establish Islamic law everywhere in the world. They are not joking. They are deadly serious. They don't care how long it takes and they are perfectly willing to kill one of their own for every one of us they kill.

This is not someone's fabricated enemy. This is not the military trying to make sure they have an enemy so they can build their war machine. These are real people in real countries. And they pose a real threat to anyone living in a free democracy. There are groups of them right now in your country planning their next attack and planning for the eventual overthrow of the government.

More people should know about this, and those of us who do know about it should speak up more often. The ignorance of your teammates has consequences. Read and re-read The Cause Of Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism. And share what you know.

Learn about effective and non-upsetting ways to talk about terrorism with people who may not agree with you: War Of Memes. And please, for the sake of freedom of speech and the rights of women, make your voice heard.


Nuclear Iran and How To Stop It


In an article by Victor Davis Hanson, he gives six good reasons why the U.S. should stop Iran's nuclear program and why it has a moral obligation to the rest of the world to do so, and he offers ten things the West can do to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability.

Hanson describes the canny nature of Iran's leader, Ahmadinegad (the man in the photo above), who understands the internal conflict of western nations, and I thought this is the most interesting part of the article: Ahmadinegad's ability to manipulate the West's guilt.

Ahmadinegad knows, for example, that many educated people in the West go out of their way to avoid thinking their own culture is better than anyone else's, and Ahmadinegad uses this understanding in his rhetoric to the West. Hanson writes:

Moreover, he knows how Western relativism works. Who is to say what are facts or what is true, given the tendency of the powerful to “construct” their own narratives and call the result “history”? So he says that the Holocaust was exaggerated, or perhaps even fabricated, as mere jails became “death camps” through a trick of language in order to persecute the poor Palestinians. We laugh at all this as absurd. We should not.

Money, oil and threats have gotten the Iranian theocrats to the very threshold of a nuclear arsenal. Their uncanny diagnosis of Western malaise has now convinced them that they can carefully fabricate a Holocaust-free reality in which Muslims are the victims and Jews the aggressors, setting the stage for Ahmadinejad’s “righteously” aggrieved Iran, after “hundreds of years of war,” to set things right.

In the midst of all this passive-aggressive noisemaking, the Iranian government pushes insidiously forward with nuclear development — perhaps pausing when it has gone too far in order to allow some negotiations, but then getting right back at it. Nuclear acquisition for Ahmadinejad is a win/win proposition. If he obtains nuclear weapons and restores lost Persian grandeur, it will remind a restless Iranian populace how the theocrats are nationalists after all, not just pan-Islamic provocateurs. And a nuclear Iran could create all sorts of mini-crises in the region in order to spike oil prices, given world demand for oil.

Read the whole article here: Nuclear Iran?

What can you do about Iran? What can you do about terrorism? You can start here. And let us know what you come up with.


Who Islamic Terrorists Hate And Why


AN UNBELIEVABLY LARGE PERCENTAGE of people in democratic countries think Islamic terrorists are killing people because they're angry. The terrorists don't want U.S. forces in Iraq. They don't want the U.S. to support Israel. They're angry about these things, so they attack. But as I said in a recent post, that is not why they are attacking. They are in a war, Muslims against Infidels (and against moderate Muslims).

Whatever the West does, the terrorists will criticize it and use it as an excuse, but they will keep attacking, and they will keep trying to find bigger weapons to attack with. It doesn't matter what we do. What matters is that we're not fundamentalist Muslims.

I just read a gruesome article from the Middle East Quarterly called
Beheading in the Name of Islam. I will quote something from it here, and then I have something to say about the quote.

In Iraq, terrorists filmed the beheadings of Americans Nicholas Berg, Jack Hensley, and Eugene Armstrong. Other victims include Turks, an Egyptian, a Korean, Bulgarians, a British businessman, and a Nepalese. Scores of Iraqis, both Kurds and Arabs, have also fallen victim to Islamist terrorists' knives. The new fad in terrorist brutality has extended to Saudi Arabia where Islamist terrorists murdered American businessman Paul Johnson, whose head was later discovered in a freezer in an Al-Qaeda hideout. A variation upon this theme would be the practice of Islamists slitting the throats of those opponents they label infidels. This is what happened to Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, first gunned down and then mutilated on an Amsterdam street, and to an Egyptian Coptic family in New Jersey after the father had angered Islamists with Internet chat room criticisms of Islam.

As you can see, these victims were not all U.S. soldiers and Jews. Why are they killing all these people? Because the victims are either infidels or moderate Muslims.

The article points out that the purpose of terrorism is to gain political concession. The terrorists behead these people (as opposed to poisoning them) and film it, in order to terrorize.

They're trying to gain political concessions. Ideally, they'd like all Western and Jewish forces out of the Middle East, so they can consolidate their power and establish an Islamic empire.

In an Islamic empire, they will try to live by Sharia law, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan. They will try to follow the Koran devoutly. One of the commands of the Koran is to make war on Infidels until the whole world submits to Islam. I'm not making this up.

As far as I can tell, a little under half the West does not understand this. You come into contact with these people every day. A massive campaign of information dissemination needs to take place, starting with you and me, right where we are. Explain to people what's happening. If they don't believe you, loan them your copy of whatever you have (here are my recommendations), or send them links to whatever think will help them understand.

It is dangerous for so many of our own teammates to be unaware of our collective plight.
Here are some articles I recommend for sharing:

Ignorance Has Consequences

The Cause Of Terrorism

The Short Answer (to the question, "Why is there so much Islamic terrorism these days?"

What Does Islam Have To Do With Terrorism?


The Purpose Of Terrorism

Timothy Furnish has written a clear and useful definition. He wrote:

The purpose of terrorism is to strike fear into the hearts of opponents in order to win political concession.


What The West Needs To Know


WESTERNERS, AS A RULE, do not appreciate the fact that someone is at war with us. This is not like other wars. This is not one country against another. This is one ideology against all others. It is hard to recognize as a war because the attacks are not concentrated in time or space. They are happening all over the world, almost continually, but at different times by different people, different races, from different countries, and attacking at different places, in what seems to be almost random violence. So we call it terrorism.

they call it war. And while it is hard to recognize as such, I have found a little video clip that makes plain the larger picture. This is something to share with friends of yours who don't seem to get it.

If you spoke one word every two hours, I might not be able to understand your message. But if I wrote down each word you spoke, and then read it all at once, your meaning would be clear. This is similar to the clarity you get in this film. You can see very clearly that a large group, spanning the globe, are very intently waging war, not only on your country, but on every country that is not Islamic. They are not trying to steal anything of yours or occupy your country. They are only interested in the destruction of your culture, and to insure their own ascent into heaven. They are willing to let you live if you convert to a Muslim.

Militant Islam expanded across the earth like an explosion when it came on the scene in the sixth century. Muslim warriors invaded and conquered North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and major parts of Europe. Their expansion was finally stopped by force of arms. They were conquered and beaten back over the centuries, and then, because of European colonizing projects all over the world, Islamic countries were divided and held down.
But colonization has been abandoned as a practice, much as slavery was, because it is unfair.

And now militant Islam is expanding.
The attacks are increasing. More attacks in more places, and deadlier attacks over the last few decades as the movement gains momentum. With new technologies, the Islamists' ability to connect with each other has improved enormously. They are on the rise. And whatever grievance they use as the public excuse du jour, they have one ultimate aim: An Islamic world.

This is not going to go away. They are completely committed. They are deadly serious. They are recruiting with frenetic zeal. And they are growing in numbers. They are out to kill us all. Any non-Muslim is an enemy to these people. Even non-fanatical Muslims are enemies to these people.

It's not a comfortable fact, but there it is. If we ignore the situation, it will only get worse. What should be done about it? That's the big question.

Read a review of the DVD: Islam: What The West Needs To Know

Further reading:
The Cause Of Terrorism

Even further reading:
Islamic Terrorism Menu



All writing on is copyright © 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.

Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP