[osint] Islam the Enemy

[Beowulf]

 


 

 
 


 



»  Home | »
 Philosophy  | »
 Advocacy | »
 Weblog  | »
 Contribute Online »
 Terms





 






 



::   The Rule of Reason ::


 

:: Monday, August 22, 2011 ::

Our Post 9/11 World: A Ten-Year Retrospective 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 3:13 PM

 

New York, Sept. 11 – The new World Trade Center towers, now six years old,
rise in a silvery shimmer over lower Manhattan, both fifteen stories taller
than the originals, commanding a plaza and an assortment of lower towers. In
the daytime, only the plaza, chock full of figures hurrying purposefully on
their numerous errands, gives evidence of the unseen commerce that occurs
inside the fully occupied towers. IRT and PATH trains rumble through the
lower levels of the plaza. Taxis rarely idle for long in the three
designated cab stands that border the plaza as they skitter in and out of
what seems like yellow conveyor belts of business, dropping off and picking
up passengers. Bands, orchestras, and soloists usually occupy the small,
sunken amphitheater; the plaza is rarely without music. Vendors serve hot
dogs, knishes and ice cream from kiosks and wheeled carts. Dozens of stores,
restaurants and fast food shops populate the plaza’s lower levels, even a
movie theater and a bookstore. 

One unkind critic of the sleek new twin towers wrote in The New York Times,
before they were completed, that together they looked like a giant tuning
fork. But another critic, writing for The New York Post, said they were
reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s “V” for victory sign. If the original
towers collapsed because of the heat of an inferno, what replaced them was
an inferno of controversy that resulted in the resignation of a governor,
the dissolution of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation racked by
scandal, corruption, and favoritism, and the relinquishment of the property
by the Port Authority to a syndicate of private developers dedicated to
building a new World Trade Center “as tall or taller.” 

Where the oddly sculptured globe once sat in the original plaza is a modest,
circular black marble plaque, enclosed by an oval pool with calming,
splashing fountains. The plaque contains the engraved names of all who died
here that awful day a decade ago. Benches ring the front of the pool, and
are usually filled with tourists and office workers from the towers at
lunchtime. 

Similar modest memorials were erected in front of the repaired Pentagon, and
in the Shanksville, Pennsylvania field where passengers on the flight died
fighting to regain control of a hijacked plane destined to crash into either
the White House or the Capitol Building. It has never been determined which
was the hijackers’ target, although authorities are certain that the White
House was the intended target. Monitored Al Qaeda communications repeated
the query, “Is he dead yet?” They could only have been referring to
President Bush, who fortunately was not in the White House that day. 

The Attack 

That day! Ten years ago, on September 11, 2001, the United States was
attacked on its own soil by agents of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Iraq.
Complicit in that attack, or at least aiding and abetting it by supplying
resources, training, sanctuaries, and “foot soldiers,” were key enablers,
Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attack, mostly
Americans, including the passengers on the hijacked planes that slammed into
the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and that Pennsylvania field. 

Everyone can remember the response of everyday, rank-and-file “moderate”
Muslims: in Gaza, in Iran, in Cairo, in London, in Paris, in Indonesia, in
Patterson, New Jersey, in Brooklyn, New York, in Dearborn, Michigan,
celebrated, passed out candy, danced in the streets, and shouted their
hatred for the U.S. Their spokesmen and leaders put on pious faces and
published solemn-sounding regrets, but did not chastise their collects of
celebrants. 

Two days after the attack, in a stirring, televised speech to Congress and
the American people, still reeling from a greater loss
  of American
life than the country had suffered during the attack
  on Pearl Harbor
  sixty years before,
President George W. Bush assured the nation – and the world – that the
“parties responsible for the attack will regret and rue the day they decided
that this country had lost its resolve to exist as a free an

[osint] Islam: The enemy of democracy and freedom!

[Bruce Tefft]

 
http://librabunda.blogspot.com/2005/12/further-to-requests-to-re-publish-thi
s.html
 

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Further to requests to re-publish this essay, I have decided to re-publish
it today:

Islam: The enemy of democracy and freedom! 

Until 9/11, the western world was largely ignorant of the religion of Islam,
of its goals, of its aspirations. Indeed, even since 9/11, most people, and
that includes our politicians, would not score very highly in a test of
their knowledge on the subject. It should be obvious to all thinking people
that our politicians are actually unaware, dare I say blind, to the dangers
that Islam will increasingly cause us. It is truly a case of the blind
leading the blind! That means to say, uninformed and unthinking politicians
leading an ill-informed electorate. But folks, this is what we have right
now. The same can hardly be said of Muslims in the Islamic world, though;
for their knowledge of Christianity far surpasses - even though much of
their knowledge is quite distorted - any knowledge of Islam by the man in
the street in the West.

As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. But what we often don't hear
uttered is its converse: Ignorance is weakness!

The West is far weaker than it need be because of this ignorance of Islam,
since Islam is our greatest enemy. The greatest enemy since Nazism and
communism. I'll give you some good reasons why this is so. And none of them
- absolutely none of them - are based on hatred!

Islam is the enemy of the West for a plethora of good, solid reasons, and if
we wish to survive as a civilization, we are going to have to bite the
bullet and deal, head on, with the issues these reasons raise. Let us
begin...

First and foremost, we are dealing with a religion which does not recognize
any separation of politics and religion, any separation of the political
from the spiritual. For Muslims, life is one coherent whole: the political
and spiritual both meld into one. This has always been so, and always will
be. No re-classification of the religion into two separate parts is possible
because of Islam's very nature.

In Islam, all power rests with Allah, the god of Muslims. The Qur'an, their
holy book, is always taken literally. Those words are considered to be the
actual words of Allah. Therefore, none of these words can be changed, for to
change any of them would be tantamount to tampering with Allah's words. This
would be a grave sin in their eyes.

For the same reason that the words contained in the Qur'an cannot be
changed, they cannot, therefore, be re-interpreted either. So do not hold
your breath for any kind of reformation in this religion, because it ain't
gonna happen!

In Islam, all power rests with Allah, and it filters down via his
vice-gerents on earth to the people. Hence the great desire among Muslims to
restore the caliphate. Contrast this with the Western model of government!

In the West, the ideal political system is democracy. In democracy, all
power rests with the people, and they exercise that power at the polls. In a
democracy, all power filters in the opposite direction from Islam. In
democracy it filters up; in Islam, down! Herein lies the greatest barrier to
the miscibility of the two worlds: the western world and the Islamic world!

Without digressing too much here, I should like to add that this is the main
reason why George W Bush and Blair's venture into Iraq to bring democracy
there was a grave error of judgment. How can one bring democracy to a region
of the world where the people who inhabit that region believe that all power
rests with Allah, and where they believe that Allah has prescribed their way
of life for them for then, for now, and for all time?

I would suggest that where such a dichotomy exists, the most sensible and
prudent thing to do would be for us to lead our lives as we see fit, and for
those people to be allowed to live their lives as they see fit. That way,
there would be hope of some peace in this world.

But this is not what we have done. We have done the very opposite of this:
We have entered the Middle East in the hope - the vain hope in my opinion -
of bringing our way of doing things, our way of life, to them; furthermore,
we have allowed millions and millions of Muslims into the West - and at the
very time when Christianity, the religion which underpins the West, is
greatly weakened anyway - which will only give us headaches for the years
ahead. Why? Because Muslims who immigrate bring their hopes and dreams and
aspirations with them of establishing Islam everywhere on earth. To Islamize
the world is the main aspiration of the Muslim; and we have seen these past
weeks, the manifestation of aggression in its cause in France. For what
happened in France was in no small part because of the Muslim's desire to
establish Allah's caliphate here on earth. These were the first rumblings,
the first roar of the lion! Expect more of this in the future, as Islam
grows stronger and stronger.