View Full Version : The islamic infestation
Team Sergeant
09-22-2015, 10:24
This puts islam in a very understandable perspective.
Excerpt from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient
Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works: As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non- believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-al-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only “Word”, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend Madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century. Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 9 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ? Can a good Muslim be a good American?
Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah.
Religiously – no… Because no other religion is accepted by Allah except Islam (Koran, 2:256).
Scripturally - no… Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Koran.
Geographically – no… Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no… Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically - no…Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no… Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Koran 4:34)
Intellectually - no… Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no… Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran do not allow freedom of religion and expression..
Spiritually - no… Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Koran's 99 excellent names.
Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Can a Muslim be a good soldier? Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
DIYPatriot
09-22-2015, 13:42
According to this research (http://cis.org/us-immigrant-pop-hit-record-42-million-2014) by the Center of Immigration Studies, the infestation is growing.
The sending countries with the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent); Bangladesh (up 37 percent); Iraq (up 36 percent); Egypt (up 25 percent); Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (all up 24 percent); Nigeria and Ghana (both up 21 percent); Venezuela (up 17 percent); and China (up 16 percent).
The sending countries with the largest numerical increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were India (up 426,000), China (up 353,000), the Dominican Republic (up 119,000), El Salvador (up 101,000), Guatemala (up 85,000), Pakistan (up 72,000), Colombia (up 70,000), Cuba (up 68,000), Honduras (up 66,000), Iraq (up 57,000), and Bangladesh (up 56,000).
In contrast to most sending regions and countries, the number of immigrants from Europe and Canada declined slightly between 2010 and 2014.
Good article.
I quite like the level of "well poisoning" that can be tolerated before unintended consequences.
Worth noting is that even with low proportional % thee can still be problems.
For example, Australia has had a number of high profile incidents stemming from Muslim youth rape gangs and counter riots triggered by Muslim youth gang behavior.
There's also strong illicitly network connections between Austalian immigrants who are ethnic Lebanese, not unlike 100+ years ago with Italian/Irish immigrants to the U.S. where immigrants co located in ghettos and filed the governance gap with illicit networks.
The difference being the far higher levels of government support available today to mitigate illicitly network formation and the fact that the substantial Italian post WW2 immigrant migration to Australia at the Australian government's invitation and integrated very quickly to become a part of Australia's working, middle, and entrepreneurial class.
Getting into a taxi in Sydney can be quite an involuntary educational experience.
Angry Muslims warn a New Jersey school district official that they will be the majority soon after the school district said they would not close for the Islamic holiday Eid.
Link (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/video-muslims-taunt-nj-school-officials-were-going-to-be-the-majority-soon/)
I do not agree that the presence of Muslims in the U.S. constitutes an infestation.
I do agree with James Madison's warning of factions, which he defined in November 1787 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm) as a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
I also agree with Mr. Madison that the best way to limit the power of factions is to facilitate "a greater variety of parties and interests" so that no one configuration may dominate all others.
I believe that lumping all Muslims together, that referring to them in dehumanizing terms ("Muzzies," "infestation") pushes the United States further away from the lessons this nation's founders sought to teach us.
My $0.02.
^^^^^ I am always surprised at the naiveté of academics as it pertains to how the world really works.
Barbarian
09-23-2015, 05:47
I believe that lumping all Muslims together, that referring to them in dehumanizing terms ("Muzzies," "infestation") pushes the United States further away from the lessons this nation's founders sought to teach us.
My $0.02.
Sigaba, I'm curious about whether you refer to specific lessons of the founders or if you refer to the general spirit of their instruction. Would you be willing to elaborate some?
What might be the percentage of Muslims in Jersey City, New Jersey? 6%?
What might be the percentage of Muslims in Jersey City, New Jersey? 6%?
US Census Bureau 2014 American Community Survey data shows 4.2%.
Angry Muslims warn a New Jersey school district official that they will be the majority soon after the school district said they would not close for the Islamic holiday Eid.
IMO the district administration is making a mistake by not recognizing the religious holidays of both the Jewish and Islamic populations of their community, and not adopting a simple solution along the lines of what was the general policy for such matters in the DFW area.
In the DFW area, districts may not have closed schools for such holidays like they did for Christmas or Easter, but the Jewish and Muslim students who were out of school to celebrate their faith's religious holidays such as Eid or Rosh Hashanah were given 'excused' absences which did not affect their attendance or academic records.
In some districts where there was a very high percentage of such students (Plano ISD being one) and where the vast majority would be absent during such holiday periods, the district would schedule a 'Fall Break' for the students, with several of the days during the break being allocated for faculty and administration 'In-service' or training days.
These were simple solutions, easily applied and community focused, and let the community know the district listened to them and were willing to pragmatically work with them to address such concerns.
Richard
Team Sergeant
09-23-2015, 07:27
entire post
Neville Chamberlain would agree with you. Theo van Gogh would agree with me.
Most folks would not recognize a threat to their Freedom until it's almost too late.
Hard to dehumanize a religious following of sub-human zealots.
Oldrotorhead
09-23-2015, 07:49
We are long past the Wahhabi Imam invasion of the US prison system.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/030626_PR01819.htm
http://www.islamdaily.org/en/wahabism/4431.wahhabism-in-the-american-prison-system.htm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1380/the-roots-of-radical-islam-in-prison
I think the current push is political and in the school systems.
I believe that lumping all Muslims together, that referring to them in dehumanizing terms ("Muzzies," "infestation") pushes the United States further away from the lessons this nation's founders sought to teach us.
John Quincy Adams, our 6th President and son of founder John Adams, quite clearly recognized that there would never be peace until the extinction of Islam.
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar , the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.
Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (p. 269, original source) (http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft#page/268/mode/2up).
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it [I]can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (p. 274, original source (http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft#page/274/mode/2up)).
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse (p. 300, original source (http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft#page/300/mode/2up)).
For a discussion of this essay by John Quincy Adams and where I copied the original text: John Quincy Adams on Islam (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1142).
Andrew Bostom also opined on John Quincy Adams' view of Islam: John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11283).
RCummings
09-23-2015, 08:30
Would one of the Quiet Professionals please explain to me the difference between an immigrant and an invader? I may be confused by my lack of formal education in regards to the ultimate goal of these two types of people.
Bob
...
I do agree with James Madison's warning of factions, which he defined in November 1787 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm) as
I also agree with Mr. Madison that the best way to limit the power of factions is to facilitate "a greater variety of parties and interests" so that no one configuration may dominate all others.
...
Mr. Madison goes on further:
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.
Sadly, we have no relief as prescribed as we have no means by which to vote away the ...inundation of Islam.
Team Sergeant
09-23-2015, 08:45
Would one of the Quiet Professionals please explain to me the difference between an immigrant and an invader? I may be confused by my lack of formal education in regards to the ultimate goal of these two types of people.
Bob
That, I've learned, depends on political affiliation, religious background, socio-economic status, criminal nexus, race and geographic location.
And has nothing to do with education level.
Trapper John
09-23-2015, 10:21
Hand-
Sadly, we have no relief as prescribed as we have no means by which to vote away the ...inundation of Islam.
I disagree - that is one of the reasons for and valid purposes of the 2nd Amendment! :p
John Quincy Adams, our 6th President and son of founder John Adams, quite clearly recognized that there would never be peace until the extinction of Islam. Was JQA a founding father? My post specifically referenced the guidance they provided.
Also, as I pointed out in an previous post, JQA laid out a vision of American foreign policy that accounted for dealing with threats to America.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=322383&postcount=35
Also, and to put it bluntly, if you are going to use JQA to support your position on Islam, I believe that it is incumbent upon you, for the sake of intellectual consistency, to explain why his view on Islam did not translate into the vision of American national security policy that is implied in this thread, to square also your view of states' rights with his positions on internal improvements, and his opposition to the annexation of Texas.
That is, since JQA spent most of his political career building a tradition of diplomacy as the primary instrument of policy, strengthening the federal government's powers, and opposing the southern vision of "states' rights" and not preparing the United States for war against an existential enemy, to what extent does his oft quoted statements about Islam really support your position?
When someone tells you they are going to do something maybe you should listen to them. Kumbiaya dumbass.
Was JQA a founding father? My post specifically referenced the guidance they provided.
I don't care what your post specifically referenced. Are you suggesting that the opinions of a son of one our founding fathers would not be influenced by that same father? I submit his understanding of our founder's intent is likely much better than yours or mine.
...Also, and to put it bluntly, if you are going to use JQA to support your position on Islam, I believe that it is incumbent upon you, for the sake of intellectual consistency, to explain why his view on Islam did not translate into the vision of American national security policy that is implied in this thread, to square also your view of states' rights with his positions on internal improvements, and his opposition to the annexation of Texas.
No, it is not.
That is, since JQA spent most of his political career building a tradition of diplomacy as the primary instrument of policy, strengthening the federal government's powers, and opposing the southern vision of "states' rights" and not preparing the United States for war against an existential enemy, to what extent does his oft quoted statements about Islam really support your position?
Why don't you tell me how his oft quoted statements about Islam don't support my position?
Alexis de Tocqueville on Islam:
“I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.” (Letter to Arthur de Gobineau, Oct. 22, 1843)
“Muhammad brought down from heaven and put into the Quran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with the general relations between man and God and between man and man. Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in ages of enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in such ages, as in all others.” (“Democracy in America,” Vo. 2, Chapter 5)
Pat
When someone tells you they are going to do something maybe you should listen to them. Is it primarily intentions or is it intentions and capabilities that should inform how America responds to its enemies? Kumbiaya dumbass.It is your prerogative to question my intelligence and my politics. In the case of the former, I would respectfully point out that the thrust of the argument presented in the OP is that the only solution to dealing with the threat Islam poses to western civilization is a war of all against all. If such is the case, the question becomes what is the proper role of SOF in general and SF in particular? Will America be better served by allocating more and more of the defense budget to door kickers and drones? To make a point that I've been hinting at for years, a political consequence of arguing successfully that a Muslim is a "muzzie" is a terrorist and that Islam is an existential threat to American national security will be a debate over the question: Does America need Special Forces? IMO, under a Clinton or Trump presidency, that debate will not go well. The latter will want to run the armed services like a business, the former will follow in her predecessor's footsteps by favoring the SEALs and the USAF's drones.
I would also point out that I have posted previously my preferred grand strategy for the war on terror. At one time, SF was at the core of this strategy, but since there seems to be a critical mass of QPs who believe that a strategy centered around their strengths as teachers is unsustainable and that "kinetic" solutions are in order, it is clearly time for a reconsideration of what I have learned here.
I don't care what your post specifically referenced. Are you suggesting that the opinions of a son of one our founding fathers would not be influenced by that same father? I submit his understanding of our founder's intent is likely much better than yours or mine.
I am suggesting that the generation of Americans that followed the framers were greatly informed by their predecessors' sensibilities, but the "era of good feelings" ended for several reasons.
I am suggesting that JQA was a prolific, sublte thinker--his diary, available here (http://www.masshist.org/jqadiaries/php/), has fifty one volumes totaling 14k pages. Taking a part of a man's thought without sufficient regard to the rest comes with risk. A risk of not doing a sufficient level of due diligence is that by cherry picking JQA one may be doing exactly what "revisionist" historians do -- appropriating the past to support one's present-day preferences.
I am suggesting that a teleological approach to U.S. history is especially dangerous to American conservatives. If conservatives are going to act as guardians of America's past, their understanding of the past should be intellectually sustainable.
I am suggesting that if one is going to quote a historical figure to advance a contemporaneous argument, that it is prudent to have a basic familiarity with both that figure and the times in which he lived--an interval in which American politics transformed and men such as JQA were caught between their ideals and their ambition. By cherry picking his words on Islam, many are embarking unnecessarily upon a similar path as he did. (JQA's unfortunate foray into cherry picking dogs him to this day.*)
Why don't you tell me how his oft quoted statements about Islam don't support my position?I believe that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof of your core argument. I decline. I believe that people should do their own research to support their arguments.
Towards that end, below are the links to JQA's one inaugural address and four state of the union messages. Please note that when he addressed matters of foreign affairs, in his first three annual messages that he focused on Europe. He touches upon the Barbary States in his first state of the union address--but as states, in the Westphalian sense. When he touches upon the Russo-Turkish War (1828-1829), he points to differences of "religious opinion and maxims of government" and then centers those differences around sensibilities of racial difference. (And he then pivots and returns to discussing relations with Great Britain.) If his view of Islam was so similar to yours, then why did he not capitalize on the energy of the "Second Great Awakening" to motivate an increasingly religious people to make war on Muslims?
Inaugural Address (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25809)
First Annual Message (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29467)
Second Annual Message (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29468)
Third Annual Message (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29469)
Fourth Annual Message (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29470) and his remarks on the Russo-Turkish War:In the relations of our Federal Union with our brethren of the human race the changes which have occurred since the close of your last session have generally tended to the preservation of peace and to the cultivation of harmony. Before your last separation a war had unhappily been kindled between the Empire of Russia, one of those with which our intercourse has been no other than a constant exchange of good offices, and that of the Ottoman Porte, a nation from which geographical distance, religious opinions and maxims of government on their part little suited to the formation of those bonds of mutual benevolence which result from the benefits of commerce had department us in a state, perhaps too much prolonged, of coldness and alienation.
The extensive, fertile, and populous dominions of the Sultan belong rather to the Asiatic than the European division of the human family. They enter but partially into the system of Europe, nor have their wars with Russia and Austria, the European States upon which they border, for more than a century past disturbed the pacific relations of those States with the other great powers of Europe. Neither France nor Prussia nor Great Britain has ever taken part in them, nor is it to be expected that they will at this time. The declaration of war by Russia has received the approbation or acquiescence of her allies, and we may indulge the hope that its progress and termination will be signalized by the moderation and forbearance no less than by the energy of the Emperor Nicholas, and that it will afford the opportunity for such collateral agency in behalf of the suffering Greeks as will secure to them ultimately the triumph of humanity and of freedom.
______________________________________________
* The quotation in the attachment is from William Earl Weeks, John Quincy Adams [and] the American Global Empire (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992), 98.
Team Sergeant
09-25-2015, 08:39
To make a point that I've been hinting at for years, a political consequence of arguing successfully that a Muslim is a "muzzie" is a terrorist and that Islam is an existential threat to American national security will be a debate over the question: Does America need Special Forces?
Wow, how you made that jump is beyond me. Grasping at straws I guess.
Unlike any other American agency we are trained to recognize a threat to national security and we are trained to neutralize that threat, if given that mission, unabated. That's not happened. islam and it's followers are a threat to our national security and to freedom in general, we know it and most of the world knows it. It just so happens if we attempt to stop it we step on the toes of our boy raping allies the Saudis, Turks, Afgans and Pakies.
"If you like your Freedom, you can keep it."
The new socialist/liberal muslim calling. No thanks, I'll fight for mine. And while I don't think a kinetic approach will solve all, I can think of nothing more rewarding than arranging the 72 V reward for the islamic zealots.
Have a great day Neville.
Is it primarily intentions or is it intentions and capabilities that should inform how America responds to its enemies?
Their intentions are plain, they have told us what the wish to do. As for their capabilities they have already shown that they can strike anywhere. While they may strike with an axe, a pistol, a bomb or a hijacked plane they still strike. We should strike at our enemies with all we have be it the full might of our conventional military power or the full might of our political, diplomatic and economic power.
"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."
William Tecumseh Sherman
As they have tried to do to us.
I believe that lumping all Muslims together, that referring to them in dehumanizing terms ("Muzzies," "infestation") pushes the United States further away from the lessons this nation's founders sought to teach us.
My $0.02.
Based on ISIS religious cleansing (aka Genocide) has been conducting it would be my opinion the United States moved away from more recent history, the lessons it learned in WWII.
I kind of doubt Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or JiHad John give a hoot what JQA or his father had to say about anything. But I would enjoy seeing you in public debate the two ISIS honchos.
.
Would one of the Quiet Professionals please explain to me the difference between an immigrant and an invader? I may be confused by my lack of formal education in regards to the ultimate goal of these two types of people.
Bob
Not a QP but regarding Islam on that question, I would recommend the following books:
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Day-Trojan-Horse-Immigration/dp/0979492955
http://www.amazon.com/Refugee-Resettlement-America-Civilization-Reader/dp/1508820708