Sometimes it really is amazing how long it takes for the federal government to start getting the big picture. How long will it take before someone tries to suppress this information, the way that the FCC tried to suppress the latest report about local media ownership?
But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands - making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.
What the defenders of Islam have failed to do is actually base their arguments on facts and Islamic teaching. It's entirely a bunch of wild-eyed flailing around, asserting such rubbish as "Islam is no less compatible with democracy than any other religion" when in fact the stacks of proof have not only failed to defend them, but have almost categorically contradicted them.
It is true that most religions are not really incompatible with democracy and modern society, but then none of them even remotely share what are undeniably Islamic views about life, death and coexistence in a pluralistic society. Now, cue the multiculturalists and social liberals who will no doubt point to the existance of Muslims who not only don't do these violent deeds, but oppose them. One could just as easily find Buddhists who reject the Buddha's teachings on not being attached to material possessions or Christians who use violence to spread the Gospel message (directly against Christ's teachings). The fact that these people exist does not make them observant adherents of the religion they claim to profess.
As for me, well, I am just chuckling over this report. It is amusing to see an official government report that Islam actually is, believe it or not, a source of sincere spiritual justification for slaughtering those who disagree with you. Not that that's going to stop people from just denying that because it makes them feel good, but it's a start.
Some others:
Plus + Ultra
Pink Flamingo
Rosemary at QOAE
Donald Sensing
And for once, I think Michelle Malkin and I can firmly agree about something. I'll meet y'all down by the River Styx at the new icecream stand...
And just as Christians in the past contravened the Word of God by using violence to bring children into the adoption of Abraham, so to do violent Muslims contravene the Koran when they try to drive Jews from Israel,
[5:20] Recall that Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember GOD's blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people.[5:21] "O my people, enter the holy land that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers."
The Arabic translation into the English word "decreed" loses a lot of the umph. The term in Arabic, Muktab, means "it is written" by the Hand of God and is the final word/destiny on the matter at hand.
As Ariel Sharon pointed out in a speech, Jerusalem is never properly mentioned in the Quaran, even though this is where the Night Flight on Pegasus or whatever took place. Perhaps this Surah explains why.
But at the end of the day, God blesses those who bless the Israelites, and God will curse those who curse the Israelites. All nations in history have learned that, one way or another...
I have said many times in the past that if Islam were a religion with a peaceful core belief system, its most devout followers would consider it a solemn duty, in the absence of government actions, to kill those who violently defame their religion and heap violence on non-Muslims. If there were churches that were behaving like that, without any pressure from the government, you can easily imagine a Christian religious militia taking matters into its own hands if they would not change their wicked ways and stop murdering non-Christians and helping those who wanted to do such things.
The Palestinians are undoubtedly the best modern example of what happens when you curse Israel. It's one thing to disagree with Israel, to let it face the consequences of sin, but to outright curse it and attack it, well... It ain't worked out too well for the Palestinians, now has it ;)
I wonder when some Palestinian is going to blow up the Wailing Wall. When that happens, some of the final prophecy will be set into motion as the last temple can be rebuilt.
Hmmm. I would contend that Islam is ultimately VERY compatible with "democracy", since the Founders of course knew that it was mob rule, "the devil's own government" and best described as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" (Franklin).
Maybe the latter definition could be upgraded, based on how the Koran describes concepts like "peace" and "free will" as
"two imams with swords and an infidel voting on who loses his head".
I hope you're being facetious about that one, Mark. Islam has no history of really being longterm compatible with anything other than an autocratic state with some liberal trappings. Democracy has been known to coexist well with liberty for a while, but Islam has not known to coexist with either for very long. It is too much driven by a strong leader with no real room for open debate.
Not really that facetious, Mike. Democracy has only been known to "coexist with liberty" only in the briefest timeframe -- "until the masses learn to vote themselves the dole", for example -- and ultimately it is nothing but 51% of a mob executing utter control of the lives, liberty and property of the other 49%...
Lenin said "democracy and socialism are inseparable" - to assume that it is incompatible with Islam, or rule by the "god of this world", be it moon-god, Baal, or Satan - requires a far higher opinion of "democracy" that I (or the Founders) could have.
It is ironic, then, that one of the first things that the Soviets did was to do away with democracy in every respect but ending the farce altogether. Vote communist or go to the gulag--even if you didn't vote!
You're right about mob rule, but then I think many libertarians also forget that it is just as bad to allow the idle rich like Paris Hilton to vote as it is to allow people on the dole. The only solution is to combine a test of productivity and intellect, since character, while important, can neither be tested nor is often necessary to effect most good public policy and law.
There really are multiple issues on that score, Mike.
The Russians just have an almost refreshing way of cutting through the crap and exposing the farce. I have little doubt that forced voting is coming here, too - the MSM and "moral" strictures are already in place ('search your feelings, Luke') - and the obvious tendency to legislate against direct Biblical commands ("Come out of her...") is well-established.
My main issue simply remains that "democracy" is not a positive value, nor is it related to what was mandated back when we still had a Constitution or Bill of Rights. I keep a now-lengthy file of perjorative comments the Founders, and other knowledgeable folks since, have made about said mob rule, and of the safeguards against it which were in place -- back when we had a Republic, with the Rule of Law.
I used to frequently make a bet with people on my radio show - if you can find the word "democracy", in any form (demo-, democratic-, etc) that ANY of our Founding docs (Const, BoR, Declaration), I'll give you a hundred bucks ($200 now, inflation).
Bonus: If you can find "separation of church and state" - double it.
Well, I've said it once, and I'll say it again. I don't think that there is a lasting, workable answer on this side of eternity. The best that you could hope for would be to create a constitutional system that also contains a legal code and just enough discressionary power to get the job done, and then require that a change in the law be done by what amounts to a constitutional amendment the way that I believe the Swiss do their federal tax code.
No argument on that last, Mike. (And the Founders said the same thing as well.)
I just tend to get my knickers in a wad about "democracy"...
(BTW - maybe you've heard me say THIS before, but it's an open invitation...)
How many references to 'voting' (much less 'democracy') in the Bible can you find?
I only know of two "votes" referenced there -
one was Saul (where God says "they [the people] have rejected Me" and picked an earthly king instead, and in spite of warnings...)
and the other was a vote a guy named Pilate took.
Barabbas won that one...
Well, I think it begs the question then of what sort of government is legitimate, then. I would think that a hybrid of the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution with some parliamentary aspects involved would be the best alternative. Did I mention that I believe that the state legislatures should have parliamentary control over the elected government in charged of the federal state?
Islam is inherently violent because its ethical and political modus operandi is the fallacy of force in place of reasoned argument. Since the second Islamic century, there has been a war between the men of violence and the mullahs for supremacy. The Koran and Hadiths give a 100% endorsement for violence in extending Islamic supremacy. (Please note: 140 "peaceful" verses in the Koran were completly abrogated by the "verse of the sword". But they are useful for disinformation purposes.) Islam is a ratchet that can only go forwards. Because Islamic ethics are based on opportunism, rather than the Golden Rule, the end always justifies the means. Two words, "kafir" and "jihad" explain the inherent principles of inequality, opportunism and the justification of forced submission that make Islam a supremacist ideology. "Freedom" in Islam is freedom for the mullahs to go unopposed.