Calling Islam “Islam”

I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology to identify this enemy, which is very important in taking on the enemy. I recall watching panel discussions after 9/11, with each panelist using a different term to describe the enemy we face. That annoyed the hell out of me as I think it’s incredibly important to identify the proper terms when speaking about our enemy, and to NEVER create terms, for whatever reason. To me, the only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters. Below I try my best to make the case why we should always call Islam “Islam.”

Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as:

“Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Totalitarian Islam,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism,” etc….

The enemy calls it “Islam.”

Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing. A term such as “Militant Islam” is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us “Islam is peace” — after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name. He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt:

“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

If only he felt that way about America. Washington’s defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.

Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic (“Sharia”) Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:

“Slay the idolators wherever you find them…” Chapter 9, verse 5

“When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them….” Ch. 47:4

Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life? This evil man is Islam’s ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It’s no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent.

For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity and with the help of a large gang of followers that he managed to gain power. But he wanted his moral pretense too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah’s conveniently timed “revelation” that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad. From then on, violence became Islam’s way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad’s words, “War is deceit” — in the sense that Muslims use earlier “peaceful” verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims. Those “peaceful” passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.

Note also that the only reason we’re talking about Islam is because we’ve been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam’s “conscientious objectors”? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn’t stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of “Moderate Islam.”

Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.

Islam is the enemy’s ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it’s up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can’t even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we’d be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy’s ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, “Jihadists,” and our response, “The War on Jihad.” But behind it all, it’s Islam that makes the enemy tick.

Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam “Islam,” I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it’s important that we acknowledge Islam’s place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying “Islam” helps Islam and hurts us. So let’s begin calling the enemy’s ideology by its name. Let’s start calling Islam “Islam.”

They-Say-We-Say

Postscript: Below is Bosch’s response to those critics, especially  Muslims and Leftists, who make the issue about Muslims and not Islam; who always allege that critics of Islam are condemning 1.5 billion people, that Muslims are good people and innocent, etc etc. So below he responds with an excerpt from his piece Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West:

For those who want to make this about Muslims and not Islam, here are some of my thoughts on that:

First, my name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim, so I have some insight into this, coupled with the fact that I studied Islam as if my life depended on it after 9/11.

There is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t. But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his choice somehow shines a good light on Islam. It doesn’t. A good Muslim according to us is a bad Muslim according to Islam.

Read more here.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • thomas_h

    "A good Muslim according to us is a bad Muslim according to Islam."

    Or, as far as we are concerned the only good moslem is a bad moslem

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      If only we could remove the bad parts of the koran from what they study and believe.

      Of course that would only leave the ignored fluff they don't pay attention to….

      • thomas_h

        I agree.
        I also believe that Islam would cease being a religion. I say so because without fear and hate, which constitute its "spiritual fuel, it will lose its hideous "transcendence".

        • defcon 4

          I believe an imam said bluntly that without the death penalty for apostasy, islam would've ceased to be.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Please, oh please!

          • thomas_h

            if I had said this, I'd be an islamophobe.

  • this

    "Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing."

  • Sajid Anjum

    This is a test.

  • Sajid Anjum

    "Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing."

    Comparing Fascism to Islam is a spurious analogy. No one sought out moderate Nazis because there were no moderate Nazis. There are 3 million Muslims in the United States and the overwhelming majority of those would call themselves moderate Muslims. Also, Nazism was a couple of orders of magnitude more dangerous than modern Islam and an attempt to place them in the same category could perhaps be interpreted as a thinly veiled attempt to say that Muslims should be treated in the same way as Nazis. Germans were put into internment camps during WWII and Germany was carpet bombed.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "No one sought out moderate Nazis because there were no moderate Nazis."

      Bigot.

      • Sajid Anjum

        Alright, let me clarify. Most Muslims in The West call themselves moderate Muslims and do now believe in a violent solution to political problems. When is the last time you met a Nazi who calls himself a moderate Nazi?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          But some do, and unless you can show a fool proof way to tell the difference, what choice do we have but to respond and treat them all equally.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Well, there are three million Muslims in the United States and about fifty have been convicted on terrorism charges. Less than twenty Americans have died in the past ten years as a result of Muslim American terrorism.

            So what do you mean by "treat them all equally?"

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            What part of 'equally' dont' you understand?

            And what teachings do those muslims have that the activists don't? Do they have a different koran without surah 9?

            They are raised and taught the same things from the same books. People such as yourself would have considered the muslim stable and loyal in the military until he started taking down infidels at Ft Hood too. So, you're just not credible on this one.

          • Sajid Anjum

            I think you should google the words "elaborate" and "explicate". Since it is clear you need things to be spelled out for you here is what I mean:

            When you say "treat them all equally" would you state the particulars of the aforementioned equal treatment?

            "And what teachings do those muslims have that the activists don't? Do they have a different koran without surah 9? "

            It's a book. It doesn't really matter what is written in it if you don't act on it. Once again, the old testament is way more extremist.

            There are thousands of Muslims in the US military and one lost his mind after he had been battling severe depression.

            "People such as yourself would have considered the muslim stable and loyal in the military until he started taking down infidels at Ft Hood too. So, you're just not credible on this one."

            Resorting to character assassination is the province of losers–as in you don't have a point.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            It wasn't just the one. There was a tent attack in Kuwait. And Equal means exactly that. They treat us infidels the same, why would a different standard apply to how we pursue self preservation. If the militants don't care about the moderates, then the moderates need to rise up and defend themselves as well.

            But why should I do the job that the moderates don't care enough to take on themselves?

            And resorting to lies and distortions seems to be the province of muslim trolls. As in your are not making your point other than muslims will always lie and defend their sharia values at our expense.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "They treat us infidels the same, why would a different standard apply to how we pursue self preservation."

            The standard way to treat infidels in a Muslim country is a sort of limited person with limited rights. That is terrible but your deliberate vagueness makes me fearful that what you are advocating under the guise of "equal treatment" is something much worse. Do you mean to say that you will treat all Muslims as you would a violent Jihadi?

            "But why should I do the job that the moderates don't care enough to take on themselves? "

            Because someone has to be the leader and take responsibility for civilized and lawful resolutions to political problems. If the so-called greatest and most advanced nation the world has ever seen is unwilling I guess we should maintain the status quo and continue with the warfare.

            " muslims will always lie and defend their sharia values at our expense."

            This is too general and vague a statement to respond to. You basically have no idea what Middle Eastern politics is like and how much American influence exists in the foreign policies of nations like the Emirates and saudi Arabia.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Then lets treat them as limited people with limited rights.
            Is that how they explained it to Daniel Pearl?

            Just because you post longer comments doesn't make you sound smart, it makes you sound boring.

            And I do have a very good idea of middle east politics. The muslim vultures circle Israel and murder all their infidels in practice while they wait for a chance to destroy the Jews.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So what do you mean by "treat them all equally?""

            Remain circumspect about their loyalty. Respond rationally to additional evidence that leads to questions about risks.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Religious and racial profiling is already done by US government institutions. Beyond that, I think it is quite a stupid policy to perpetually suspect 3 million people so you can arrest 50 people and save twenty lives over a period of ten years.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And it's done all around the world by islamic activists.

            In Indonesia they have a national ID with religion printed on it. Christians can't get skilled jobs and careers are cut off for them.

            Don't pretend your islamic hands are lilly white in this.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I think it is quite a stupid policy to perpetually suspect 3 million people so you can arrest 50 people and save twenty lives over a period of ten years."

            Of course you do.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Unless it's them taking down twice as many infidels without saving any of their own.

    • defcon 4

      "moderate" islamo-nazis are just non-violent muslimes seeking the same ends as their more violent brethren through different means. Of course, we already know there are moderate muslimes who financially support worldwide islamo-nazi terrorism.

      • Sajid Anjum

        ""moderate" islamo-nazis are just non-violent muslimes seeking the same ends as their more violent brethren through different means"

        There is nothing wrong with seeking an end through non-violent means. In fact it is a good thing and if the end is morally flawed, that particular end will be mostly unachievable in a free society. Why don't you let the non-violent Muslims come to terms with their religion in their own way?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          Why don't we let them do that before another single person dies?

          Oh that's not likely to happen. Well, it looks like the moderate muslims better expect to bear the consequences for their own failure.

          • Sajid Anjum

            It is not the fault of three million moderate Muslims in America that a very small handful are involved in terrorist activities.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            it is if they stand by and do nothing while they know of the danger.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Really–they don't know of the danger. When a moderate Muslim says that his Islam is "peaceful" I promise you he is not lying. He is peaceful and concerned with his job and family. Which is why less than fifty out of three million Amerian Muslims (less than 0.01%) have been convicted of terrorism charges.
            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/f

            Also, Muslims do not stand idly by when they see terrorism unfolding in front of them. Ruslan Tsarnaev as much as disowned his nephews. The above link talks about how Muslims are a valuable source of information in the fight against Jihad.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            They do and don't dare step up.
            And since you clearly are stuck on muslim loyal talking points this may be a good tiem to mention green on green violence in Afghanistan. Moderate trained officers in the military working with us turn and murder our men.

            Why? Obviously you'll say something stupid. But the honest truth is that no muslim can be trusted with the life of an infidel. They're 'limited people' with 'limited rights'. And obviously the right to life is one that's severely limited.

            You're barbarians.

          • Abdullah Mikail

            You seem to be an emotionally driven person with little or no basis in fact to support your own position making blanket statements…seems juvenile. If this is the best you have to offer in "defense of your way of life." I think you should join that mars shot and start from scratch there because your way is doomed if you are the best you have to offer in its defense.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You seem to be a muslin with nothing but muslim loyalties and excuses for everything they do. You seem so 'islam' just as the author describes it. And since you do nothing about the militants you share a burden of the blame for their violence.

          • US Muslim

            Forget it…he needs to have the sandbox all to himself. Let him have it.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Forget it. You're just not able to lie your way out of this one..

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "There is nothing wrong with seeking an end through non-violent means."

          That if that end is unlawful or malicious.

          "In fact it is a good thing and if the end is morally flawed, that particular end will be mostly unachievable in a free society."

          Unless deception or "non-violent" coercion is used.

          "Why don't you let the non-violent Muslims come to terms with their religion in their own way?"

          Because there are ways to be malicious and dangerous that are still considered non-violent. We want loyalty to our constitution and values that flow and are represented by that constitution. We don't want a totalitarian religion telling us that separation of church and state is "different" under Muslims than it is under what we have established. We don't want subversives trying to undermine us whether or not they consider themselves "non-violent."

          Morsi is considered non-violent. To be even more clear, violence is some times justified against non-violent subversives after due process.

          Don't oversimplify. Keep your religious beliefs personal and respect all of our laws. If you try to use your laws and traditions to argue for some kind of, let's call it "Islamic progress," then we will oppose you strongly.

          • Sajid Anjum

            ""There is nothing wrong with seeking an end through non-violent means."

            That if that end is unlawful or malicious.

            Legally, even if that end is unlawful, seeking it through lawful means isn't. That is the meaning of a free country and "innocent until proven guilty". You cannot hold someone responsible to the state for anything unless he has broken a law or shown conclusive intent to break a law.

            "Because there are ways to be malicious and dangerous that are still considered non-violent. We want loyalty to our constitution and values that flow and are represented by that constitution. We don't want a totalitarian religion telling us that separation of church and state is "different" under Muslims than it is under what we have established. We don't want subversives trying to undermine us whether or not they consider themselves "non-violent." "

            Sounds fair. Go ahead and place this point of view in the public sphere and see how well it is (or rather not) received. Oh wait, you are already trying and failing to do that. As long as you don't advocate a policy of systematic exclusion and violence against American Muslims I don't have a problem with your view.

            "Don't oversimplify. Keep your religious beliefs personal and respect all of our laws. "

            I agree that religious beliefs should be kept personal and out of the political sphere as far as possible.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            So many words for "I'm an idiot, but I like typing words and putting them together…"

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Legally, even if that end is unlawful, seeking it through lawful means isn't."

            Obviously.

            "That is the meaning of a free country and "innocent until proven guilty"."

            That's actually a separate issue. There is a period in between that we call "investigating."

            "You cannot hold someone responsible to the state for anything unless he has broken a law or shown conclusive intent to break a law."

            "Holding someone responsible" is what we do after due process. I have no problem with that either.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Sounds fair. Go ahead and place this point of view in the public sphere and see how well it is (or rather not) received. Oh wait, you are already trying and failing to do that."

            I'd stop celebrating and start worrying a bit more if I were you. History is no guarantee of future success. We're teaching people the facts and eventually it will be more difficult to get away with ridiculous lies.

            "As long as you don't advocate a policy of systematic exclusion and violence against American Muslims I don't have a problem with your view."

            I don't advocate anything that violates our actual constitution. Nothing I suggest is without precedent and clear justification.

            "I agree that religious beliefs should be kept personal and out of the political sphere as far as possible."

            Let's stipulate that you're telling the truth here. The people who will be getting our attention are those who are using deception or legal loopholes (as they see it) to change our laws in order to comply with their alien religious beliefs.

  • Sajid Anjum

    "Islam is the enemy’s ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it’s up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can’t even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we’d be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy’s ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, “Jihadists,” and our response, “The War on Jihad.” But behind it all, it’s Islam that makes the enemy tick."

    The above paragraph is the problem with Fawstin's article (and with the far right wing response to Islamism in general). Fawstin takes a few aspects of Islam (such as lust, murder and greed) which most Muslims do not practice anyway and confuses them to be the *defining* characteristics of the religion. It is not a wonder then that most of his readers have come to the conclusions such as "Islam is inherently evil" or "Islam is not a religion". In truth, Islam, like every other religion, is as Islam does. All religions are inconsistent and most have extremist elements.

    • defcon 4

      Another argument of false equivalence. There is only ONE religion presently murdering, raping and forcibly converting people of other faiths all over the world lying muslime ape and that's yours.

      • Sajid Anjum

        Would you clarify what you mean by "false equivalence"? I don't think you understand my argument at all. Latin America has the highest murder rate in the world and is predominantly catholic. For every "extremist" line you shoe me in the Qur'an I can show you four worse from the old testament. Does this mean that Judaism is the most extreme? Islam has a terrorism problem but, once again, the source is unclear. It is incredibly simplistic to claim that the entire religion of Islam is a flawed non-religion.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          Go ahead, just say it.
          You need him to use smaller words.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Would you clarify what you mean by "false equivalence"?"

          Showing 2 or more things that are presented as equal or roughly equal, usually in moral terms. This is done by taking some superficial aspects that seem similar to imply approximate or absolute moral equivalence.

          Like saying, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same god. We're supposed to then say, gee, I guess there isn't much else to talk about. They're practically the same.

          Nothing could be further from the truth than that.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "Nothing could be further from the truth than that."

            Well then it is good that I was not claiming anything close to that.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Flip flopping?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Well then it is good that I was not claiming anything close to that."

            That was my example. Do you understand what I've explained about false (moral) equivalence?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "For every "extremist" line you shoe me in the Qur'an I can show you four worse from the old testament. "

          You just used false equivalence. It's not word strings we care about. If I describe a murder in one teaching and you describe the same murder in another, does it matter if one holds it as an example for what to do while the other uses it as an example of evil?

          So thank you for showing us a perfect example of flawed logic through using false equivalence.

          I'm an "extreme" bungee jumper. Am I somehow just as deficient morally as "extremist jihadis" because we're both extreme? Obviously not.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "You just used false equivalence. It's not word strings we care about. If I describe a murder in one teaching and you describe the same murder in another, does it matter if one holds it as an example for what to do while the other uses it as an example of evil? "

            So you are saying it doesn't matter what is written but rather how you actually interpret and act on what is written? As in Islamic extremism and not Islam is the problem? Wonderful because that is exactly what I have been trying to say.

            Unless you mean all negative and extreme examples in the old testament are presented in a negative light, which is something that i would have to dispute.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Stop already, you muslim trolls are so obtuse!

            One is words telling about history and one is actually happening! He is right, and you're an apologist that can't even say the killing is wrong.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So you are saying it doesn't matter what is written but rather how you actually interpret and act on what is written?"

            Yes of course.

            "As in Islamic extremism and not Islam is the problem? Wonderful because that is exactly what I have been trying to say. "

            If you can convince us and the majority of Muslims that Mohammed is not the ideal role model and put that genie back in the bottle then you'll have solved a lot of problems. And if you can make your case, why are you not held up in worldwide media publications teaching these poor confused "extremists" about the true teachings? Did you study any fact-based history about the West? Don't you know how many wars were fought over morality and getting free from having church interference with the state? Our societies took these issues up and we are what we are because we faced it and secularism won. That's what Biblical texts support.

            Islam would have gone through the same process at more or less the same time if the potential was there to go through any similar kind of reform. The fact that it didn't does not necessarily prove you are wrong, but it proves you are wrong about how the majority of people interpret the texts and traditions.

            So let's say that you are correct and we've got millions of extremists, some actively violent and some merely subversive, and what do we do about this? Just because the subversion is inspired by "mistaken" interpretations, how does that justify ignoring the ongoing harm it does to society by treating these people the same way we treat Buddhists?

            Actually they are becoming a protected class because of leftist liars. That's probably the worst problem of all. I don't hold you personally responsible for anything other than your words, and my remedy is simply to respond with my own.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Unless you mean all negative and extreme examples in the old testament are presented in a negative light, which is something that i would have to dispute."

            The only controversial teaching I can think of in the Bible today is that of circumcision. If you think you can condemn the Bible by today's standards, you're not reading it correctly. That's OK as long as you don't use it to organize subversive movements. This I am not worried about.

    • Omar

      Do you thing Zionism is evil? Zionism simply means to establish and maintain a Jewish state in the Holy Land where Jews have lived there continuously for over 3,000 years. Only radical extremists on the left and right believe that Zionism is evil.

      • defcon 4

        I've never heard/read or seen a muslime take any offense in the fact there are 56 islamic states and one exclusively islamic state, instead they all whine and whinge about the one Jewish state in the world.

        • Sajid Anjum

          Perhaps because that exclusively Jewish state is founded on historically Arab land with the aid of Europeans?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            But it isn't. It's historically Jewish land. And they have even more historically Jewish land that arabs are holding that they could take back if they wanted.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Its been about 85% Arab for the past 1400 years. I think that qualifies as historically Arab land. It may have been prehistorically Jewish land but I think the statute of limitations for compensation has long since expired.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And it was 86% Jewish for 3500. What you think doesn't much matter. There have been Jews in Jerusalem continuously until Jordan tossed them in 1949.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Because prior to 1400 years the world was too old. At most we can go back about 200 years if we want to make meaningful progress toward solving political problems.

            "There have been Jews in Jerusalem continuously until Jordan tossed them in 1949."

            Sure. And this implies that exclusively Muslim state is as illegitimate (probably more so given the way Muslims treat minorities) as is a Jewish one. In the long run I hope there is a one-state solution in a free country. In the short run it would be helpful if four million Palestinians find themselves a legitimate and contiguous state ASAP

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And prior to 60 years ago was too old too.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Nope, sorry. I don't think you understand international politics or even basic principles of law.

            If we legitimize the right of immigrants to form a new nation in every land in which they achieve a local majority then large swaths of USA would cease to be American very soon. If you support Zionism you would have to support that.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Of course I do. And I understand you.

            You would come to any conclusion as long as it backed Jews being off into the sea and the muslims dancing along the shore line. It's not going to happen.

            And if you don't like immigration take back the muslims from europe and leave them alone in their ancestral lands.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Nope, sorry. I don't think you understand international politics or even basic principles of law. "

            Nice bluff. You don't have any law on your side other than sharia.

            "If we legitimize the right of immigrants to form a new nation in every land in which they achieve a local majority then large swaths of USA would cease to be American very soon. If you support Zionism you would have to support that."

            That's not the justification. That's a straw man argument that failed a long time ago.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "Nice bluff. You don't have any law on your side other than sharia. "

            I'm an American citizen, Plus the United Nations has plenty of laws that mediate international relations that are not based on Sharia law.

            It seems that your intent is to apply secular enlightenment politics and law inside US borders while barbaric force outside. Or rather, to treat people who agree with you in one way and people who disagree with you in another way. I think you would make a great Muslim.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            All those words stand for "I'm only loyal to sharia and I don't care what anyeone else says."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm an American citizen, Plus the United Nations has plenty of laws that mediate international relations that are not based on Sharia law."

            Your interpretation of our laws seems flawed, possibly by your religious beliefs. The UN has no sovereignty. They're a (corrupt) political organization and nothing more. Globalists would like to shoehorn that corrupt organization in to the role of global sovereign but they haven't been at all successful except in the minds of delusional psychopaths.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It seems that your intent is to apply secular enlightenment politics and law inside US borders while barbaric force outside. Or rather, to treat people who agree with you in one way and people who disagree with you in another way."

            The US constitution is a guide for our foreign policy but it's sovereignty does not extend that far. The rest of what you say is absurd because of those simple facts.

            "I think you would make a great Muslim."

            The problem with that is that objective facts matter to me, so that could never happen.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "That's not the justification. That's a straw man argument that failed a long time ago."

            What is the justification for Zionism? In fact, what is the justification for the formation for any nation and how are such justifications to be enforced?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            What is your justification to tell Jews that after 3000 years they no longer have any rights or claims to their ancestral lands?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What is the justification for Zionism?"

            Zionism is a movement to reestablish a state with Jewish ethnic identity to ensure that Jews are not ever treated as outsiders in their traditional homeland. It does not deny rights to any individuals. It denies the sharia principals that Muslims must rule any land they ever conquer. That is the center of the conflict.

            "In fact, what is the justification for the formation for any nation and how are such justifications to be enforced?"

            That depends on circumstances. You must look at the current sovereign to see if they have legitimacy and take it from there. Then if you can justify it you try to organize your own legitimately.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            I wish I could give you more than one thumbs up!

          • Omar

            The so-called "Palestinians" are not an ethnicity. They are an invented people (Newt Gingrich is right). Palestine is a geographical region, not a nation-state. Anyone who lives in the Holy Land region (Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan) is a Palestinian, regardless of characteristics. The Israelis and Jordanians are Palestinians. Quit repeating leftist/Islamist propaganda and learn from facts.

          • Sajid Anjum

            I think you are repeating right wing propaganda here. The Philistine and Falastinis have been mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran respectively and is the name given to the Arabs who live in Palestine.

            In fact, i modern Israelis could be considered an invented ethnicity (Ashkenazi Jews are European) with an invented language (Hebrew was a mostly liturgical language until revived explicitly with Zionism in mind).

            Regardless of what you want to call them, there are four million Arabs living in a land that was called Palestine BEFORE the Jews arrive there from Egypt (see the old testament) and they call themselves (legitimately) Palestinians. Stop confusing a naming issue with a very real disenfranchisement issue.

          • Omar

            Where is the evidence? You're repeating left-wing/Islamist propaganda again. The Philistines were Greeks, not Arabs. Also, How many times do I have to tell you that Jews have lived in the Holy Land continuously FOR OVER 3,000 YEARS! The Jews were in the Holy Land before the Arabs settled there. Also, the modern use of the term "Palestinian people" was invented by the Soviet Union and the KGB when the Communists created the PLO in 1964, 16 years after modern Israel was created. Arafat was a Soviet/KGB puppet. Moscow created the artificial "Palestine". Newt Gingrich is right about the Holy Land. Learn from facts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The Philistine and Falastinis have been mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran respectively and is the name given to the Arabs who live in Palestine."

            The fake national movement calling themselves "Palestinians" have zero connections to any references in the Bible unless you cling to the supposed connection with Ishmael. Whatever. The Philistines have zero connections with any modern people.

            You're joking or you're a liar that doesn't know where he is.

            "Regardless of what you want to call them, there are four million Arabs living in a land that was called Palestine BEFORE the Jews arrive there from Egypt"

            And they disqualified themselves from governing anything base on their behavior.

            "(see the old testament) and they call themselves (legitimately) Palestinians. Stop confusing a naming issue with a very real disenfranchisement issue."

            This lie was already disposed of. They disenfranchised themselves the way that thieves and other criminals disenfranchise themselves from liberty. Furthermore, they don't' get to rule or govern just because they want to. I want to be president. I want to be in congress. Are my rights violated because I'm not? Can I play victim too?

            What a bunch of losers that perpetually blame others for their own failures and backwardness.

            "If not for Israel, we'd be on the moon."

            Give me a break. They disenfranchised themselves by their own behavior.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "The fake national movement calling themselves "Palestinians" have zero connections to any references in the Bible unless you cling to the supposed connection with Ishmael. Whatever. The Philistines have zero connections with any modern people.

            You're joking or you're a liar that doesn't know where he is. "

            Israel was formed by Askenazi Jews who had almost no connection with Israel for 2000 years. They used the fact that oriental Jews had had a continuous minority presence in parts of Israel and their own religious predispositions as an excuse to flee European persecution and set up a state (with European help; how ironic is that) in historically Arab Land WITHOUT including the Arab people living in that very land.

            To this day they demand to maintain an exclusively Jewish character of their nation and make no attempt to integrate the four million Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. And really, does the etymology of the word Palestinian matter here?

            "And they disqualified themselves from governing anything base on their behavior. "

            Just like Native Americans, Zulus, or any group of people that is different from European civilization with different principles of government. After all, Americans sent a man on the moon. Surely they are better and have more of a right to representative government than anybody else regardless of the prior history of a piece of land.

            "Give me a break. They disenfranchised themselves by their own behavior."

            Disenfranchising oneself is a contradiction in terms.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You're still lying. The arabs in Israel have full rights. They have a vote and they have members in the Knessett.

            Why do you lie so much in a day and age when it's so easy to prove you wrong?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Israel was formed by Askenazi Jews who had almost no connection with Israel for 2000 years."

            Only Nazis believe that you must have DNA to justify membership in a society. And your statement is far too broad. You're quoting Nazi and neo-Nazi theories.

            The Jews (including Israelis) of today have various salient cultural, ethnic and genetic ties to the people of the Bible who lived there and governed themselves, verified by archaeologists of all stripes other than Muslim. What a coincidence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "To this day they demand to maintain an exclusively Jewish character of their nation and make no attempt to integrate the four million Arabs who call themselves Palestinians."

            Just as French demand to maintain an exclusively French character and Americans demand (except for insane traitorous leftists) an exclusively American character (constitution).

            "And really, does the etymology of the word Palestinian matter here?

            We're just refuting lies. We didn't try to claim those colonists had any ancient connection to the land before their conquest. You did. I guess it matters from a guy who also denounced imperialism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Just like Native Americans, Zulus, or any group of people that is different from European civilization with different principles of government."

            It's not about being different. If you attack the sovereign you're going to pay the price if you don't win. If you try to oppress people you can't claim to be victim just because you lose so dramatically that history looks back on you as a victim.

            "After all, Americans sent a man on the moon. Surely they are better and have more of a right to representative government than anybody else regardless of the prior history of a piece of land. "

            That's an effect of our superiority, not a justification. We settled with the natives in case you hadn't noticed. And they have full rights all across the nation and then some additional rights. The fact that their culture has disappeared does not make them a victim of a superior culture. It means they did not create a culture that was able to survive modern times. If we didn't establish sovereignty, it's likely a much more brutal society would have. Most of them know this.

            You're just trying to use silly guilt narratives.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Disenfranchising oneself is a contradiction in terms."

            No, it's not. You talk like a leftist. "The fact that there is violence in a culture proves that the culture is being oppressed."

            What BS!

            It's abnormal for someone to "disenfranchise" oneself because the word is used to imply we should have empathy for the loser. But when one's own actions lead to just removal of this person or groups rights, then I can say they caused it on their own. It's literally correct but in the PC world of today it's a word usually reserved to imply victim status. So I simply pointed out that they are victims of their own behavior.

            They disenfranchised themselves. Their own actions led to their loss of legitimacy in trying to organize a modern soverign state. I'm skeptical many even pursued that seriously in the case of the "Palestinians." They don't want to build a state, they want to destroy the non-Muslim state. Everything they say has been sanitized by their need to present themselves as victims.

            They lie. A lot. You either accept those lies as an uncritical dupe, or you are lying too.

          • Omar

            Actually, for the world to be too old, you have to go back to at least the pre-Roman period (before 753 BC/BCE). Even then, the "too old" excuse doesn't fly in the Holy Land, especially since the Jews were one of the first people to live in the Holy Land. By 600 AD/CE, the Roman Empire (in Western Europe) had already collapsed and the Middle Ages was on. Even today, a very small part of the Roman Empire still lives. It is called the Vatican City, which is a sovereign country (unlike the invented "state of Palestine") located inside Rome, Italy. Learn from facts.

          • Sajid Anjum

            The fact is that the population of the levant has been overwhelmingly majority Arab for the past 1400 years. If you choose to go back even further than a hundred years all people of non native American descent would have to move out of the new world. If you are seriously going to argue that European Jews have the right to form a state in the Levant based on events that occurred about 2000 years ago then I don't know what to tell you. You have no understanding of politics and sovereignty.

          • Omar

            You have no knowledge of politics and sovereignty, period. I know how politics in the world works. You oppose the Jews' right to have a historical state in a historical part of the world, yet you support Islamist imperialism and Sharia law. I'm guessing you also support China's military occupation and colonial exploitation of Tibet, which (unlike "Palestine") was a a nation-state, until Communist China (with support from the Soviet Union) invaded and forcefully annexed Tibet. Since then, more than 1.2 million Tibetans have died from the occupation. Why don't you condemn the Communists for their crimes in Tibet?

          • Sajid Anjum

            I do not support Islamist imperialism or Sharia Law. Please read my replied to Commenter Roger. I do condemn Communist China's invasion of Tibet. In fact, my country of origin (India) has made tremendous strides toward granting sanctuary to the displaced people of Tibet.

            In any case, the topic is Fawstin's characterization of the roots of Islamic terrorism and I would like to stick to that topic.

          • Omar

            Ah, yes. The South Asia subcontinent. Everyone knows that the subcontinent is home to one of the worst forms of religious violence in any world region (apart from the Middle East). The conflicts between Hindus and Muslims led to the partition of Pakistan upon independence in 1947. I noticed that in the modern world, India is a democratic state, while Pakistan is an autocratic, semi-theocracy allied with Communist China. Based on the religious conflicts in the subcontinent, there needs to be a more detailed analysis on the relationship between religious violence in both the subcontinent and the Middle East, since both regions have Islamist states. Pakistan and Iran seem to be like allies to one another.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I do not support Islamist imperialism or Sharia Law."

            THEN THERE ARE NO ISLAMIC LANDS according to you. It's all imperial.

          • Sajid Anjum

            I believe that mosque church and state should be separate. Of course there are Islamic lands; just because I don't support Islamic imperialism does not mean those lands don't exist.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And it also doesn't mean that islamic imperialism isn't real and you're just denying it.

            Empty words.
            Al taqiyya.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Of course there are Islamic lands; just because I don't support Islamic imperialism does not mean those lands don't exist."

            It means that you accept imperialism as a legitimate way to gain rights of sovereignty. You can't deny that without turning yourself in to a pretzel.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The fact is that the population of the levant has been overwhelmingly majority Arab for the past 1400 years."

            Thanks to totalitarian colonialism. So coercion is no problem for you, then why do you complain when you lose? Hypocrisy is part of your value system?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " If you choose to go back even further than a hundred years all people of non native American descent would have to move out of the new world."

            No. Nobody forced anyone to move out that wasn't subversive. That's the point.

            " If you are seriously going to argue that European Jews have the right to form a state in the Levant based on events that occurred about 2000 years ago then I don't know what to tell you."

            That's not the sole justification. Tyranny through simplicity doesn't work here.

            "You have no understanding of politics and sovereignty."

            You're funny. Islamic sovereignty we understand very well. We reject allah so we don't care about your legal theories. At all.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "No. Nobody forced anyone to move out that wasn't subversive. That's the point."

            Alright let us try this another way. For justice to prevail all Native Americans should have equal representation in a free society, as they do now.

            So why is that not the ultimate goal for the current region of Israel-Palestine? And if that is not the goal, why not attempt to create a contiguous Palestine state instead of a Gaza strip and a West Bank, separated by the creation of a Jewish State?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            How can you expect equality when Jews are willing but arabs want them living 2 miles from shore?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So why is that not the ultimate goal for the current region of Israel-Palestine?"

            It is. But you pretend that the war is over and it's not. When the war is over then you can talk about oppression, maybe.

            "And if that is not the goal, why not attempt to create a contiguous Palestine state instead of a Gaza strip and a West Bank, separated by the creation of a Jewish State?"

            Please. Have you not heard of the Oslo Accords? If you even try blaming Israel, things will get even more clear as we dissect precisely the reasons for the condition of the "Palestinian" fake victims of today.

            Not that there are not individuals who suffer unjustly. You just can't righteously blame Israel for that.

          • Omar

            What about the indigenous Miskito people in Nicaragua? They deserve the right to have a voice in their government, yet they are being oppressed by Sandinista autocrat, Daniel Ortega (who is a Castro-Chavez/Maduro puppet)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Because prior to 1400 years the world was too old. At most we can go back about 200 years if we want to make meaningful progress toward solving political problems."

            Nope. The statute of limitations here is far more limited than that. You're a hypocrite using subjective arguments to tilt in favor of your preferred religious totalitarian colonialists.

            No thanks. That's why we reject you as dangerous even before you whip out the blatant lies.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Its been about 85% Arab for the past 1400 years."

            Even if that were true, you're trying to justify religious totalitarian imperialism. So I guess we can base our new empire on that and you can't cry foul.

            "It may have been prehistorically Jewish land but I think the statute of limitations for compensation has long since expired."

            The exact same argument can be used against your party.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "Even if that were true, you're trying to justify religious totalitarian imperialism. So I guess we can base our new empire on that and you can't cry foul. "

            Please read my posts. I have been arguing for equal representation and against the setting up of foreign governments that exclude the local population.

            "The exact same argument can be used against your party."

            Only if you are some kind of a rationalist.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            No, you have been arguing for many things. But you are not arguing tor equal representation. You are denying it exists.
            http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/02

            Oh look, an arab member if the israeli knessett! And even he wants death to Israel.
            So, equality isn't the solution you pretend it is. Could it be that you alone pretend islam can live at peace with any other religion?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Please read my posts. I have been arguing for equal representation and against the setting up of foreign governments that exclude the local population. "

            I read the contradictions. You tried to justify "Arab presence or even Arab sovereignty when the only reason they are there is because they conquered the peaceful residents they found there. You implicitly support Islamic imperialism and try to use their conquests to describe land as "Arab land" or "Muslim land."

            Sajid Anjum: "Its been about 85% Arab for the past 1400 years. I think that qualifies as historically Arab land. It may have been prehistorically Jewish land but I think the statute of limitations for compensation has long since expired."

            You're saying that the claims of the victims of Islamic imperialism are too old to rectify. I can say the same thing to anyone. Notice that Western governments don't actually have colonies of conquest. You want a do-over for the Turks or anyone who comes in Mohammed's name.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Please read my posts. I have been arguing for equal representation and against the setting up of foreign governments that exclude the local population. "

            When the local population is not engaged in subversion and war, that's reasonable. You were talking about Israel and "Palestinian" claims, so we're not there yet. You seem to deny the "Palestinians' are accountable for their own actions yet you want to promote them as legitimate candidates as sovereigns.

            It's pretty squirmy. Your own credibility is starting to slip.

          • Omar

            You're clearly a propagandist for Islamist totalitarianism. Jews have continuously lived in the Holy Land region for over 3,000 years. Palestine is not even an Arabic name. Palestine is a Latin name meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors who had red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). The Romans renamed the Holy Land "Palestine" when they conquered the region in 66 AD/CE, about 600 years before Islam was established and when the Arabs started moving into the area. Bottom line: Israel is a historical reality, while the "state of Palestine" is an artificial invention. Learn from history.

          • Sajid Anjum

            No, you learn from history:

            " Old Hebrew's cognate word Plištim,[40] usually translated Philistines, does not distinguish them and the other Sea Peoples, who settled in Palestine around 1100 BCE."
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#E

            I have absolutely no idea where you are getting information. Care to provide a link?

          • Omar

            And I said that the Philistines were Greeks and not Arabs. Palestine was a Latin name, since the Romans gave the name to the region when they conquered the Holy Land in 66 AD/CE. Palestine means Philistines. Because Arabic has no "P" sound in its language, "Palestine" became "Falastin", which has no meaning. Check this link for the truth: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/steven-simpson/the-t

          • objectivefactsmatter

            From your URL:

            "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2013)"

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Perhaps because that exclusively Jewish state is founded on historically Arab land with the aid of Europeans?"

            That's subversive non-violence to lie about such things.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Except it is not a lie. It is historically Arab land relabeled as historically Jewish for the purposes of Zionism. I would really love to hear your justification for a group of European Jews to migrate, en Masse, to a foreign land and set up their own state there. The Afrikans tried it but South Africa is one nation now. The Americans tried it, but America is one nation now. Similar standards should be held for a European Jewish state on historically Arab land.

            There are four million Palestinians living in a state of apartheid on their own historic land. That is a travesty and an injustice perpetrated by the state of Israel and supported by the USA.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            It is a lie. 3000 years is longer than the relatively recent islamic invasion that took the land. And the Brits won it in war and the arabs lost any claim to it's sovereignty. At that point, they are a conquered people. So, if the Brits wanted to give it to become Israel that nation has has much legitimacy as any other british mandate. Iran was one such, are you saying they have no legitimacy as well?

            And all those copts living under apartheid. Do the arabs in Egypt have no legitimacy as well?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Except it is not a lie. It is historically Arab land relabeled as historically Jewish for the purposes of Zionism. "

            It's "historically Arab" since the Islamic conquests and not tied to any Biblical people. Certainly not the Philistines. It's therefore a big fat lie to say otherwise.

            And if you want your lies even bigger and fatter, just watch the Palestinian media publications.

            "I would really love to hear your justification for a group of European Jews to migrate, en Masse, to a foreign land and set up their own state there."

            The Jews never left entirely. Their sovereignty was restored legitimately when the Turkish empire was rolled back.

            "There are four million Palestinians living in a state of apartheid on their own historic land."

            There are millions of jihadis and duped Muslims who have fake claims as a justification for perpetuating a war they can't win without lying.

            "That is a travesty and an injustice perpetrated by the state of Israel and supported by the USA."

            The injustice lies in the fact that we don't support a decisive conclusion. Our own internal divisions (mostly caused by liars) lead to weakened resolve. The injustice all flows from jihadi belligerence and lies, and those who accept and perpetuate those lies.

          • Sajid Anjum

            The injustice lies in the fact that we don't support a decisive conclusion"

            What do you mean by "decisive conclusion" and what is your solution for the four million Arabs who are living in conditions for apartheid. The Oslo accords did not promise statehood and the Israelis do not seem interested in an inclusive solution. France can be French and America can be American because that was the social contract all the people living in those respective countries agreed upon.

            I don't think the Palestine Arabs would agree to living in a Jewish state or a rag-tag Palestine divided into and East Bank or a Gaza strip.

            Early on you stated that martial law governs international relations and the UN is composed of a bunch of crooks. If this is true then you are advocating perpetual war and a system in which the country with the largest army ("The winner", as you put it) gets to decide the political system in a particular territory.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Having equal rights is not apartheid. Copts in Egypt face real apartheid.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What do you mean by "decisive conclusion"'

            Part of my point is that by allowing it to drag on for decades we are actually allowing the raising of children as new victims.

            "…and what is your solution for the four million Arabs…

            Given how old the conflict is, I'm not confident that today is the day to put together a comprehensive proposal. These people need to behave in ways that make it plausible they will live peacefully in compliance for whatever legitimate government is set up for them to participate in.

            "…what is your solution for the four million Arabs who are living in conditions for apartheid."

            They need to figure out how to purge the criminal elements from their society and form a cohesive movement if they truly hope to achieve self-rule, I can't force them to change. I think that jihad is the most important cultural value in that group of people, Palestinian to them simply means the vanguard of the Islamic jihad.

            I think you are being rather simple about what is required for people to gain legitimacy in an effort for "self rule." And that's not even what their leaders are pursuing. Therefore just as the US population is accountable for electing BHO and all of its other leaders, the Palestinians are accountable for who they accept as their leaders.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The Oslo accords did not promise statehood and the Israelis do not seem interested in an inclusive solution."

            It's hard to take you seriously when you blame Israel for the Oslo Accord failures.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Early on you stated that martial law governs international relations and the UN is composed of a bunch of crooks. If this is true then you are advocating perpetual war and a system in which the country with the largest army ("The winner", as you put it) gets to decide the political system in a particular territory."

            That's not a great job paraphrasing me but we'll set that aside for now. Perpetual war is not the worst thing in the world when you have people who want to overthrow our form of government and replace it with totalitarian religious cults. We won't submit. War is better than submission to that.

          • Sajid Anjum

            If you think this is true then of course everything you say about Muslims will be true. It stands to reason that Muslims will continue to fight and assert dominance until they regain control of the Levant one way or another.

            Of course they will lie in order to win their war. In fact, if martial law governs and all we have is different subjective systems competing for dominance then people would use any means necessary in order to preserve their way of life.

            Thus, in your view of the world, either Muslims should fight to preserve their way of life, should accept defeat so Western dominance will prevail or should be neutralized using ruthless military force so Western dominance will prevail.

            Neither of these cases is acceptable in the long term; if the second world war taught us anything it taught us that medieval concepts of international relations using modern weapons will lead to the breaking of the world as we know it.

            If you look at the direction the European Union is headed in and the direction US immigration is headed in you will realize that a Jewish nation surrounding and enclosing four million Arabs is untenable. If were having this discussion 3-400 years ago I would have no problem saying "you won we lost". Unfortunately, most Muslims back then would have responded by saying "well we'll be back to fight another day" and that is PRECISELY the attitude they have now.

            There is a lot of lies on the Muslim side but the only thing the Jewish state has going for it is that it won.

            Creating a secure homeland for the Jewish people is a great and noble enterprise but not that great when half the population in the home state has to leave. If you were French or American and a large group of foreigners immigrated and decided to form a state radically different from the state that you were used to you would also rebel. If the foreigners had a stronger and more modern military and a more advanced and enlightened form of government would not change your desire to keep France French or America American.

            In light of this I find Fawstin's and much of the extreme right wing rhetoric ridiculous and dangerous. What you guys really want is an excuse to pick a fight that would lead to what you just called a "decisive conclusion".

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You are trying to put words in his mouth.
            He does not say arabs should fight, or that the alternative is surrender.

            Why do you think you can use such moronic tactics and not get called on it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If you think this is true then of course everything you say about Muslims will be true. It stands to reason that Muslims will continue to fight and assert dominance until they regain control of the Levant one way or another."

            Right. They fight for Islamic sovereignty and we will reject that forever. We are the realists who see that jihadis won't ever accept that totalitarian ideologies are not legitimate political tools for today. You don't even see the hypocrisy of your own words.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Of course they will lie in order to win their war."

            But posing as a religious movement rather than a bunch of totalitarian liars is a strategy to deceive gullible Westerners who think that "religious wars" are fought by people with the same morals as Christians and Jews, who condemn liars and don't use religious motives for war these days.

            "In fact, if martial law governs and all we have is different subjective systems competing for dominance then people would use any means necessary in order to preserve their way of life."

            Martial law is what we have when we don't have treaties or sovereignty over people who harm our interests.

            Your best solution is to put together legitimate sovereigns who can be trusted not to break the treaties. Martial law is the lowest common denominator or last resort. We don't enjoy it. We have no other choice short of suicide and we're not likely to go along with that.

            Don't blame us for your losses when you're the belligerents. In the end when worldviews are incompatible, you either learn to live apart peacefully or you try to win. We will try to win whether or not you think we have the moral imperative to do so. Your moral judgment is meaningless because your worldview was defined by Mohammed and his lies. You are deceived.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Thus, in your view of the world, either Muslims should fight to preserve their way of life, should accept defeat so Western dominance will prevail or should be neutralized using ruthless military force so Western dominance will prevail."

            No, they should not fight in any case over cult-religious beliefs. That's absurd. I'm not going to allow others to be destroyed to accommodate their delusions. If they want to remain stubborn to a belief system that offers no evidence while causing so much conflict, then that is a personal sacrifice they can make as long as they don't harm others while doing so.

            My worldview allows for empirical evidence to lead it. Yours doesn't. Western dominance should prevail for the simple reason that it's the global default value system by majority choice and everyone competing with it has to lie to appear to be victimized by it and to motivate their populations. The majority of people in the world share Western values of freedom and liberty. It's lying tyrants that lead sovereigns in to conflict with us.

            Therefore I happily fight for Western dominance because it's morally correct to do so, unless Mohammed was right. Which he wasn't. The objective facts support my "worldview." Your worldview is supported by the facts only when you've aligned it with mine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Neither of these cases is acceptable in the long term; if the second world war taught us anything it taught us that medieval concepts of international relations using modern weapons will lead to the breaking of the world as we know it. "

            That's precisely why Islamic sovereigns are not legitimate. And another lesson is that totalitarian liars will wage war when they are prepared and believe they can win. It's better to recognize the inevitable rather than waiting for them to move all of their resources in to place and let them blatantly attack you.

            There are many lessons we learned, but I won't let you manipulate those lessons in service of Islamic jihad.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If you look at the direction the European Union is headed in and the direction US immigration is headed in you will realize that a Jewish nation surrounding and enclosing four million Arabs is untenable."

            That's part of the war we're fighting. We don't expect to lose that battle either. But I don't know why you have to make everything about Israel. Israel is a mere rallying point of the day. Jihadis only give a damn about it because of that. Once they control Jerusalem it's not important to them.

            And how arrogant to usurp the most holy Jewish place for the "third holiest" Islamic site taken by conquest? What in the heck is wrong with you people?

            Seriously. How do you justify that? Obviously through this simple example we see that Islamic jihadis will never stop fighting until they have killed all non-Muslims and non-compliant Islamic factions.

            Having a rational argument with someone about this is surreal.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There is a lot of lies on the Muslim side but the only thing the Jewish state has going for it is that it won. "

            You just tried to sell another of those lies. Fail.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Creating a secure homeland for the Jewish people is a great and noble enterprise but not that great when half the population in the home state has to leave."

            You keep missing the part that they brought it on themselves.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If you were French or American and a large group of foreigners immigrated and decided to form a state radically different from the state that you were used to you would also rebel. "

            Here is a better analogy.

            Native Indians form a committee to reestablish a modern state. They send people to universities and make long term plans to do so without subverting anyone else's rights. After many generations they begin to buy property in their historical homeland areas of the USA. Eventually they help put down have enough momentum in terms of legitimacy that they begin to win local and regional elections. As of now they are only a political party talking about some future situation with more independence.

            Then a bunch of racist bigots come down and try to destroy them, but they lose. If we then grant them independance because they proved they can run a modern democratic republic without harming the interests of the USA, I'm sure that few citizens throughout the USA would mind in any way at all.

            Now the situation for the Israelis is far stronger because they didn't roll back any legitimate sovereigns. There never was any other legitimate sovereign of that land. The West rolled back Islamic imperialism under the Turks after the Turks joined the Germans against us. The people who eventually formed Israel were fighting on our side. They won against the Turks with us and then still went in with full respect of the natives. But Islamic jihad was used to rally bigoted murderous attacks time after time. Belligerence got the jihadis in trouble. Parallel to all of this, the Israelis established a legitimate liberal democracy. They have been a great contributor to world culture and technology, other than interfering with delusional jihadi dreams and other tyrannical liars.

            If you want to dispute this we can return to the timeline at any point of your choice and I'll step you through the facts of history slowly enough for you to understand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "In light of this I find Fawstin's and much of the extreme right wing rhetoric ridiculous and dangerous."

            Of course you do.

            "What you guys really want is an excuse to pick a fight that would lead to what you just called a "decisive conclusion".

            We want to pick a fight? Really? Was that fight not already declared? Isn't there a war going on already? Who started these wars? Who is trying to establish a global totalitarian religious system?

            Yes, we're ridiculous and dangerous because we look over the world and create comprehensive plans to defeat your "worldview" not because you're "other" but because it leads to evil acts that violate fundamental human rights, every day.

          • Omar

            You're such a liar. There is a huge difference between Holy Land Jews and the Afrikaners in South Africa. Jews have lived in the Holy Land continuously for over 3,000 years, while the Afrikaners were descended from Dutch settlers who settled in the area known as South Africa during the 18th and 19th centuries. While the Jews in Israel want to live in peace with their neighbors, the Afrikaner extremists picked many fights with British settlers, indigenous black Africans and Asian settlers during the 19th and 20th century. Eventually, the now-defunct National Party in South Africa instituted the apartheid system (1948-1990/1994) in that country, denying people of color (black Africans, Asians and mixed-race people of any kind) any civil rights or liberties at all. Contrary to leftist/Islamist propaganda, there is no apartheid at all in Israel. Arabs living in Israel have more rights and liberties as Israeli citizens than people living in other countries in the Middle East. Why don't you denounce human rights violations in countries like Syria and Sudan? The latter has a racist, sexist Islamist dictatorship that behaves worse than South Africa's former apartheid regime. The Islamist regime in Sudan has committed genocide against its black African Christian population (remember Darfur). Sudan was historically black, yet the Islamist imperialists have taken over the country and has caused misery for a long time. Unlike the so-called "Palestinians" (who are an invented people), the black African Christians in Sudan have a right to the whole country. Why don't you denounce the Islamist regime in Sudan instead of democratic Israel?

          • Sajid Anjum

            "there is no apartheid at all in Israel"

            Please look at a map of Israeli settlements.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

            Look, I don't know what the deal with you is. Fawstin's post is about the characterization of conflict against Muslims. I responded to your post about Zionism and now you are trying to bring in every global conflict on Earth that involves Muslims.

            For now, I would like to discuss Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I think even that is probably off-topic.

            I also hereby denounce every racist, sexist Islamist regime. I am not even a Muslim–I am a goddamn atheist. Can we please stick to secular analyses of and solutions for political problems?

            What do you think is a satisfactory resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict?

          • Omar

            "I also hereby denounce every racist, sexist Islamist regime"
            No you don't. You denounce the only democratic state in the Middle East, Israel, while being silent on true apartheid in Sudan and other despotic regimes in the region. There is no apartheid in Israel, but there is apartheid elsewhere in the Middle East. There is gender apartheid in places like Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. But of course, you support the Islamist/Apartheid regime in Sudan because that regime shares your Islamist-friendly values. Do us all a favor and keep your ignorance to yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "For now, I would like to discuss Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I think even that is probably off-topic."

            So you see yourself as empowered to decide when we go "off topic?"

            This is not surprising.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I also hereby denounce every racist, sexist Islamist regime. I am not even a Muslim–I am a goddamn atheist. Can we please stick to secular analyses of and solutions for political problems? "

            If that's true you're a complete dupe of jihadi lies. Really. Look in to it.

          • Omar

            Sajid Anjum is from India. Many people know that the South Asia subcontinent is home to some of the worst forms of religious violence in any region of the world (except for the Middle East). In India alone, there is a radical movement seeking to turn India into an Islamist totalitarian country dominated by Sharia law. This radical Islamist movement is also seeking to eliminate the traditional religions (Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism) from the subcontinent. Islamist imperialism won't stop in the Middle East. It wants to take over the world and make everyone's lives miserable. The Islamists need to be stopped.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            So, we've had a nigerian muslim, an indian muslim, another unannounced origin muslim and they all have the same talking points, none of which make them look any better than the savages we know them to be.

          • Omar

            There are seven million Israelis living in a state that is historically theirs, but that is being threatened and perpetrated by the so-called "Palestinians", who are being supported by Russia, China and Iran.

      • Sajid Anjum

        Is hits question directed at me? I don't think zionism is evil but it is definitely illegitimate. There is no right to an exclusively Jewish state on historically Arab land. However, I don't believe violence and terrorism is a solution and, in case you ask, yes I think Hamas is guilty of terrorism.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          And many would consider the apartheid used against the Copts illegitimate. I don't feel there is a legitimate right to an exclusive arab state in Egypt. So, let's start up a campaign on that one!

          • Sajid Anjum

            I agree. Egypt has no right to an exclusively Muslim State and I hope that Coptic Christians remain an important and influential part of Egypt's future.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            But you don't call for the 'right of return' of the land to them?

          • Sajid Anjum

            I call for the right of return for exiled Coptic Christians to Egypt and that separation of Mosque and State be implemented their as soon as possible. Even though I am unaware that Coptic Christians have been exiled from Egypt.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Fine, go to Egypt and say that and see how being stoned feels.

            That's something you can't do. Reason with muslim activists. Can't you figure that out?

          • Sajid Anjum

            Alright–so what is your solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism? As I said earlier, Fawstin's attempt to label Islam as the root of the problem will only lead to more bloodshed and seems to be a thinly veiled precursor to a foreign policy that calls for the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims at every level in society. Is that what you support? Do you want to go to war with Iran?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Surrender is never an option.
            Negotiations is not an option.

            What choices does that leave left? Every time one shoots at us he goes home in a pig skin body bag. They would back down and acknowledge the will of allah in the matter.

          • Sajid Anjum

            You are truly a child of civilized American enlightenment thought.

            "Surrender is never an option.
            Negotiations is not an option. "

            Whatever happened to principle and law? Oh wait, that would mean those very same principles would apply to America too and we can't have that since America is the greatest country int he history of the Universe (even before that) and thus has the right to uniformly dictate the terms of global politics in order to further its own personal interests.

            A stronger UN? A better definition of a legitimate state? A political and military machinery to enforce such a state? An international court to resolve political disputes.

            No way–lets stick them in a pig skin body bag. That will show everyone how great we are as a nation. After all, you are totally convinced that it is the only option remaining.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            There is an older law than American law.
            And that term is 'casus belli'.

            When an enemy has no honor you can't negotiate with him. surah 9:1 shows this enemy has no honor and a negotiations are wasted.

            Surrender means enslavement or death. That's not an option.

            You're truly a child of the pervert prophet mohammed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Whatever happened to principle and law?"

            Foreign policy is more akin to martial law than domestic laws applied internally. That's completely consistent with our values. It's based on reality.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Fawstin's attempt to label Islam as the root of the problem will only lead to more bloodshed and seems to be a thinly veiled precursor to a foreign policy that calls for the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims at every level in society."

            That's up to Muslim reformers, now isn't it? Why is it our job to ensure that today's jihadis are not performing the same role in the world as Germany's Nazis did during WWII?

            "Is that what you support?"

            We defend our rights. We don't need to lie or make excuses for other cultures. Discussing the ideological roots of cultures that breed belligerence doesn't deny justice to anyone.

            "Do you want to go to war with Iran?"

            Not "because they're Muslim." Because they are a corrupt regime that can't be trusted with WMDs. And if "moderate" Muslims manage to overthrow the regime then of course we need to give them a chance if they prove to be a rational and responsible (accountable) sovereign.

        • Omar

          Israel is not on Arab land. Israel was founded on historically Jewish land. Zionism simply calls for the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in the Holy Land, where Jews have continuously lived there for over 3,000 years. Palestine is not even an Arabic name. Palestine is a Latin name meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors who had red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). Islamist imperialism, which began in 610 AD/CE (about 600 years after the Roman conquest) had conquered a large part of the world's population southeast of Europe for hundreds of years. Learn from facts.

          • Sajid Anjum

            *Groans*. If Arab people live there it becomes Arab land. It does not matter which illegitimate power was occupying the territory nor does it matter what the hell was going on in the world in 610 AD or 3000 years ago or whatever. Before 3000 years ago the Jews came from Egypt. Next you'll be telling me the Egyptians need to pay for what the Pharoah did to the Jews!

          • Omar

            Facts beat propaganda any day. I post facts, while you post leftist/Islamist propaganda.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "*Groans*. If Arab people live there it becomes Arab land."

            OK, Jewish people live there and now it's Jewish land. And then?

          • Sajid Anjum

            Except four million Arabs live there too. And then?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Give that 4 million the right of return to their ancestral homeland. Syria and Saudi Arabia.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Except four million Arabs live there too. And then?"

            That's why we have a stalemate. People keep encouraging these jihadis to blame everyone else for problems they created for themselves.

            The only solution I have control over is to propagate the facts (to rectify fundamental lies) and hope that eventually they realize how foolish they were to continue this. If our government stops talking with the tongue of an appeaser, it might get the point across as well.

            We also need to apply these same standards to all of our bilateral relationships and discourage any expansion of totalitarian sovereigns. When it serves our interests, we should not be afraid to roll back these sovereigns as justified.

            0'Bama has taken us backwards vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood jihadi organization. That's not good. That pisses me off more than what anyone else has done. Things like that must be turned around.

            I have no problem with secular reasonable people of any ethnicity or faith, as long as that faith does not petition believers to dominate or harm me or my civilization. When I find a "faith" that does, I won't tolerate it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Next you'll be telling me the Egyptians need to pay for what the Pharoah did to the Jews!"

            Why would you say that?

            If some group of people came out claiming to be descendants of the Pharaoh and they wanted their "Egyptian land" back, we'd say the same to them that we say to you.

            Nobody asked you for money for lying about your ancestry.

          • Sajid Anjum

            "Nobody asked you for money for lying about your ancestry."

            Since you think everything I say is a lie you really have to be more explicit about what you are trying to say. I honestly have no idea what goes on in that strange and mysterious brain of yours.

            Money for ancestry? What?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            We have a pretty good idea what goes on inside yours.

            Are you done with you early morning call to prayers?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Money for ancestry? What?"

            Sajid Anjum: "Before 3000 years ago the Jews came from Egypt. Next you'll be telling me the Egyptians need to pay for what the Pharoah did to the Jews!"

            You have to support your statement if you don't understand mine. I was riffing off of your sarcasm. If you're confused by your own logic, I've made my point.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Bingo!

  • Sajid Anjum

    An American foreign and domestic policy that seeks to vilify an entire way of life will only end up alienating and angering every Muslim who looks to Islam as a guide to morality. Like it or not, Islam is here to stay and Muslims will only give up or modify their religion if and when they realize it is not the correct path. In fact, that is the only way anybody can realize anything. Nothing is gained by forcing people to do anything.

    Thus, the challenge is to neutralize the threats of extremist Islam while at the same time creating a global system that would be against extremism of any kind and specifically against the extremist elements of political Islam. Such a system would try and foster freedom of speech and secular and inclusive ways of life around the world while creating a way to resolve conflicts in an objective manner (by that I mean one that does not allow for the possibility of the unilateral declaration of trillion dollar wars).

    Fawstin's primary thesis is incorrect. The problem is NOT Islam but certain disconcerting aspects of Islam that create the unfortunate tendency of Muslims resorting to terrorism and violence in order to resolve political and moral conflict. Obama's solution is the correct one. Extremism of all kinds should be identified and defeated and Muslims should be free to resolve the inconsistencies of their religion in a secular society. Vilifying a religion and declaring war on Islam would most certainly create the opposite consequences and propagate further violence.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Muslims will only give up or modify their religion if and when they realize it is not the correct path."

      Our entire objective is to teach this fact: It is not correct.

      • Sajid Anjum

        No it isn't. Or at least it isn't Fawstin's objective. according to Fawstin, Islam is a false and evil religion and the thinks of Islamic lands as lands in which "the bad guy won." Your Objective is to use every verbal and psychological tool to denigrate Islam, regardless of the truth, in order to …. well you tell me. What is your real goal?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          Self preservation.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Number of Muslims killed by Americans over the past ten years: > 200,000

            Number of Amerians killed by Muslims over the past ten years: < 10,000

            Methinks it is using simplistic means to get rid of a serious problem that you don't know the answer to.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            The Byzantine Empire had similar numbers, and where did that get them?

            Well hadji?

            The problem is that of the things islam teaches other than lying and lying in wait to ambush unbelievers is that unbelievers don't deserve to be treated equally. So why don't you just consider it returning the favor if we treat you all the same?

          • Sajid Anjum

            I don't think the Byzantine empire has anything to do with modern politics and I have no idea what it got them.

            "So why don't you just consider it returning the favor if we treat you all the same?"

            Because I truly believe in Western enlightenment thought as the basis for civilized politics. "Returning the favor" would actually help Muslims as in a disagreement between two sides the most consistent sides always wins. Islam will have a puncher's chance of defeating the West if it comes down to who can behave more barbarically.

            On the other hand, civilized and secular legal institutions implemented consistently and perhaps globally will help neuter extremism and pave the way for a better world.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

            No thanks, I'll study history and realize that the muslim militants are doing to infidels now just as they did to them then.

            On the other hand, you're deny it to defend your barbaric muslim values.
            And no, you aren't fooling anyone with that last sentence. The US was that secular government evenly applied and it got us the label of the great satan.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Well, you sir, are an incredibly intelligent intellectual that has figured out everything there is to know about the Muslim psyche from the relatively comfortable position of your home. Since you are totally convinced of what I mean even when I say the exact opposite I will leave you be.

            "The US was that secular government evenly applied and it got us the label of the great satan.

            The US is that secular government evenly applied INSIDE the USA. Why don't you read what the USA has done OUTSIDE the USA and how it has treated people there? The model of secular US government must be applied on a global scale for a satisfactory resolution to global conflict.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Who says I haven't dealt with islam?

            And where did the Boston bombing occur? It was inside the US, attacking civilians, secular all the way.

            And they were considered the great satan and murdered.

            You're still wrong and you're even more obviously a troll.

          • Abdullah Mikail

            Now that is against forum rules, isn't it Roger? Play nicely…if you are right you will win a debate point or two….but, then again, you are arguing emotional rhetoric devoid of factual support, and Anjum is arguing rationale and reason with support of facts.

            Hmmmmm, seems like you will lose this debate on every point if you carried further than the emotional venue you seem to be stuck in.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            I am playing nicely.
            The retort of the vanquished, I made a score and you can't even come back with any talking points so you personally attack me.

            This site has rules, but telling the truth in ways to back up the story isn't one of them.

          • Omar

            You're such a colossal liar. Where are your facts for all this false information? A more accurate information for all of this would be this:
            Number of Muslims killed by Jewish fundamentalists over the past 1400 years: no more than, say, a few hundred people
            Number of Jews killed by radical Islamist extremists over the same time period: At least 1 million people.
            There is a huge difference in the statistics. The difference is that Jewish extremists are very small in number and those people are generally condemned by the majority of the world's Jewish communities and the Israeli government and population, while radical Islamists get cheered on by large portions of their countries' populations. That's the difference.

          • Sajid Anjum

            Okay dude I think you have a serious problem with pent up grievances. We don't live over a period of 1400 years and no one is fighting a 1400 year war. A modern conflict has to be resolved on the basis of modern political thought–which is based on secularism and freedom.

            I am not a liar–I don't even know what you are referring to. The statistics for dead casualties as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are everywhere. I don't even know how Jewish extremists have made it into this discussion.

          • Omar

            I'm guessing that you supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait over 20 years ago. Saddam has committed crimes against humanity during his reign as Iraq's dictator. Yet, you support him since you hate the West, democracy and freedom, while you support Communist/Islamist totalitarianism and aggression against the people of the world. Fact check.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            I'm guessing you were trying to hold a rifle against our troops and the poop in your pants kept tripping you up.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Number of Muslims killed by Americans over the past ten years: > 200,000"

            And the next question is, who is culpable? The belligerents are culpable for disturbing the peace.

            "Number of Amerians killed by Muslims over the past ten years: < 10,000"

            Only because we're winning. Now you're just being a cry baby because you lose the numbers game, which is all that matters to you because the consolation prize is that you get to cry about your supposed victim status.

            "Methinks it is using simplistic means to get rid of a serious problem that you don't know the answer to."

            Your simple math example is proof that you're projecting.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Your Objective is to use every verbal and psychological tool to denigrate Islam, regardless of the truth, in order to …. well you tell me. What is your real goal?"

          I told you but I'll use different words this time: I want to rectify salient deadly lies.

  • http://twitter.com/kattaB4 @kattaB4

    I´ts going fast now and Obama has another 3 plus years to go. What will happen to the world? In Europe we have put our trust in America, but what if America isn´t there anymore? How come that Europe, mostly England and France, and Amerika, joined in to fight the Nazis in order to save the world from a fate worse than hell, only to 70 years later give it away to the Muslims! Why!!?? Muslims are the worst kinds of antisemites and they are beeing cheered along in order to take over! And this is going on as of right now in every western country in the world. We just have to put a stop to it for the sake of our children and grandchildren. It will very soon be too late!!

  • Judy

    The only thing I question about your article is what you say about non-observant Muslims. For the past 2 years I have been asking Muslims (the Muslims that listen to rock music, live in western countries…) if they can say that the horrible things Muhammed did were wrong. If the violence in the Quran is wrong. We discuss the sex with a child, the rapes, the murder and hate and terrorism, the slavery…and NOT ONE Muslim will say that Muhammed was wrong to do these evil things or to incite terrorism. NOT ONE. Every Muslim gives Muhammed a moral pass on the worst of evils and even defend him and many even threaten me. So I do question your assertions about the 'non-observant Muslims'. They will defend every evil in Islam.

    • defcon 4

      Ask them about muhamMAD's slaughter, enslavement and deportation of the entire Jewish population of Soddy Barbaria sometime. Jewish tribes who were there for centuries before MuhamMAD was.

  • Brian

    Sara tell me where you got this information about Jews killing thousands of muslims everyday?

    • defcon 4

      Out of his rectum?

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        He pulled out another koran?

  • defcon 4

    Thanks Mr. Fawstin for a well written article that doesn't pull any PC punches.

  • PAthena

    The Ahmadiya Muslims follow a man in India called "Ahmadi" (?) who called himself a prophet. They are peaceful and tolerant and denounced by other Muslims as apostates.

    • http://twitter.com/BoschFawstin @BoschFawstin

      The Ahmadiyya sect, who technically reject violent jihad, is considered heretical because its founder, Mohammad Ahmadiyya, fancied himself a prophet, which, according to Islam, THE last prophet was Mohammad. And it's members are murdered for rejecting jihad. Meaning, they're murdered for rejecting Islam.

  • Getaclue

    @sajid, the problem IS Islam. You said it yourself. You’re trying to disconnect Muslim from Islam and it can’t be done. Islam is like govt; it is force, deadly force even.

    • Sajid Anjum

      "You're trying to disconnect Muslim from Islam".

      Well you would have to define Islam in order to disconnect anything from anything. And you cannot define Islam in terms or rape, slaughter and violence. That isn't the essence of the religion. The essence is submission to a divine decree or a divine form of justice.

      Parts of Islam are force and are deadly. What is your solution to the problem?

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Sure we can define islam with the rapes and other barbaric practices. It is the essence of the religion.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "That isn't the essence of the religion. The essence is submission to a divine decree or a divine form of justice. "

        The essence for blissful believers like you might be it's "spiritual" component. The essence for us is the set of demands placed on us and the implications of those demands: Sharia and terror campaigns.

        "Parts of Islam are force and are deadly. What is your solution to the problem?"

        Teaching the salient facts so that people can make better decisions about who to support locally and globally, and obviously who not to support.

  • http://actjonesboroar.wordpress.com/ burkasrugly

    Wow! This is a GREAT piece! You really nailed it! I appreciate your courage and honesty. I’m hoping that more and more LIBERALS wake up like Bill Maher and Bob Beckel did last week. This is a dangerous situation with Muslims infiltrating out government and our culture. I just want it to stop and I want the America that I grew up in back!! Here is a clip of Bill Maher (almost) defending Christianity. The idiotic college professor was equating Christianity with Islam and Bill would have noe opf that. Take a look:
    http://actjonesboroar.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/bi

  • John

    Islam sucks big time. The invention of a war lord of dubious morality. It hides behind lies. It talks of peace while making war! There are 100,000 child brides in Iran. There are at least 100,000 slaves in Africa. Millions of 'infidels' are being slaughtered in Africa and the middle east in the name of Islam. Over 2,000 terrorist attacks on the west each year. Egypt is busy killing off its Christians. Moslems in Gaza and PA territories are terrorising the indigenous Jews to give up their homeland. 57 Islamic states. 22 Arab states. How much more do they want? All of it!

  • atsistsi1

    Well if you are a you are a Muslim an you come to America the you need to leave your crap in your old country. If not to home. I am tired of these people that like the freedom that our people fought for a then start bombing our land.. I don't care what the rest of you hear think this is what I think. This is a country of the free. Respect our country an we will respect you.

  • Rothschild

    It seems to me that Amin Al Hussein… a Moslem….working the Nazis, created it… so I would call them Moslem Nazi terrorists (Palestinian terrorists).

    Haj Amin al-Husseini

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

  • BAN71

    Great piece! This covers a topic that Sweden and many European countries struggle with currently. I am glad to see that there are Americans out there who see the very same problems and have the guts to write about it.

  • spark777

    uptil I looked at the receipt which was of $5416, I did not believe that my friend actualie receiving money part-time on their laptop.. there friend brother haz done this 4 only ten months and by now repaid the loans on their house and bought a new volvo. go to, kep2.com

  • TassieRooster

    Great article.

    If every Western politician was required to read the Koran before being sworn into office then we might finally see a change in attitude in our dealing with the "Religion of Peace". Not holding my breathe for this to happen though.

  • gil

    Bosh keep poking that bear if you ever need a place to hide let me know

  • Abdullah Mikail

    Bosch,

    "There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims." BF ( BS?)

    Such a concrete statement and solid position. I commend you…unless of course a single verse can be posted to prove you are wrong…and in that case, you'd lose credibility with all but the haters…they don't care for fact, as long as the hysteria agrees with their phobia they'll swallow anything.

    Surah Al Maeda 5:32 “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

    Okay, bedrock text forbids it. Anything else you need to add??? Didn't think so…your opinion is not fact, you cannot argue against facts with an opinion…you must produce facts.

    I suggest you stick with with producing mediocre pulp cartoons…

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      And what was the final last word of Mohammed on this?

      9:14 Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.

      You know what this means? He's right and you're just a rented mouth for islam.

      • Abdullah Mikail

        Ahhhh….tafsir…its not everything, but it ranks up there with oxygen. You don't seem to understand anything about the Quran and how it is read and understood…pull one verse out of context that has been translated loosely into English meaning and then jump to whatever conclusion you want, you will never be correct in its meaning.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          The problem is that most of the violence by muslims is that they don't think it's out of context and actually live that.

    • http://fawstin.blogspot.com/ Bosch_Fawstin

      See my response to this typical Muslim lie below

  • http://fawstin.blogspot.com/ Bosch_Fawstin

    "War is Deceit", said Mohammad, and the above commentator, Abdulla Mikail, follows his leader in pulling one of the oldest Muslim tricks in the book. From the ReligionOfPeace.com:

    The Muslim Game:

    In an effort to portray their religion as non-violent, Muslim apologists vigorously employ verse 5:32, which would appear to promote a universal principal that all life is sacred to Allah – especially the way it is typically quoted by apologists:

    "…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…"
    (As quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”)
    The Truth:

    This fragment of verse 5:32 is what the apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur’an, as opposed to the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There's something being left out.

    Here’s the full text of the verse:

    “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
    First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means – with varying standards. Violating Sharia law or sharing a different religious faith appears to qualify. Verse 7:103 of the Quran even indicates that merely rejecting Muhammad and the Quran counts as "mischief".

    Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn’t a divine command to Muslims after all. It’s a recounting of a rule that was given to the Jews. It isn’t an admonition against killing. It’s an indictment against the Jews for violating the law given to them. “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews.

    Any application to Muslims would have to apply only to Muslims – as in Muslim on Muslim murder within the brotherhood of believers. In fact, the context of the verse is the murder of Abel by Cain. Historically, this verse has never been interpreted by Islamic scholars to mean that Allah places equal value on the lives of non-Muslims. The Quran says that restitution for murder is bound by the law of equality (2:178) and that non-believers are not equal to Muslims (39:09). Muhammad affirmed that while a Muslim may be punished with death for killing a fellow Muslim, they should never be slain for killing a non-believer.

    Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence. Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers’ respectively. Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service – and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is.

    Muslim apologists conveniently leave out the fact that the gruesome verse which follows 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief”. It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”

    Although verse 5:32 recounts the law given to Jews, the verse that follows is clearly intended for Muslims. Verse 5:33 provides the basis for blasphemy laws, in which people are executed for insulting or questioning Islam. Ironically then, the very part of the Quran that apologists use to portray Islam as a non-violent religion has long been used as justification for making verbal offense into a capital crime.

    So, the Quran's best example of moral instruction is a passage which actually mandates the torture and execution of those deemed a threat to Islamic hegemony…

    With this being the best that Islam has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks to the world each and every year."

    • Chip

      I am amused by the allegation that only 50 Muslims in America have been arrested out of 3 million, that that exonerates Islam. What I would like to see if 50 Muslim leaders condemn all of the violent deeds of Prophet Mohammad and all terrorist acts committed by Muslims, without qualification. That would be the very beginning of a dialogue with a civilized person. It has, however, not happened — over a decade after 9/11.

      The burden is on each and every Muslim in the world, and I am not holding my breath. To say you are Muslim, until you do the above, makes you a suspect, to say the least.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

    Today I found another revealing article about the nature of islam.
    http://blogs.jpost.com/content/face-islam-what-it

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Holy cow, how many articles here generate 1000 comments?

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      It depends on how many muslim trolls show up to lie about everything.

    • Omar

      It also depends on how many leftist revisionists and apologists for totalitarianism show up to post their propaganda about America, the West, Israel and the world in general.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Since we have our marxist of muslim heritage in the oval office, it's amazing how much overlap between the two there seems to be.

  • rozza2012

    Shinto, know something before you say something. Shinto is basically anamism, if you beleive this is intrinsically evil then most all natives people subjected to violent imperialism deserved what they got. If yobeleive to be true means you share more with Islam than you know.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Shinto, know something before you say something. Shinto is basically anamism, if you beleive this is intrinsically evil then most all natives people subjected to violent imperialism deserved what they got. "

      You mean the poor oppressed Japanese who were "subjected to violent imperialism" in WWII?

    • Omar

      The militarist regime in Japan did most of the imperialism in the Pacific before and during World War II. Remember that the Japanese militarist emperor ordered the infamous Rape of Nanking in China during the late 1930s. It was the United States with its policy of democracy and anti-imperialism that put an end to Japanese militarist domination in the Pacific (America also helped to stop Nazi and Fascist imperialism in Europe, Africa and the Middle East). Beware of left-wing revisionists like Oliver Stone.

  • hy

    Sajid Anjum, I am trying to see both sides of this thread. One thing that would be extremely helpful would be if you could share a link or two with us here showing where you posted a statement that one of the terrorist attacks or attempted attacks was against what the Koran says and that the terrorists are not practicing Islam. It would be great if you could lead us to a post where you stand up for your faith and show that the radical Muslims are not following Mohammad’s teaching. It certainly would help your credibility here.
    A link to any post where, like Christians exposing the errors in belief of Westboro Baptist Church or abortion clinic bombers.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Both sides? Even westboro, do they bomb and declare jihad?
      When a abortion clinic is bombed, is it when it's full and with explosives that are meant to kill as many people as possible?

    • Abdullah Mikail

      Sajid is just telling the truth, that's all. Islamophobes here just can't accept it because it doesn't fit into their warped world view, that's all.

      How about the last word on the subject? Since the standard pat attack from most here is the "oh, that may sound good, but it was abrogated by….( gone fishing ) …"

      Farewell sermon, last comment on the subject by Mohammad "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. "

      Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? "Hurt no one…" that covers "everyone" regardless of race creed or color…no injustice to anyone.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? "Hurt no one…" that covers "everyone" regardless of race creed or color…no injustice to anyone."

        Failure to comply with sharia seems to "hurt" a lot of jihadis.

        • Abdullah Mikail

          Okay objectivefactsmatter…lets see if you even know a single fact worth mentioning? Define Sharia, please. I'd like to see you try. That is a nebulous term you losers have employed so often it is equivalent to the boogey man. You are idiots…Sharia is a law derived from local jusri prudence as defined by Quran and Sunnah…you idiots speak as if it is a monolith somehwere in a town square…it's not. There is so much levity granted jurists in the issuing of rulings in Islamic Juris Prudence that you idiots could never tell one set from the other

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Oh come now, it's what muslims use as an excuse when they want to stone a rape victim.
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/03/somal

            It's the excuse when you want to blow up a Christian church full of people. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/world/africa/ca

            Why don't we turn the tables on you. Let's see if you know a single fact worth mentioning.
            Was any other 'last word' revelations uttered by mohammed after surah 9?

            Muslims around the world know what sharia is and want it. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/many-muslim-world-want-s

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Sharia is a law derived from local jusri prudence as defined by Quran and Sunnah"

            Most people know that.

            "…you idiots speak as if it is a monolith somehwere in a town square…it's not."

            Nope. Any effort to coerce "Islamic ways" in the name of sharia according to anyone's beliefs is foul territory in this land of the free. It's not that we think it's monolithic. We think it's all viral and malicious until proven otherwise.

            You don't need sharia here, or anywhere else for that matter. But certainly not here.

            "There is so much levity granted jurists in the issuing of rulings in Islamic Juris Prudence that you idiots could never tell one set from the other"

            That fact that it's incoherent does not mitigate the dangers of its viral and malicious nature. Whether I chop off your arm, kill you or whatever for stealing a loaf of bread, it's still subverting our laws and customs when one wants to use religious justifications for eroding non-Islamic sovereignty.

            In theory sharia can be benign at moments, but those examples are non-salient to the discussions for those who are not trying to deceive stupid Westerners. Obviously we don't care if you are following the way prescribed for prayers until you start disturbing others (waking people up at all ours, disrupting the flow of traffic, etc). Obviously we don't care if you eat certain foods until you infringe on the rights of others. Obviously we don't care how careful you are about your own "blasphemy" until you start to preach values that threaten our principals of free speech.

            We get it. We're not deceived. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "That is a nebulous term you losers have employed so often it is equivalent to the boogey man."

            The "bogey" is a mythical character. Is sharia mythical? Sharia and "Allah Akbar" screams go hand in hand with reckless murder and mayhem. That's what those jihadis believe; that they're following the correct path according to Islam. And it's also what people think in the civilization jihad when they place Muslim Brotherhood operatives in government and influential positions so that they can make excuses for jihadis and help smooth the way for ever increasing levels of sharia replacing our laws and customs to create a totalitarian Islamic state.

            It's true that they haven't made much concrete progress, but that's what we said about the communists decades ago. We won't make that mistake again.. The fight is on now.

  • Abdullah Mikail

    Test

  • Abdullah Mikail

    Bosch, tried to respond to your rants, FPM for some reason blocks a lot of things arbitrarily.

    It's people like you that keep things stirred up with all your lies and obfuscations…you are entitled to your opinion, but you cannot oppose fact with your opinion.

    Tafsir, it isn't everything but it ranks up there with oxygen.

  • http://fawstin.blogspot.com/ Bosch_Fawstin

    "War is deceit", said Mohammad. Let's never forget that, Muslims never do, just look at their posts here.

    • Abdullah Mikail

      Funny? A civilian who has no idea what war really means lecturing other civilians about what war really means when none of you have a clue. Go study war so at least you have half an idea about what you are speaking before you make a fool of yourself in front of people who understand the reality.

      Bosch, from the little I read of you, you have no clue what Islam is…you are a cartoonist just happy to have a venue…even though it isn't in your "venue"…

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Funny, a muslim thinks he knows what war is, and he's part of the group that fights without uniforms since they're too scared to use the geneva convention conduct for war.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Funny? A civilian who has no idea what war really means lecturing other civilians about what war really means when none of you have a clue."

        Has anyone ever informed you how delusional you are?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          He stood there with his fingers in ears saying 'la la la la….'

  • killjoy

    Just find it interesting to see how many people here that are talking about a fictional character (aka the god-thingy) and how to interpret the ramblings of someone claiming to have a direct line to that fictional character.

    The simple fact is there is no objective evidence that a god exists in any form, by any name, nor has there ever been any kind of evidence that the universe even requires it…

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      You're here. Were you designed or are you just advanced pond scum?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The simple fact is there is no objective evidence that a god exists in any form, by any name, nor has there ever been any kind of evidence that the universe even requires it…"
      http://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Evangelists-Gospe

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

    Isn't it funny how the B team has come out to troll these stories today?

  • Amy P

    I gather people avoid using the term “Islam” because they want to avoid saying something about Islam as such. And I guess they do that because they either don’t know enough about Islam to evaluate it, or they do know enough, but they don’t like the effects of saying something critical about Islam. So they think they can just use a different term and, in doing so, say nothing at all about the religion of Islam. They think they can remain neutral.

    But I think the mere act of using a different term to refer to “whatever ideology is motivating these people, who call themselves Muslims, to hurt or kill us,” says–or at least implies–something about Islam as such: namely, that Islam as such is *not* that evil ideology. No matter what term you decide to use, you are taking a stand about the religion, either helping to criticize it, or helping to give it a pass. Yes or no?

    • http://fawstin.blogspot.com/ Bosch_Fawstin

      Yes, agreed, well put.

  • Loseyateefa

    One of the most damning revelations was recently admitted by some cleric ( i don’t remember the exact name) that had Islam not created the death penalty for apostates, that Islam would have ceased to exist after their butts were kicked out of Europe by the Crusaders. Until then, Islam flourished only by the sword and constant conquering of new territory, new women, new animals…there was no reason to question their violent behavior; it was working well for them. But when the tables turned and they were forced to “work” for a living instead of stealing from others…that hasn’t proven to be the Muslim strength. Many would leave Islam today if it were allowed. There is no real freedom in Islam, it is merely a prison from satan and the worst thing satan ever brought to humanity. I feel so sorry for anyone born in it and i labor daily to prevent its spread to others. I appreciate the courage Bosch shows and it encourages me to stay strong in the never ending fight against Islam. Lan Astalem.

  • Alinsky Hero USA

    Evolution marches on.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Yet you live. There must be a flaw in that system….

  • Thomas

    Super essay, thank you!
    I plan to protest the event tomorrow in Tennessee (DOJ announces offending Muslims on Facebook may violate civil rights) from the sanctioned 'free speech zone' here in Denver!

  • ColonelNeville

    Well, that was just empirical and very nifty as well as the very boss Bosch cartoons. Fawstin has been one of my favorite courageous lovers of truth and freedom for many years. I shall use some of the quotes if that’s ok, even though I’ve said virtually the same thing for many years at my shabby old blog. Five spangled stars to Bosch! No, really. Colonel Neville.

  • nadra

    Wow ok you are so wrong in many ways am Muslim and I would never harm someone and yes am a real Muslim And Islam is my religion that’s all I have to say to you