92-Dhimmocracy in America: Is thisThe Truth About Muhammad: THE ROAD TO SERFDOM | View Thread

The imam behind the 911 talks one way to the infidels and kuffars on the television and quite another when he is not building shrines to 911. Check out what Robert wrote about him in 2004.

Join the SIOA Facebook group and get all of the information, updates here. Get involved! SIOA CAMPAIGN OFFENSIVE: STOP THE 911 MOSQUE!

Feisal Abdul Rauf (ECTN) Jihadwatch
Feisal Abdul Rauf, a New York imam, expects us to believe that jihad warfare was started by the West and can only be ended by the West. He is therefore either concealing or ignorant of the fact that violent jihad is a developed tradition within Islam and found in core Islamic texts (including but not limited to the Qur'an, as well as Hadith and books of Islamic jurisprudence). In those it has nothing to do with the behavior of infidels. It only has to do with the fact that they are infidels. Take, for example, this quotation from the Muslim prophet Muhammad:
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. This is where we are and what we have been doing and this is the reason for a Global Tax paid to IMF ran by MOSTLY Muslims If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim, book 019, Number 4294)
That is offensive jihad. It is buttressed by numerous other sayings of the Prophet, by the Qur'an, and by Islamic legal scholars. But Feisal Abdul Rauf puts it all on the West, and gets invited to Australia by Premier Bob Carr.
The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end, says an Islamic cleric invited to Sydney by Premier Bob Carr.
New York-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who impressed Mr Carr at an international conference last year, arrives in Sydney today for two weeks of meetings and public talks.

Speaking from his New York mosque, Imam Feisal said the West had to understand the terrorists' point of view.

In a move likely to cause controversy with church leaders, Imam Feisal said it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
This is outrageously specious, but it depends on the ignorance of the listeners. The bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima were not justified by the bombers on the basis of Christian theology.

The bombings by terrorists -- 9/11, 3/11, etc. -- are justified on the basis of Islamic theology. By claiming that they are equivalent, Abdul Rauf obscures the Islamic roots of modern-day terrorism, thus hindering the prospects for the reform within Islam that is so desperately needed if jihad terrorism is ever going to cease.
Imam Feisal said the bombing in Madrid had made his message more urgent. He said there was an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there was no sign of the attacks ending unless there was a fundamental change in the world.
Yes indeed. But displaying a lack of the self-critical faculty that he shares with radical Muslims, he makes no mention, at least according to this report, of the Islamic roots of terror, and of the need for Muslims who truly (rather than deceptively) oppose terror to address this problem.
Imam Feisal, who argues for a Western style of Islam that promotes democracy and tolerance, said there could be little progress until the US acknowledged backing dictators and the US President gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world.
Of course. The historical depredations of jihad, they were all the fault of the West. The fall of Constantinople? Probably because of Byzantium's support for Israel.

Contact Mayor Bloomberg:

PHONE 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK outside NYC)
FAX (212) 788-8123
E-MAIL: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html

The 12-member Financial District Committee who unanimously approved this abomination: GO HERE, BE POLITE.

And Community Board 1 Members who gave them the authority to do so: GO HERE, BE POLITE. (Link hat tip Jetstream)

Was Classical Liberalism a "Strife of Interests Masquerading as a Contest of Principles"?

Mises Daily: Thursday, August 05, 2010 by Jeff Riggenbach

Clearly, the arrogance of these kings knew no bounds. They were inclined to believe, as Murray Rothbard reminds us in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, that

subjects must obey the king in any and all circumstances, whether or not the king or his actions were good or evil. There must be no resistance whatever, even to evil princes. The king is the divinely mandated representative of God on earth by hereditary right. To question, much less to disobey the king, therefore, was not only treason but blasphemy. Disobeying the king [was] disobeying God.

After all, as these monarchs saw it, once again quoting Rothbard, "good kings are a blessing sent to the people by God; wicked kings are a punishment equally sent by the divinity. In either case the duty of the subject is absolute obedience to God's/the king's commands." According to Rothbard, at times, the kings and their supporters "came close to saying that a monarch could never harm his people: in other words, however evil his deeds may seem, they must really be good, virtually by definition."

Despite recent memory of the conduct in office of Cromwell and his minions, the conduct of the newly restored Stuart monarchs, according to Harry Elmer Barnes, "provoked another rebellion of the middle class," and this rebellion culminated in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689. Barnes wrote that "James's supporters were too few and weak to carry on another civil war," so James II was driven out "without serious bloodshed," and "James's Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange … were summoned to take over the British throne."

And how did the middle class justify this high-handed treatment of "the divinely mandated representative of God on earth"? Harry Elmer Barnes wrote in 1947 that

the middle class produced a body of economic and political theory to justify its attitudes and program. In the realm of economic policy it gradually came to favor complete withdrawal of the state from all types of interference with economic life. In the field of political theory it developed a related type of interpretation. What it desired above all was freedom from arbitrary taxation and other forms of oppression. Hence it worked out a doctrine of the natural rights of man to "life, liberty, and property." This theory of natural rights was closely allied to the notion of a natural order that lay at the foundation of the economic philosophy of laissez faire. These natural rights of life, liberty, and property, which included, specifically, freedom from arbitrary confiscation of property, imprisonment, illegal taxation, and censorship, were held by middle-class writers to be inherent in the order of nature from the beginnings of human society. The state or civil authority was established not to limit or terminate these supposed inherent natural rights, but rather still more firmly to assure and protect them. No ruler had any real authority to infringe upon these natural rights.

As Barnes noted, there were a number of "middle-class writers" who took more or less this line, but "by far the most influential" of them "was the 17th-century English philosopher, John Locke. Many of his theories were taken up and popularized in America by Thomas Jefferson."

In recent weeks, I’ve been inundated with calls from the Republican Senate Committee, the Republican National Committee, and who knows what other Republican groups. If I make the mistake of answering the phone, I give them an earful about the need for a new Contract with America. The Republicans still cling to the idea that they can get back in power without proof of reformation. Thanks to the efforts of grassroots organizers and sons of liberty, we have made great progress, and I am beginning to think the Republicans MIGHT be getting the message. But they need to hear it, over and over. Their feet must be held to the fire.

We want a Second Contract with America that lays out the policies and actions that will be taken, such as:

Reduce the size of government
Rescind further spending of the remaining “stimulus” money
Cut taxes, including an extension of Bush capital gains tax. In fact, adopt further and deeper cuts of capital gains and personal income tax rates
Make everyone pay federal tax of some sort, even if the less successful have much of that “rebated” via various government credits–EVERYONE PAYS
Repeal the healthcare reform bill that is helping to kill jobs growth among small businesses, and institute free market solutions with clean, minimal regulations and legislation that benefit the greatest number of citizens
Place competent leadership in place of the defense department and give our military the moral support it needs to get the job done
Develop a rational energy policy (a rare point where a loosely sketched national policy will benefit the nation) so that industry can adapt to the pattern put in place and begin to innovate
Remind people that personal responsibility is the key to America–relieve the producers of this country of the burden of debt the government is imposing
Aggressive tort reform to get the lawyers off the backs of those who produce
Aggressive introduction of free market competition to those sectors of the economy being strangled by public sector unions (prison guards, teachers, firemen, police/security)
Impeach Obama in the House, try and convict him in the senate, strip him and his family of citizenship, and deport them to Cuba, Kenya or Indonesia where they belong

And that’s just off the top of my head.

The video below correctly identifies one of the great lies spread by Josef Stalin and other Marxists: that somehow Hitler, Nazis, and Fascists were and are “right-wing.” They are not, they were not. This lie was promoted by Stalin, and Marxists operating in the West, starting in the 1950s as a means of staining all who believe in true human freedom. This was a trick played by Stalin to stain people like us, who believe in individuality and self-governance, to stain people like us who DO NOT support government programs that redistribute wealth to the unmotivated and unproductive.

Watch this video and you will begin to understand why many can’t figure out what to call Obama and the oligarchy that surrounds and controls him. They believe in an all-powerful government that controls the actions of its citizens, and ultimately that leads to totalitarianism, with a ruling oligarchy.

What else can you take from this video? Our form of government is precious and rare, and it is up to each of us to defend it against the current assault. Europeans, Japanese and Koreans, among others, have attempted to recreate the freedoms we have enjoyed for more than two centuries, but none has come close, not really. Yet we could lose it all in a moment, snuffed out. We can’t lay down and grow complacent at this point. We have this summer and fall to force the Republicans to issue a Contract with America, and commit to policies that promote economic growth and human freedom, not top-down government-controlled economics that lead to the stagnation and growing poverty the Obama Administration’s policies are promoting.

Remember, first we reconstruct the Republicans in our image (and we are making progress, though all who voted for Elena Kagan must be removed from office, tarred and feathered), then we field candidates who represent OUR beliefs, and not those of the current (and faltering) Republican leadership. We take the House, and we impeach Obama. If we can take the Senate, too, we remove him from power. Impeachment and removal from power are the best solution for the Obama Oligarchy that is running the economy into the ground. Every one of us is under threat from a second economic downturn, which would destroy the lives of countless millions of people.

I’ll conclude with this thought. My mother is a classic bleeding heart who wants to take care of everyone. Good sentiment, but not practical. Having survived the Great Depression as a child, she knows all too well that the best cure for poverty is a job. And this die-hard Democrat is beginning to mutter and complain about Obama, who has no earthly idea how to create the conditions in which free enterprise creates good-paying jobs. And though government jobs can help in the very, very short term, in the end government jobs steal money from the productive component of our society. So the policies that MUST be instituted are those that liberate money, slash the size of the government, and reduce tax burdens and make it possible for small and medium-size companies to begin to grow again, and hire.

The best cure for poverty is freedom. And freedom is the best way to let those who create and lead and build to draw the unemployed back into the productive work force.

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: RE: Is thisThe Truth About Muhammad: Is IT THE ROAD TO SERFDOM 7/30/2010 12:16:15 PM
	Thanks for your reply Peter, Newt is generally a beacon of light on things that confuse us and he is shining one here. OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! (O)bama (M)ust (G)o! http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/911-mosque-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-blames-christians-the-us-and-the-west-must-acknowledge-the-harm-th.html 911 Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Blames Christians: "The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end" The imam behind the 911 talks one way to the infidels and kuffars on the television and quite another when he is not building shrines to 911. Check out what Robert wrote about him in 2004. Join the SIOA Facebook group and get all of the information, updates here. Get involved! SIOA CAMPAIGN OFFENSIVE: STOP THE 911 MOSQUE! Feisal Abdul Rauf (ECTN) Jihadwatch Feisal Abdul Rauf, a New York imam, expects us to believe that jihad warfare was started by the West and can only be ended by the West. He is therefore either concealing or ignorant of the fact that violent jihad is a developed tradition within Islam and found in core Islamic texts (including but not limited to the Qur'an, as well as Hadith and books of Islamic jurisprudence). In those it has nothing to do with the behavior of infidels. It only has to do with the fact that they are infidels. Take, for example, this quotation from the Muslim prophet Muhammad: When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. This is where we are and what we have been doing and this is the reason for a Global Tax paid to IMF ran by MOSTLY Muslims If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim, book 019, Number 4294) That is offensive jihad. It is buttressed by numerous other sayings of the Prophet, by the Qur'an, and by Islamic legal scholars. But Feisal Abdul Rauf puts it all on the West, and gets invited to Australia by Premier Bob Carr. The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end, says an Islamic cleric invited to Sydney by Premier Bob Carr. New York-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who impressed Mr Carr at an international conference last year, arrives in Sydney today for two weeks of meetings and public talks. Speaking from his New York mosque, Imam Feisal said the West had to understand the terrorists' point of view. In a move likely to cause controversy with church leaders, Imam Feisal said it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians. "The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets." This is outrageously specious, but it depends on the ignorance of the listeners. The bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima were not justified by the bombers on the basis of Christian theology. The bombings by terrorists -- 9/11, 3/11, etc. -- are justified on the basis of Islamic theology. By claiming that they are equivalent, Abdul Rauf obscures the Islamic roots of modern-day terrorism, thus hindering the prospects for the reform within Islam that is so desperately needed if jihad terrorism is ever going to cease. Imam Feisal said the bombing in Madrid had made his message more urgent. He said there was an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there was no sign of the attacks ending unless there was a fundamental change in the world. Yes indeed. But displaying a lack of the self-critical faculty that he shares with radical Muslims, he makes no mention, at least according to this report, of the Islamic roots of terror, and of the need for Muslims who truly (rather than deceptively) oppose terror to address this problem. Imam Feisal, who argues for a Western style of Islam that promotes democracy and tolerance, said there could be little progress until the US acknowledged backing dictators and the US President gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world. Of course. The historical depredations of jihad, they were all the fault of the West. The fall of Constantinople? Probably because of Byzantium's support for Israel. Contact Mayor Bloomberg: PHONE 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK outside NYC) FAX (212) 788-8123 E-MAIL: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html The 12-member Financial District Committee who unanimously approved this abomination: GO HERE, BE POLITE. And Community Board 1 Members who gave them the authority to do so: GO HERE, BE POLITE. (Link hat tip Jetstream)
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: RE: Is thisThe Truth About Muhammad: Is IT THE ROAD TO SERFDOM 8/3/2010 3:44:07 PM
	What Is Islam's Primary Objective? Totalitarian Rule over your everyday life, is the correct answer. Islam's Primary Objective is Conquest by W. Thomas Smith Jr. 08/03/2010 end article header Exclusive interview with Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, U.S. Army (Ret.), former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a former Delta Force officer who CBS’s 60 Minutes once dubbed “the Holy Warrior,” is a no-nonsense counterterrorist expert whom the television newsmagazine also said, “has probably seen as much combat as anyone in uniform.” Indeed he has, having fought and led soldiers in several American wars and military expeditions since the invasion of Grenada. He was the commander of Delta Force in the bloody battle of Mogadishu. He went on to serve as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He’s the author of the just-released novel, “Danger Close.” And he’s an outspoken and unapologetic Christian, who believes America can succeed in the war on terror, but some serious mistakes -- not the least of which is a public ignorance of who the enemy is -- must be corrected. This week we sat down with Boykin and discussed everything from Afghanistan to the proposed mosque near ‘ground zero’ in New York. W. Thomas Smith Jr.: Recent reports indicate that the Taliban in Afghanistan is stronger than ever and U.S. forces in that country are starved for resources. I’d like to get your thoughts on that. Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin: I don’t know that the Taliban is stronger than ever. But I’ll give you some generalities to think about. First, in those areas controlled by the U.S. -- and even those controlled by the UK -- the Taliban is not stronger than it previously has been, because the U.S. has been very aggressive in pursuing the Taliban, and also helping to build the infrastructure and work on economic development in those areas under U.S. control. The Taliban has gained some strength in areas controlled by other NATO nations or coalition partners. That’s because those countries have not been aggressive. They’ve been reluctant to aggressively pursue the Taliban. In my view, that is one of the big problems today. When we made the transition to NATO, we brought in countries that came with national caveats. Those countries came in with a set of rules-of-engagement that applied only to them, and in many cases those ROE told them to stay inside their bases, don’t go out and pursue the Taliban. It’s an issue of being risk averse in terms of casualties. So the Taliban may have resurged in some of those areas, and probably has, and has been able to operate fairly freely in those areas. Smith: Can we win the war in Afghanistan? Boykin: The question that really needs to be asked is ‘what does that mean?’ Can we define winning? I would use the term, ‘succeed.’ Can we succeed? And I think the answer is an unequivocal, yes. But in order to succeed in Afghanistan, we have to develop an infrastructure that would allow for economic development, which would ultimately give people hope for the future so they are not tied to handouts from the Taliban. In order to develop that infrastructure, we have to have a secure environment. It has been discovered that there is an estimated trillion-dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan that -- if mined -- could be a tremendous economic boon. The problem is, you’ve got to have an infrastructure that allows for commercial production and selling on the international market. That means we’ve got to build roads, bridges, educational institutions, and it must be done in an environment that’s secure. Then the people have more hope and a greater expectation from their government than they do from the Taliban. Smith: So what is the difference between succeeding and winning? Boykin: If you say, ‘Can we win?’ You are fundamentally assuming that someone is going to capitulate, that the losing side will sign a treaty and agree to stop fighting. But we’re not going to see that here. The Taliban is not going to capitulate because they are hard corps radical jihadists. Period. They’re going to go across the border, go into seclusion, and hide. But if we bring the society to a point where they are strong enough and willing to resist the Taliban, that is success in my view. Smith: So how do we succeed or win the broader war on terror if the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hizballah and others don’t capitulate, and instead go into seclusion only to fight another day? How do we succeed without completely wiping them out? Boykin: Remember the war on drugs? Did we ever expect that we would eradicate drugs? No. But our efforts were to bring it to a tolerable level. It’s like crime. Can you defeat crime or win the war on crime? No. These jihadists are committed, suicidal -- in many cases -- zealots that really believe their calling from Allah is to destroy Western democracy, kill infidels, and establish a caliphate that will ultimately usher in the reign of the Mahdi. You are not going to defeat an organization like that by killing them all. They just continue to reproduce because this is based on a theology, not holding a piece of ground or a particular objective. We’re talking about a war of ideas here, and that idea is not going to go away. In my view, it’s been a mistake to call this a war on terror, because terror is a tactic. I see this as a global insurgency, which recognizes the insurgent nature of this war and recognizes that there are things we have to do to stop the spread of this insurgency. And that’s a matter of using the elements of national power. The military defines seven elements of national power starting with diplomacy, then information, military, economics, financial, law enforcement, and intelligence. It’s not just a military solution. So we have to put great pressure on -- for example -- countries like Iran to stop funding Hizballah and Hamas. We have to use our economic power, to the extent that we can, through sanctions. We have to share intelligence with our allies so they can take action against terrorist-elements in their countries. So we have to go down the list. But it’s a holistic kind of approach to bring it to a level where we are sure we can defend ourselves against it, and we can go to its source -- to the extent that it’s possible -- and destroy it. Smith: I know we are doing those things to a fairly high degree, but then it seems we are giving Muslims a pass on everything in this country. For example, the proposed mosque near ‘ground zero’ in New York. Boykin: I am so disappointed. I’m also angry that there are those who are so uninformed and intimidated by these people that they are willing to allow this. We need to remember that Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a First Amendment issue. That’s our fundamental mistake. The second thing is, people have no understanding of Islam’s history or its basic tenets. Islam’s objective in America is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law. When they defeated the nomadic tribes in Mecca, they built a mosque at the most holy site. The message was one of triumph, that Islam has now defeated you and Islam reigns supreme. They did the same thing at Córdoba [Spain]. They did it in Jerusalem. Same in Constantinople. The message was always one of conquest and victory. Now, ‘ground zero’ is not holy, but it is sacred because of the lives lost. They want to build a mosque there to proclaim that Islam reigns supreme. Do you know what that is going to mean to Muslims all over the world? The recruiting to the Jihadist cause will be exponentially increased as a result of the very symbol -- the very message -- associated with that mosque there. It is incomprehensible to me. It was supported by Christian pastors and Jewish rabbis in this thing they call an interfaith dialogue. It shows such an extraordinary lack of understanding for what Islam is doing. Smith: What about our counterterrorism capabilities here at home? Where do we need strengthening? Boykin: It starts with recognizing who the enemy is. When our administration’s analysis to law enforcement across the country that the future threats to America are right-wing Christian groups, pro-life groups, second amendment groups, and returning veterans; and never says, Islamic terrorists; then we have a fundamental problem of recognizing who the enemy is. Secondly, the administration has gone to great lengths not to use the terms Islamist, Jihadist, or terrorist. If you can’t recognize your enemy, how are you going to develop a strategy or a methodology to deal with them? We need to be able to call them who and what they are. After the Fort Hood shootings by Nidal Hassan, the president finally said, ‘We are at war against Al Qaeda.’ Some people – including conservatives – applauded and said, ‘He finally gets it.’ Well, no, he doesn’t get it. That’s not the enemy. They are ‘an’ enemy, a force to be reckoned with. But we are at war with Islamic Jihadists. They come in many forms and many varieties, and they are not all Al Qaeda. That is where this administration is coming up short. We have to recognize what these people are about, what there intentions are, and how they intend to pursue those things. And there’s enough information and intelligence available that we should have no difficulty determining that. Smith: This brings to mind the problem of many Americans not understanding the fact that despite Al Qaeda being Sunni and Hizballah Shia – and so should be at odds with one another – they are in fact collaborating with one another against the West. Hizballah is an incredibly dangerous organization. And the two are working together in Africa, South and Central America, and elsewhere throughout the world. Boykin: Unquestionably. Again, remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They believe that. There is substantial evidence that Iran today is not only supporting Shia Hizballah in south Lebanon and elsewhere, but Iran is also supporting the Taliban, which is Sunni. And because the Taliban and other Sunni elements are enemies of America, the Iranians are more than happy to provide them with weapons, technology, know-how, training, and money. So again, it is a question of public information and education. *G & P - Thanks to LTG Boykin for this interview.* Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at marine1@uswriter.com. Like this article? Get the latest Guns & Patriots delivered to your email every Tuesday. Sign up here - it's free!
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: RE: Is thisThe Truth About Muhammad: Is IT THE ROAD TO SERFDOM 8/5/2010 11:20:48 AM
	Hi Jim, Lt. Gen. Boykin certainly knows what he's talking about and his interview is well worth reading. For those that still haven't got a clue about the dangers of radical Islam and their plan for world domination I would recommend reading it more then once. The interesting point he raises is that the government hasn't got a clue about the enemy the country is facing and B Hussein's public proclamations about Al Qaeda is essentially a cover story for him since they are only one of the many jihadi terrorist organization terrorizing the world. Thanks for posting this very important article. Shalom, Peter Quote: What Is Islam's Primary Objective? Totalitarian Rule over your everyday life, is the correct answer. Islam's Primary Objective is Conquest by W. Thomas Smith Jr. 08/03/2010 end article header Exclusive interview with Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, U.S. Army (Ret.), former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a former Delta Force officer who CBS’s 60 Minutes once dubbed “the Holy Warrior,” is a no-nonsense counterterrorist expert whom the television newsmagazine also said, “has probably seen as much combat as anyone in uniform.” Indeed he has, having fought and led soldiers in several American wars and military expeditions since the invasion of Grenada. He was the commander of Delta Force in the bloody battle of Mogadishu. He went on to serve as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He’s the author of the just-released novel, “Danger Close.” And he’s an outspoken and unapologetic Christian, who believes America can succeed in the war on terror, but some serious mistakes -- not the least of which is a public ignorance of who the enemy is -- must be corrected. This week we sat down with Boykin and discussed everything from Afghanistan to the proposed mosque near ‘ground zero’ in New York. W. Thomas Smith Jr.: Recent reports indicate that the Taliban in Afghanistan is stronger than ever and U.S. forces in that country are starved for resources. I’d like to get your thoughts on that. Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin: I don’t know that the Taliban is stronger than ever. But I’ll give you some generalities to think about. First, in those areas controlled by the U.S. -- and even those controlled by the UK -- the Taliban is not stronger than it previously has been, because the U.S. has been very aggressive in pursuing the Taliban, and also helping to build the infrastructure and work on economic development in those areas under U.S. control. The Taliban has gained some strength in areas controlled by other NATO nations or coalition partners. That’s because those countries have not been aggressive. They’ve been reluctant to aggressively pursue the Taliban. In my view, that is one of the big problems today. When we made the transition to NATO, we brought in countries that came with national caveats. Those countries came in with a set of rules-of-engagement that applied only to them, and in many cases those ROE told them to stay inside their bases, don’t go out and pursue the Taliban. It’s an issue of being risk averse in terms of casualties. So the Taliban may have resurged in some of those areas, and probably has, and has been able to operate fairly freely in those areas. Smith: Can we win the war in Afghanistan? Boykin: The question that really needs to be asked is ‘what does that mean?’ Can we define winning? I would use the term, ‘succeed.’ Can we succeed? And I think the answer is an unequivocal, yes. But in order to succeed in Afghanistan, we have to develop an infrastructure that would allow for economic development, which would ultimately give people hope for the future so they are not tied to handouts from the Taliban. In order to develop that infrastructure, we have to have a secure environment. It has been discovered that there is an estimated trillion-dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan that -- if mined -- could be a tremendous economic boon. The problem is, you’ve got to have an infrastructure that allows for commercial production and selling on the international market. That means we’ve got to build roads, bridges, educational institutions, and it must be done in an environment that’s secure. Then the people have more hope and a greater expectation from their government than they do from the Taliban. Smith: So what is the difference between succeeding and winning? Boykin: If you say, ‘Can we win?’ You are fundamentally assuming that someone is going to capitulate, that the losing side will sign a treaty and agree to stop fighting. But we’re not going to see that here. The Taliban is not going to capitulate because they are hard corps radical jihadists. Period. They’re going to go across the border, go into seclusion, and hide. But if we bring the society to a point where they are strong enough and willing to resist the Taliban, that is success in my view. Smith: So how do we succeed or win the broader war on terror if the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hizballah and others don’t capitulate, and instead go into seclusion only to fight another day? How do we succeed without completely wiping them out? Boykin: Remember the war on drugs? Did we ever expect that we would eradicate drugs? No. But our efforts were to bring it to a tolerable level. It’s like crime. Can you defeat crime or win the war on crime? No. These jihadists are committed, suicidal -- in many cases -- zealots that really believe their calling from Allah is to destroy Western democracy, kill infidels, and establish a caliphate that will ultimately usher in the reign of the Mahdi. You are not going to defeat an organization like that by killing them all. They just continue to reproduce because this is based on a theology, not holding a piece of ground or a particular objective. We’re talking about a war of ideas here, and that idea is not going to go away. In my view, it’s been a mistake to call this a war on terror, because terror is a tactic. I see this as a global insurgency, which recognizes the insurgent nature of this war and recognizes that there are things we have to do to stop the spread of this insurgency. And that’s a matter of using the elements of national power. The military defines seven elements of national power starting with diplomacy, then information, military, economics, financial, law enforcement, and intelligence. It’s not just a military solution. So we have to put great pressure on -- for example -- countries like Iran to stop funding Hizballah and Hamas. We have to use our economic power, to the extent that we can, through sanctions. We have to share intelligence with our allies so they can take action against terrorist-elements in their countries. So we have to go down the list. But it’s a holistic kind of approach to bring it to a level where we are sure we can defend ourselves against it, and we can go to its source -- to the extent that it’s possible -- and destroy it. Smith: I know we are doing those things to a fairly high degree, but then it seems we are giving Muslims a pass on everything in this country. For example, the proposed mosque near ‘ground zero’ in New York. Boykin: I am so disappointed. I’m also angry that there are those who are so uninformed and intimidated by these people that they are willing to allow this. We need to remember that Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a First Amendment issue. That’s our fundamental mistake. The second thing is, people have no understanding of Islam’s history or its basic tenets. Islam’s objective in America is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law. When they defeated the nomadic tribes in Mecca, they built a mosque at the most holy site. The message was one of triumph, that Islam has now defeated you and Islam reigns supreme. They did the same thing at Córdoba [Spain]. They did it in Jerusalem. Same in Constantinople. The message was always one of conquest and victory. Now, ‘ground zero’ is not holy, but it is sacred because of the lives lost. They want to build a mosque there to proclaim that Islam reigns supreme. Do you know what that is going to mean to Muslims all over the world? The recruiting to the Jihadist cause will be exponentially increased as a result of the very symbol -- the very message -- associated with that mosque there. It is incomprehensible to me. It was supported by Christian pastors and Jewish rabbis in this thing they call an interfaith dialogue. It shows such an extraordinary lack of understanding for what Islam is doing. Smith: What about our counterterrorism capabilities here at home? Where do we need strengthening? Boykin: It starts with recognizing who the enemy is. When our administration’s analysis to law enforcement across the country that the future threats to America are right-wing Christian groups, pro-life groups, second amendment groups, and returning veterans; and never says, Islamic terrorists; then we have a fundamental problem of recognizing who the enemy is. Secondly, the administration has gone to great lengths not to use the terms Islamist, Jihadist, or terrorist. If you can’t recognize your enemy, how are you going to develop a strategy or a methodology to deal with them? We need to be able to call them who and what they are. After the Fort Hood shootings by Nidal Hassan, the president finally said, ‘We are at war against Al Qaeda.’ Some people – including conservatives – applauded and said, ‘He finally gets it.’ Well, no, he doesn’t get it. That’s not the enemy. They are ‘an’ enemy, a force to be reckoned with. But we are at war with Islamic Jihadists. They come in many forms and many varieties, and they are not all Al Qaeda. That is where this administration is coming up short. We have to recognize what these people are about, what there intentions are, and how they intend to pursue those things. And there’s enough information and intelligence available that we should have no difficulty determining that. Smith: This brings to mind the problem of many Americans not understanding the fact that despite Al Qaeda being Sunni and Hizballah Shia – and so should be at odds with one another – they are in fact collaborating with one another against the West. Hizballah is an incredibly dangerous organization. And the two are working together in Africa, South and Central America, and elsewhere throughout the world. Boykin: Unquestionably. Again, remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They believe that. There is substantial evidence that Iran today is not only supporting Shia Hizballah in south Lebanon and elsewhere, but Iran is also supporting the Taliban, which is Sunni. And because the Taliban and other Sunni elements are enemies of America, the Iranians are more than happy to provide them with weapons, technology, know-how, training, and money. So again, it is a question of public information and education. *G & P - Thanks to LTG Boykin for this interview.* Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at marine1@uswriter.com. Like this article? Get the latest Guns & Patriots delivered to your email every Tuesday. Sign up here - it's free!
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: RE: Is thisThe Truth About Muhammad: Is IT THE ROAD TO SERFDOM 8/6/2010 2:19:07 AM
	The following is a great read and a excerpt from a must read article. That may help put things in perspective for you of the middle class and how we won our representation. http://mises.org/daily/4609 Was Classical Liberalism a "Strife of Interests Masquerading as a Contest of Principles"? Mises Daily: Thursday, August 05, 2010 by Jeff Riggenbach Clearly, the arrogance of these kings knew no bounds. They were inclined to believe, as Murray Rothbard reminds us in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, that subjects must obey the king in any and all circumstances, whether or not the king or his actions were good or evil. There must be no resistance whatever, even to evil princes. The king is the divinely mandated representative of God on earth by hereditary right. To question, much less to disobey the king, therefore, was not only treason but blasphemy. Disobeying the king [was] disobeying God. After all, as these monarchs saw it, once again quoting Rothbard, "good kings are a blessing sent to the people by God; wicked kings are a punishment equally sent by the divinity. In either case the duty of the subject is absolute obedience to God's/the king's commands." According to Rothbard, at times, the kings and their supporters "came close to saying that a monarch could never harm his people: in other words, however evil his deeds may seem, they must really be good, virtually by definition." Despite recent memory of the conduct in office of Cromwell and his minions, the conduct of the newly restored Stuart monarchs, according to Harry Elmer Barnes, "provoked another rebellion of the middle class," and this rebellion culminated in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689. Barnes wrote that "James's supporters were too few and weak to carry on another civil war," so James II was driven out "without serious bloodshed," and "James's Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange … were summoned to take over the British throne." And how did the middle class justify this high-handed treatment of "the divinely mandated representative of God on earth"? Harry Elmer Barnes wrote in 1947 that the middle class produced a body of economic and political theory to justify its attitudes and program. In the realm of economic policy it gradually came to favor complete withdrawal of the state from all types of interference with economic life. In the field of political theory it developed a related type of interpretation. What it desired above all was freedom from arbitrary taxation and other forms of oppression. Hence it worked out a doctrine of the natural rights of man to "life, liberty, and property." This theory of natural rights was closely allied to the notion of a natural order that lay at the foundation of the economic philosophy of laissez faire. These natural rights of life, liberty, and property, which included, specifically, freedom from arbitrary confiscation of property, imprisonment, illegal taxation, and censorship, were held by middle-class writers to be inherent in the order of nature from the beginnings of human society. The state or civil authority was established not to limit or terminate these supposed inherent natural rights, but rather still more firmly to assure and protect them. No ruler had any real authority to infringe upon these natural rights. As Barnes noted, there were a number of "middle-class writers" who took more or less this line, but "by far the most influential" of them "was the 17th-century English philosopher, John Locke. Many of his theories were taken up and popularized in America by Thomas Jefferson."
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: RE: Is thisThe Truth About Muhammad: Is IT THE ROAD TO SERFDOM 8/6/2010 9:03:30 PM
	A lesson in CIVICS and What Form of Government we have. Which do you choose? This is important folks, you need to choose and take a stand. I have and will meet you on the other side when you wake up. Understand Your Place In The Spectrum http://concordbridge.com/2010/08/06/understand-your-place-in-the-spectrum/ by William Thomas MacLachlan on August 6, 2010 · 0 comments in Commentary,Twitter,Video In recent weeks, I’ve been inundated with calls from the Republican Senate Committee, the Republican National Committee, and who knows what other Republican groups. If I make the mistake of answering the phone, I give them an earful about the need for a new Contract with America. The Republicans still cling to the idea that they can get back in power without proof of reformation. Thanks to the efforts of grassroots organizers and sons of liberty, we have made great progress, and I am beginning to think the Republicans MIGHT be getting the message. But they need to hear it, over and over. Their feet must be held to the fire. We want a Second Contract with America that lays out the policies and actions that will be taken, such as: Reduce the size of government Rescind further spending of the remaining “stimulus” money Cut taxes, including an extension of Bush capital gains tax. In fact, adopt further and deeper cuts of capital gains and personal income tax rates Make everyone pay federal tax of some sort, even if the less successful have much of that “rebated” via various government credits–EVERYONE PAYS Repeal the healthcare reform bill that is helping to kill jobs growth among small businesses, and institute free market solutions with clean, minimal regulations and legislation that benefit the greatest number of citizens Place competent leadership in place of the defense department and give our military the moral support it needs to get the job done Develop a rational energy policy (a rare point where a loosely sketched national policy will benefit the nation) so that industry can adapt to the pattern put in place and begin to innovate Remind people that personal responsibility is the key to America–relieve the producers of this country of the burden of debt the government is imposing Aggressive tort reform to get the lawyers off the backs of those who produce Aggressive introduction of free market competition to those sectors of the economy being strangled by public sector unions (prison guards, teachers, firemen, police/security) Impeach Obama in the House, try and convict him in the senate, strip him and his family of citizenship, and deport them to Cuba, Kenya or Indonesia where they belong And that’s just off the top of my head. The video below correctly identifies one of the great lies spread by Josef Stalin and other Marxists: that somehow Hitler, Nazis, and Fascists were and are “right-wing.” They are not, they were not. This lie was promoted by Stalin, and Marxists operating in the West, starting in the 1950s as a means of staining all who believe in true human freedom. This was a trick played by Stalin to stain people like us, who believe in individuality and self-governance, to stain people like us who DO NOT support government programs that redistribute wealth to the unmotivated and unproductive. Watch this video and you will begin to understand why many can’t figure out what to call Obama and the oligarchy that surrounds and controls him. They believe in an all-powerful government that controls the actions of its citizens, and ultimately that leads to totalitarianism, with a ruling oligarchy. What else can you take from this video? Our form of government is precious and rare, and it is up to each of us to defend it against the current assault. Europeans, Japanese and Koreans, among others, have attempted to recreate the freedoms we have enjoyed for more than two centuries, but none has come close, not really. Yet we could lose it all in a moment, snuffed out. We can’t lay down and grow complacent at this point. We have this summer and fall to force the Republicans to issue a Contract with America, and commit to policies that promote economic growth and human freedom, not top-down government-controlled economics that lead to the stagnation and growing poverty the Obama Administration’s policies are promoting. Remember, first we reconstruct the Republicans in our image (and we are making progress, though all who voted for Elena Kagan must be removed from office, tarred and feathered), then we field candidates who represent OUR beliefs, and not those of the current (and faltering) Republican leadership. We take the House, and we impeach Obama. If we can take the Senate, too, we remove him from power. Impeachment and removal from power are the best solution for the Obama Oligarchy that is running the economy into the ground. Every one of us is under threat from a second economic downturn, which would destroy the lives of countless millions of people. I’ll conclude with this thought. My mother is a classic bleeding heart who wants to take care of everyone. Good sentiment, but not practical. Having survived the Great Depression as a child, she knows all too well that the best cure for poverty is a job. And this die-hard Democrat is beginning to mutter and complain about Obama, who has no earthly idea how to create the conditions in which free enterprise creates good-paying jobs. And though government jobs can help in the very, very short term, in the end government jobs steal money from the productive component of our society. So the policies that MUST be instituted are those that liberate money, slash the size of the government, and reduce tax burdens and make it possible for small and medium-size companies to begin to grow again, and hire. The best cure for poverty is freedom. And freedom is the best way to let those who create and lead and build to draw the unemployed back into the productive work force.
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Menu

Forums

911 Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Blames Christians: "The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end"

Was Classical Liberalism a "Strife of Interests Masquerading as a Contest of Principles"?

Understand Your Place In The Spectrum

Like us on Facebook!