* Obomba sat for some 20 years with
Michelle listening to one of US worst hate preachers who awarded US
worst hate preacher, Nation of Islam leader Louis Wolcott (aka Farrah
Khan). He (and Michelle presumably) stopped only when this evil
connection started threatening his presidential campaign.
Don't search for fascism among "islamofophobes" - today's fascism
comes from the Saudi dictator family - in a variety of ways, incl. all
the wars in Mideast, worldwide muslim terrorism (incl. an unknown but
huge amount of street jihad terror), all Sunni terrorist groups etc etc!
According to BBC, Russia is to blame for everything. Do the Brits
themselves really buy it? That would mean the Brits are stuoidier than
most other European people where islam and the world's number one hate
mongerer and spreader of islamic hate, the Saudi dictator family, is a
much bigger concern if we have to believe the polls.
Kerry: Syria should show "grace" to al-Qaeda/al-Nusra and to let them flee.
When should muslim born (apostate?) "president" (unconstitutional and
betrayer of US Constitution) Barry Barakeh Hussein Dunham Obama Soetoro
(or whatever) be prosecuted for his contribution to Saudi war crimes,
terrorism etc.? The Saudis would have been helpless in prolonging the
war they themselves initiated without Obomba's keen aid.
Has there ever been any lower "president" in the US? First Saudi backed
al-Qaeda bombed WTC, Pentagon etc. Then Obomba used that very terroist
group for some five years aginst the Syrian people, causing the worst
human catastrophe of this century.
Sharia is islam's anchor to islamofascism
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah (who is the
head of sharia in Saudi Arabia): "The destruction of churches was
absolutely necessary and is required by islamic law." He called for the
destruction of all churches in the Arabian Peninsula after legislators
in the Gulf state of Kuwait moved to pass laws banning the construction
of religious sites associated with Christianity. In Saudi Arabia there
are of course not a single church.
Klevius, the Grand Thinker of the free world: It's this wreck in human
immorality and member of the evil Saudi dictator family, that you should
think about when you so eagerly name basic Human Rights defenders
"islamophobes".
Saudi, OIC and sharia, are the three words that encompasses the whole
problem of fascism today. The Saudi dictator family is the mastemind of
islamic suffering and basic Human Rights violations through its:
1 intolerance at home; war crimes and terror against neighboring people; street jihad all over the world
2 pushing for Human Rights violating sharia through the Saudi based and
steered OIC and its worldwide sharia declaration (incl. its
"islamophobia" and "blasphemy" campaign against everyone critical of
it).
Keeping this in mind it's quite remarkable how silent the world has
been. Is it only Klevius who dears to say that these religious Nazis
have to be reassessed by our politicians, companies, universities etc.?
Raymond Ibrahim: Valentine, a British Methodist pastor and teacher who
taught in Saudi Arabia, has written a useful book about the desert
kingdom. Most interesting is its exploration of how the monarchy is "the
single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism"; it "has
spent as much as $100 billion to spread Wahhabism in the West," yet
"America and Britain have been, and are continuing to be, implicit
supporters of Wahhabism."
G. Murphy Donovan (American Thinker): The objective of imperial Islam
may be monoculture. Yet, with 1.5 billion followers, realities will
always be at odds with utopian dreams. The Shia/Sunni schism, for
example, has plagued the Ummah for 1300 years.
Yes, the majority are not terrorists. They are worse! Passive
aggressors might be a better description for most of the silent Muslim
majority.
How many Russians were Communists and how many Germans were Nazis in the
beginning? The numbers never have to be large. Militancy and terror are
usually a minority and minorities still prevail. A kinetic vanguard can
always depend on the silence and apathy of majorities. The Islamist
menace is no different today.
Indeed, the propagandists and the swords are the lesser of two evils. We
know what they believe, what they fight for, and we see what they do on
a daily basis. Militants make no secret of their Islamic motivation.
Whatever the number of radicals, they will never be as numerous, or as
guilty, as the larger Ummah which is routinely disingenuous, routinely
apathetic, routinely absolved, routinely hypocritical, and routinely
given a pass on accountability.
Most Americans and Europeans believe that most Muslims are innocents.
How is this different than what most Muslims believe? Sadly, the great
crimes of any century are more a function of apathy and appeasement, and
less a product of militancy. Apathy and denial about the Islamism
problem is as much a problem in the West as it is in the East.
A malignant force, once set in motion, tends to stay in motion unless
confronted by an equal or superior force (hat tip to Isaac). The real
strength of Islamists is the apathy of 57 Muslim nations worldwide, a
sixth of the world’s population. Islamofascism is an Ummah community
problem. The progressive West cannot save the Islamic East from itself.
Calling Islamists criminals, militants, radicals, fundamentalists, or
even terrorists might be necessary but not sufficient. These are
half-truths, euphemisms at best. Proselytizers, apologists, and
jihadists must also be linked precisely, directly, and routinely to the
ideology that motivates them. Without motive, crime or any barbarity
would not be a problem. That culture is Islam! Culture is the primary
culprit midst James Clapper’s “nefarious” characters.
So let’s be clear when we speak of the enemy. With the Muslim wars,
there are probably three relevant semantic distinctions to be made.
Islam is the big tent phenomenon, for the most part an apathetic,
apologetic, passive, or mostly bovine majority. Islamists are the
proselytizing militants or financiers, missionaries, domestic or
immigrant activists who believe they act in the name of a “great”
religion. Islamofascists are the kinetic Muslims, those who oppress or
kill in the name of Mohamed, the Koran, or imperial Islam. The terms are
related, but not necessarily interchangeable.*
The necessity to distinguish militants from moderates is not trivial.
The so-called moderate is the more difficult problem, numerically and
ideologically. Islamism is in the end a philosophical, political,
religious, now kinetic, quest to reverse the vector of Emanuel Kant’s
optimism. There is more than a little evidence to support the
irredentist world view. The passage of time is not progress. The vector
of history moves forward -- or backwards. Contemporary Islamism is a
very large sanguinary bet on door number two, the recidivist option.
And yes, Islamists claim that their aggression is actually defense, a
victim’s posture. Let’s allow that historical delusion. Muslim scholars
and clerics have been looking to the past in search of the future for
centuries. Recidivism, yea political immaturity, is the fatal flaw of
all utopians, especially fascists. There is no question that imperial
Islam will fail -- implode or be defeated. The question is how much
masochism, denial, and damage the Ummah and the civilized world will
endure before that day arrives. Unfortunately, the predicate of all
fascism, religious or secular, is coercion. ISIS and Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi are the logical products of Islamism unchallenged.
While reading the following written by a Pakistani muslim (assumably) do
consider that he still wants to both eat the cake while still keeping
it intact. In other words, he like so many others hesitate at a crucial
point where only a clear dismissal of classic islam can produce positive
result. By stopping halfways you just keep feeding the Saudi mufti and
other islamofascists. And if you streach the "moderation" of islam to a
civilized Human Rights level, then there is no longer an islam in any
meaningful sense. This is why Saudi based and steered OIC has carved out
islam's own "human rights" (i.e. sharia) bunker within UN etc.
Ammar
Anwer (Daily Times - a new voice for a new Pakistan): Islam is a
religion and Muslims are the people who follow Islam. Islamism is the
ideology that promotes the idea of imposing a particular interpretation
of Islam over a community. In short, Islamism is the political and
totalitarian interpretation of Islam. Explaining the political and
totalitarian tendencies of Islam, Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the
Muslim Brotherhood (largest Islamist organisation in the world) said,
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose
its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire world.”
Unlike normal Muslims, an Islamist believes that he has political and
social responsibilities assigned to him by Islam. Not all Muslims are
Islamists but every Islamist is a Muslim.
Many Muslims as well as
the far-left are in denial when it comes to realising the facts with
regard to radical Islam. Anyone who says that radicalism has a strong
basis in Islam is immediately labeled as an Islamophobe. Yet, it is an
obvious fact that radical Islam has a lot to do with Islam. Scripture is
the main driving force and inspiration behind Islamism. When the likes
of ISIS behead innocent people and attack Paris or Brussels, they do so
because they believe that it is their religious obligation. When
Islamist terrorists, anywhere in the world, mistreat and enslave women,
and persecute homosexuals it is because they interpret Islam such that
it legalises slavery and homophobia. It is their view of Islam, which to
them appears to be the only correct one.
This being said, there
is another giant factor that we must not ignore and that is the faulty
Western policies towards the Middle-East. It is quite evident, like I
said, that radical Islam has deep roots in theology. Muslims had
problems even before the West ever interfered in Muslim countries. Long
before Western intervention, they were already chopping each other’s
heads off. There is a long history of battle and violence between the
Umayyads and Abbasids. Islamists derive their inspiration from Islamic
scripture. When they murder other Muslims it is not because of the West
but because of the ideology that teaches them to label others as kafir
(infidels) and kill those who differ from them. This is a theological
issue and I have been saying so for the past three years.
However, I do believe that without Western support and without its faulty policies, things would have not been this complicated.
Had
the West not supported Saudi Arabia over the years and had it exerted
the same pressure as it did on communist states, Saudi Arabia might
actually have collapsed. The West perpetually paints itself as the
epitome of human rights, which is—to be sure—correct to an extent, but
the policies that it has formulated over the years are the very
opposite. Today the most violent state on earth, which is doing the very
same thing as ISIS, occupies a monumental position in the Human Rights
Council. How is this even possible? Why would the West give a free hand
to Saudi Arabia, a state that continues to be an inspiration for radical
Islam and sectarian violence in Muslim countries? Why is it that when
ISIS persecutes homosexuals and subjugates women and other religious
minorities, we scream human rights abuses but we stay calm when Saudi
Arabia commits similar travesties?
