21 Apr

Relax America, Islamic Terror Doesn’t Exist

                                       

1

Our media and our president, working as a team of course, will seek to minimize the influence Radical Islam had on the brothers Tsarnaev. The Boston Globe has already begun this soiree of deception with a story under the headline, Islam Might Have Had Secondary Role In Boston Attacks. Boston’s mayor is assuring everyone, the bombers acted alone, but the FBI has suddenly awakened or been embarrassed by the Obama/Jihad denial syndrome and is now taking its job seriously.

The Globe is carrying on a tradition that began when the president and his media ignored the fact that Army Major Hasan was shouting Allah Akbar while he tried to kill as many soldiers as possible, classifying the event as “Work Place Violence” The tradition continued when the president, his top aides, and his media blamed the Benghazi attack and subsequent murders of a diplomat and three other Americans on an obscure film. When the Secretary of State was questioned regarding the actual facts of the Benghazi assault, America and the world heard Hillary Clinton shrilly scream “What Does It Matter?”

Thus the duplicitous cover-up was given official sanction by one of America’s Elite political family members; America’s top opposition politicians fell for the audacity of the ruse, perhaps to avoid the embarrassment and humiliation of a former First Lady having a neurotic breakdown during testimony. Consequently, Islamic Terror was given another pass by the president; the State Department; and of course the always faithful, loyal, and obedient media.

“What does it matter” the indignant Liberal Progressive loyalist will ask.

“Nothing,” I respond, if we are willing to discount more instances of Islamic Terror like Boston and ask the many victims to forget their pain and acknowledge the sensitivities of a president who has a special relationship with Islamic Terror or denies its existence at the very least.

“Oh, but it is the FBI’s job to interdict terror, not the president’s,” our loyal Progressives will cry.

This is the same FBI, whose leader and policy are designated by our president. The ones who interviewed Tamerlane two years ago and decided he was not a threat despite being warned by the Russians.

When a president insists that all references to Islamic Terror be squelched and purposely appoints the most inappropriate and incompetent people to head the Department of Homeland Security, a name that has become an oxymoron, Americans are left wondering about the true intent and goals of this president.

Hopefully, Americans will realize that being lulled into a false sense of security is hardly a policy of national defense. The media will continue to downplay the Islamic influence and politicians will deny reality to appease our president and his fondness for all things Islamic.

Chuck Schumer, a partisan hack, who makes no effort to disguise his bias or his innate stupidity, responded to the possibility of reconsidering the immigration policy in light of Boston’s Terror with this nonsense:

“In general, we are a safer country when law enforcement knows who is here, has their fingerprints, photos, et cetera, background checks,” Schumer said.

“In addition, both the refugee program and asylum program have been strengthened in the past five years such that we are much more careful about screening people in terms of who should and should not be coming into the country,” Schumer added. “If there are any changes that our homeland security experts tell us need to be made, I’m committed to making them.”

Schumer’s comments came after the committee’s Ranking GOP Member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) mentioned the Boston bombing earlier in the hearing. Schumer’s chastisement of his colleagues about mentioning the Boston attack appeared to be a response to Grassley.

“We also appreciate the opportunity to talk about immigration, particularly in light of all that’s happening in Massachusetts right now and over the last week,” Grassley said to open the hearing. “We are here trying to understand why these events have occurred. It’s hard to understand that there are people in this world that want to do Americans harm, so this hearing is an opportunity to refocus on the issues at hand and the importance of remaining vigilant and secure in our homeland.”

Schumer is again referring to the same FBI that interviewed the bombers two years ago and was warned by the Russian government of the possibility of problems from the pair.

Is Napolitano, the quintessential Obama stooge, likely to question the administration’s immigration policy, not likely.

America is condemned to more of the dog chasing its tail immigration policy with Liberal hacks and Obama Republicans telling us everything is wonderful and that our present ship of state, a ship of fools in reality, is competent enough to prevent more Boston Bombings. Good Luck America!

About Skook

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has a personal website skooksjournal.com featuring his personal writings and historical novel type stories.
This entry was posted in Anti-Americanism, Immigration, Media and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, April 21st, 2013 at 6:37 pm
| 967 views

89 Responses to Relax America, Islamic Terror Doesn’t Exist

  1. Pete
    we couldn’t do without you,
    thank you for explaining it,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  2. THE LORDS PRAYER , WITH THE MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR
    WITH ANDREA BOCELLI
    you will bring your emotions up toward the ceiling,

    ReplyReply
  3. THE LORD”S PRAYER WITH THE MORNON TABERNACLE CHOIR
    WITH ANDREA BOCELLI
    that is A peaceful listening , a real gift to bring up good emotions
    high of toward the top,

    ReplyReply
  4. I’M trying again to get this one in for the 3rd time,
    THE LORD”S PRAYER WITH THE MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR
    SANG BY ANDREA BOCELLI

    A GIFT TO MAKE EMOTIONS GO UP THE CEILING

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 55

    Dc: So, you tell me Tom/Mata….what was the “political” motivation or reason for this attack in Boston?

    Well, you answered your own question in your prior comment when you said:

    The other thing you are missing Mata is the fact that there “are” people out there using their pulpit to spin this the “other” way (ie. blame the victims). Ie., the whole “we” created the terrorist and made them do it thing. …snip….Lastly, are we at war or are we not? As far as I know..there has been no declaration or statement from the president that we are no longer operating under that authorization from congress. And is this event part of that war…or not?

    I’m not “missing” that at all, Dc. Neither is Obama since he’s busy outcowboying Bush in that same war under the AUMF. I’ll take a wild guess you aren’t advocating for military action against Chechnya, right?

    There are many of both political aisles that claim US foreign policy incites more jihad. And in case you didn’t notice, US foreign policy is political. However just because many pundits and politicians think US foreign policy is involved (erroneously, IMHO), doesn’t mean they are viewing the perps as “victims”. Don’t confuse criticism of foreign policy as a nod of approval.

    Therefore, speaking of political, if you want to believe the reports of Bomber Two, he cites the presence of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then again, that’s just the general talking points playbook used by most the Islamists. Back in 1998, it was the US presence in Saudi Arabia. In the late 80s, before we were in the Arabian peninsula, they had another excuse. They’re always finding some reason. Remove that reason and they’ll pick another.

    Me? I don’t care what the “motivation” is. That’s just defining an excuse/explanation for their behavior to come up with some BS attempt to change whatever it is that’s got a bee in their tagiyah. It’s no different than those that anguish over just how these kids got radicalized. As if we could stop that without intruding on Constitutional rights and tight controls on what is available on Internet. So who the heck cares, unless it happens to be from an active cell here on US soil that needs to be taken in. And that’s what the investigation is for.

    “Know your enemy”? We already do. We need to find any cohorts in the crime, but we sure don’t need no stinkin’ “motivation” lip service. Oddly enough, Rush was saying the same thing about half way through hour three today. Doesn’t matter. They are bad guys, and they have a penchant for using any and all things they perceive as injustice to Islam as their reason for being bad guys. Seeking to define any type of “motivation” just plays into the trap that such motivation is, or is not, justified and perhaps we should do something to alter that.

    Nothing justifies terrorism… by any group. And I, for one, won’t even give their “motive” the light of day for press.

    There ARE people who are in denial, and/or don’t understand nor realize these things. And some of them are “Teachers”, professors, experts spreading the denial to others

    INRE Wordsmith’s post about Maher and Brian Levin. I read the transcript, tho I never watch the show so can only speak to what Wordsmith cut/paste of the transcript. In that, Levin’s not giving the terrorists a pass for their actions. He was pointing out that terrorism isn’t confined just to Islam, nor are all Muslims terrorists. Maher rightfully came back and said that Islam seems to have a larger proclivity for that. That’s true, but it still doesn’t make all Muslims terrorists, nor does it portray terrorists as victims.

    Perhaps you’ll want to point out just where he’s speaking of the Boston bombers, or any Islamist terrorists, as victims? Or, for that matter, denying they are terrorists?

    ReplyReply
  6. CURT
    why did my last comment be refuse 4 times?
    it was about THE LORD”S PRAYER WITH THE MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR
    SANG BY ANDREA BOCELLI
    SO TO BRING THE EMOTIONS HIGH UP

    YOU fix it, they are all back

    ReplyReply
  7. CURT
    it’s gone again
    it came back thank you

    ReplyReply
  8. Dc says: 60

    The CIA and the US “used” jihadists for political reasons to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. But, the foreign jihadists who went there…did NOT go to further US policy, nor for the politics of Russia OR Afghanistan. They went there as Muslims to fight a religious jihad against crusaders and Kufars to drive them out of Muslim lands.

    And no, you didn’t answer my question: What did these bombers in Boston expect to gain politically from doing what they did? Withdrawal from Afghanistan? That’s already the policy we have…and underway. Iraq? We have already withdrawn from Iraq. I’m still confused what you think “Their” political motives were..or what they thought they would be gaining politically by bombing the Boston Marathon.

    That’s not to mention that the boy has already admitted they did it “For their religion”. Maybe he’s lieing too? Or maybe he’s just confused and needs some US professor to straighten him out that he was actually doing this for political reasons.

    The transcript is partial. The video was removed (probably copyright violation). I’ll see if I can find it somewhere else

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VgUBf0Fhrc

    He’s denying that Islam has a problem with tolerance and he’s implying that it is no different than any other religion in that regard.

    There were 3 honor killings in my neighborhood..where a good, hardworking, muslim father killed his own daughter. It wasn’t done because of politics.

    ReplyReply
  9. Dc
    hi,
    maybe they had too much time of doing nothing and they already dislike their other
    suppose friends they had shared the study with, they said they felt not belonging,
    because they where already filled up with their mentality of hate which was consuming their inner core,
    until the older went abroad to be with his known crowd he could freely speak his secret feeling
    of becoming a real man by taking on the AMERICANS who are a SUPERIOR BREED from their roots,
    which gave the terrorists a minority complex they could not understand by keeping their background dictating their mind, and they did not want to let go their roots, for becoming an AMERICAN full time
    with a total loyalty to this generous AMERICA, helping them all the way. they go to war and fight enemies and many die
    and get hurt because to protect them also
    as all the people ‘s freedom,
    so their decisions to kill as much as they could appeal to them for REVENGE, disregarding that protection also,
    [ did you hear that word revenge before?] they all want revenge and are given kindness and the chance which real rooted AMERICANS take for granted, and are benevolent and accept the IMMIGRANTS
    even those IMMIGRANTS DON”T ALL ACCEPT THE AMERICAN BENEVOLENCE as it is a natural TRAIT of the AMERICANS given to them from generations of good will people
    aiming at finding the happiness and success,
    as opose to those received from their generation the task to hate JEWS and WHOEVER is allied with the PEACEFUL JEWS, which are a PEOPLE in their own COUNTRY striving toward KNOWLEDGE to help the whole world, that’s who they are with AMERICA sharing it together,
    and the other would like to conquer instead to share, and their hateful dynasty is has shaped the young to the logic mindset, to destroy their enemy which is by occupying the WORLD with immigrating and than kill the local rightful occupants raised from generations of peaceful mindset, and GOD LOVING
    GENEROUS PEOPLE all over the world ,
    except the MUSLIM countries

    ReplyReply
  10. MataHarley says: 62

    Dc, you’re sorta all over the place here. Those that went to take up arms in the Russian/Soviet battle did so because the State was already in a civil war between Muslim factions over current regime rule, headed up by Hazifullah Amin. He wanted more Western modernization while the Mujahdeen fundamentalists did not. Their quest was to overthrow Amin’s governance and gain power. That is political.

    The Russians then came in, claiming Amin’s admin requested their help. They denied any invasion, of course, but they considered the Mujahdeen terrorists. Amin, who knew of the Soviets invasion, made the mistake of trusting them. They assassinated him and installed Babrak Kamal – a Marxist more to the Russian’s liking – whom the Soviets supported against the Mujahdeen. Of course, following the fighting, Moscow thought he was a failure, so circa mid 80s, he was replaced an relieved of Presidential power. He returned to Moscow, where he had been living when they called in him to replace the assassinated Amin in ’79, and died there as a drunk.

    So it was entirely political, and all about control of the government of Afghanistan.

    INRE honor killings… it’s a despicable practice. But it’s not jihad. Honor killings are their barbaric tradition when family members think the family honor has been tarnished by unIslamic behavior. Jihad, tho actually interpreted as “Exerted effort” to Muslim scholars, is more commonly bandied about as a holy war. Honor killings are not to be confused with holy war, and are done by family members to family members. Not even close to terrorist attacks on innocents.

    As far as the scumbag, Bomber Two, he said he was avenging US military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    According to authorities, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the two suspects in the bombing of the Boston Marathon, confessed to the many crimes of which he is accused on Sunday, and said that the bombing was motivated by America’s ongoing military activity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tsarnaev, who is currently in critical condition for gunshot wounds to his throat, mouth, legs and hands, was not read his Miranda rights prior to his confession.

    The Boston Globe reports that while under interrogation from his hospital room on Sunday, Tsarnaev admitted to planning and executing the bombing of the Boston marathon along with his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, as well as the murder of Sean Collier, a campus police officer at MIT. As reported yesterday, he also indicated that they acted alone, and without any support from overseas terrorist organizations.

    The Washington Post reports that after admitting to the bombing, Tsarnaev told authorities that he and his brother’s actions were inspired by the ongoing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Tsarnaev’s bombing occurred only a few days after an attack in Afghanistan during which 17 civilians were killed, 12 of whom were children.

    Though Tsarnaev admitted to the crimes of which he is accused and discussed his motivation for committing them, his admission may not be admissible in court. The Boston Globe reports that Tsarnaev’s interrogation on Sunday occurred before he was read his Miranda rights. Tsarnaev is currently in critical condition at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and the interrogation was conducted at his bedside. Because he cannot speak due to injuries to his throat, he has responded to questions by writing his answers on paper.

    Also here at the Examiner.

    The Boston Marathon bombers were reportedly motivated by the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as they plotted the attack and set off their homemade bombs.

    Yet again in the SF Chronicle.

    Suspect 2 in the Boston bombings Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev says the bombings where supposed to be pay back for America’s recent wars and drone attacks in the Middle East.

    uh… can you say political? Again, it’s all about power and governance. Actually, to those two, I think they were just enamored of jihadist glory myself. But who cares? They are bad guys. Simple and sweet.

    As I said, his motive don’t mean jack. They always find some excuse to justify their actions, and it changes with the direction of the wind. But both brothers were said to be focused on retaliating for what they saw as a war on Islam around the globe… just as the terrorist playbook dictates. In their demented minds, they are defending an attack on Islam. But again… that’s sorta like giving them an excuse, eh?

    This type of “jihad” is not the contention of the majority of the Muslim world. They may not appreciate US interference in Muslim lands, and may even agree with fighting US troops abroad in Muslim nations. But they aren’t out to wipe out innocents, as terrorists like to do. It’s also a fact that Islamists kill more of their own than they do infidels.

    All religions have their fanatics. Islam seems to have more than their fair share in the last three decades, and I doubt that escapes anyone’s notice.

    ReplyReply
  11. Hankster58 says: 63

    I’m no expert… But Islam is an “inflammatory” religion…. And now ADD to that, any “radical Liberal Professors” (they were college boys) filling these guys with their Anti-American leftist crap…. and the fuse got lit… maybe over simplified, but I’m willing to bet, it’s pretty close to the truth…. IMHO

    ReplyReply
  12. Hankster58
    I disagree, YOU ARE AN EXPERT,
    what did you took you so long to come,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  13. Dc says: 65

    Mata. with all due respect…nobody has still answered the question….what did they gain “politically” by doing this? The interpretation of it is they were retaliating for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Iraq…was over “before” they bombed. So, they are not doing this for what is happening “now”..ie., ongoing military wars in Iraq. There is no war in Iraq now. So, they obviously also were not doing this to “stop” a war that has already ended.

    I think you had it right here when you said:

    But both brothers were said to be focused on retaliating for what they saw as a war on Islam around the globe… just as the terrorist playbook dictates. In their demented minds, they are defending an attack on Islam.

    That’s not a political reason, nor a political goal. It’s blood for blood retaliation for killing muslims in Iraq and afghanistan. Religious retribution for attacking people of the same religion (not politics) that they are around the world.

    As far as Afghanistan in the 80s goes… I was speaking of the joint CIA/Pakistan/Saudi effort to radicalize the war into a religious one to draw in more “foreign” fighters against the russians. We had our own political reasons for doing that. The local afghans surely had their own reasons for fighting. But the religious zealot foreigners who came there to die so they could go to heaven…didn’t necessarily fight for the same reasons.

    ReplyReply
  14. MataHarley says: 66

    Dc, US foreign policy is nothing but political. As for what they “accomplished”… well, terrorism never accomplishes anything. So is success (i.e. a change of policy) the hallmark of whether it’s political or not to you? In which case, the Tea Party ain’t political either since Congressional GOP and Dems are virtually indistinguishable.

    INRE the observation, “It’s blood for blood retaliation for killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan”. The problem with that pat answer is that it doesn’t address the Muslim on Muslim violence in those same regions. What they resist is any western, or non Muslim, nation… as well as what they consider apostate Muslim rulers.. influencing a Muslim nation out of their version of Islam (i.e. nation building and elections in Iraq and Afghanistan). Thus the reason that Afghanistan was in a civil war – Muslim on Muslim – before the Soviets set boots on the ground to aid in fighting the Mujahdeen.

    Again, ruling power to install strict Shariah governance is political.

    ReplyReply
  15. Wordsmith says: 67

    @Skook #22:

    Mata, while we have been so careful not to offend those who hate us, have we accomplished anything?

    Has one terrorist been turned away from his bloody dreams by our pretensions of brotherly love toward the radical fundamentalist?

    I don’t believe those on the “politically-correct” side of things are trying not to offend those who hate us; they’re trying to be sensitive in not alienating those who do not identify themselves with Islamic terrorism, yet who feel they are being lumped together with radical Islamists and Islamic militants & jihadists.

    Can’t say I blame them feeling under attack when folks actually do express hatred for Islam itself, choosing not to make any distinctions between its various practitioners, from Muhammad Ali to Sayyid Qutb.

    @Skook:

    We must admit, the vast majority of the Islamic World either agrees with the radicals or they live in stark fear of reprisal for speaking out in an effort to quell this murderous rage.

    Our leaders in Washington want to deny Islamic Terror’s existence but the Islamic people are complicit in the terror in their refusal to condemn the actions of a relative few.

    I disagree to a degree, that Muslims have not been speaking out. They’ve been losing their lives over speaking out and resisting the puritanical constraints and violence of radical Islamists. When they do publicly condemn acts of Islamic terror, the skeptics among us always poo-poo it as taqqiyah and CAIR-induced talking out of both sides of the mouth; nor do their protests and statements from Islamic leaders receive wide media coverage. Also, reference my post.

    @MataHarley #44:

    Tom: Islamic Terrorists may or may not be devout Muslims, and they may even frame their grievances in religious terms, but terror is politically motivated, not religiously programmed.

    This is an unquestionably true statement. Islamists have a quest for ruling power of their perceived rightful Caliphate, as defined by terrorists (in the map drawn and shown to the two French journalists taken hostage way back in the early Iraq days) as the lands from Spain to Asia. And that is *very* political in nature.

    I’ve mentioned it before: Graham Fuller’s A World without Islam. His perspective as I interpret it, is that even had Islam never come to exist, the Middle East would still be in dysfunction because so much of political Islam is about geo-politics and power, and much of the religious culture are inherited practices that pre-dates Islam. Religion is used for power and control.@Dc #46:

    You guys are too much. So, you tell me Tom/Mata….what was the “political” motivation or reason for this attack in Boston?

    I believe it is the politics of how a segment of the left (and Ron Paul non-interventionist/isolationists on the right) believe that it is America’s foreign policy that is the problem- that we are the aggressors, imperialistic, responsible for innocent Iraqi civilians and children being murdered, abu Ghraib, etc.

    Merge that anti-American-laced view with ethnic/religious/cultural ties and pride and the need that many young people have for identity….

    “Jihadism” probably has a certain, sick, romanticized appeal to many young people looking for purpose and for influence upon the world. Some will perceive jihadis as “freedom fighters” protecting and avenging the death of innocent Muslims being killed by imperialistic American soldiers; other youths with no inherent ties to the Middle East or to Islamic culture but who have that same streak of adventurism within them, might don a Guy Fawkes mask and join up with OWS, thinking they are “fighting the good fight”.

    The ones with their heads screwed on straight, of course, will sign up with a branch of the U.S. military.

    @Dc:

    with all due respect…nobody has still answered the question….what did they gain “politically” by doing this? The interpretation of it is they were retaliating for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Iraq…was over “before” they bombed. So, they are not doing this for what is happening “now”..ie., ongoing military wars in Iraq. There is no war in Iraq now. So, they obviously also were not doing this to “stop” a war that has already ended.

    No, but the Iraq war is not in the distant past; and Obama’s drone strikes outrages many Muslims in the Islamic world. The “war” is still on.

    The older brother’s surely been doing his reading and researching for some years, previous. A daily does of Seymour Hersh, Michael Moore, far-left sites that only point out the horrors of Guantanamo, CIA torture, and gravitating toward jihadi literature….

    Islam is a factor, yes. But it is the Islam of al-Qaeda/jihadi theology which is not Islam itself.

    @MataHarley:

    INRE honor killings… it’s a despicable practice. But it’s not jihad. Honor killings are their barbaric tradition when family members think the family honor has been tarnished by unIslamic behavior.

    I believe honor killings also predate Islam, and is mostly culturally-rooted.

    ReplyReply
  16. MataHarley says: 68

    Dc, if you didn’t know, jihadis consider elections “unIslamic”. I wrote about this on my old blog, when Zawahiri did his “Open Conference” interview with select Muslim journalists, and Laura Mansfield provided the Part I of her translations for free. She has since put Part I and II into a wider perspective book on Zawahiri, His Own Words – A Translation of the Writings of Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri.

    I also mentioned the same in my Mar 19th, 2009 post here at FA, when UBL was trying to convince his masses to overthrow newly elected moderate Muslim leader, Sharif Sheik Ahmed, in Somalia. That’s because they don’t believe in elections, and a stated AQ goal is to overthrow every apostate Muslim ruler who doesn’t rule with strict Shariah fundamentals.

    Obviously politics is a very large factor in jihad, as they wage the same against Muslims as well as infidels. Can’t exactly say “it’s for religion”, when both are Muslim, can you?

    Also this lesser known beef from Islamists surfaced just recently when Pakistan Taliban group, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, called for boycotting this month’s elections.

    “We have launched a campaign to convince tribesmen that the current democratic system clashes with Islamic Sharia,” he said.

    In a recent report, the interior ministry said the TTP and its affiliates, including Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jundullah, have planned attacks in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, tribal regions and Balochistan during the election process.

    Ehsan said the Taliban have started telling tribal people that democratic system is in contravention of Islamic teachings. “We revolt and don’t accept this Westernised democracy as it is against our religion,” he added.

    You can read about circumstances where those of strict fundamentalist Muslim beliefs consider an election acceptable here.

    Thus the reason they get all grumpy and bent out of shape when we western whippersnappers advocate for elections of leaders in their Muslim nations. Altho that ain’t working out so great either…

    ReplyReply
  17. johngalt says: 69

    @Wordsmith:

    I believe honor killings also predate Islam, and is mostly culturally-rooted.

    Yes, honor killings predate Islam. They are also found in many cultures that never had any ties or familiarity with Islam. It is a despicable practice, as Mata noted, and had only one motivation. That is, power of men over women. And that desire of power of men over women can be found from the very first humans walking the planet up to today’s day and age.

    However, it should also be noted that amongst today’s advanced societies, and in countries populated by the biggest religions of the world, that only Islam still accepts the practice as “normal”. Even amongst the most “moderate” of muslims, honor killings, while not necessarily commonplace, are accepted with not much more indifference, or objection, than kicking a dog might be here in America.

    ReplyReply
  18. Wordsmith says: 70

    @johngalt:

    However, it should also be noted that amongst today’s advanced societies, and in countries populated by the biggest religions of the world, that only Islam still accepts the practice as “normal”.

    Noted!

    ReplyReply
  19. MataHarley says: 71

    @Wordsmith: I believe it is the politics of how a segment of the left (and Ron Paul non-interventionist/isolationists on the right) believe that it is America’s foreign policy that is the problem… snip….

    It might also blow the top off a few conservative craniums when they learn that Rand Paul agrees with the Obama DOJ/admin – that there might be occasions for using a drone to kill a US citizen on US soil.

    Odd how events can turn words and previous political stances around on it’s ear, eh?

    ReplyReply
  20. Wordsmith
    hi,
    WHAT I think is the AMERICAN MILITARY go and many lost their lives in a brutal inhuman way and other loose their arm or legs or else to have fought those terrorists,
    the MUSLIMS who consider themself on the moderate side, should do their part in the extermination of those radical monster of death,
    they must find the courage to expose at least their neighbors in their religion, their own people
    yes fear is there but if the AMERICANS had fear they could not fight the same enemy as them,
    the one keeping silent are yes profile the same as bad, and many do benefit from AMERICA help
    at least they must have that courage otherwise they are nothing for this NATION, they are not loyal
    to their new COUNTRY, but coward only and not AMERICANS which are the braves to die for their silence, why should it be like that? they should die also for the cause,

    ReplyReply
  21. there is already too many in AMERICA,
    remember THE DNC gathering when they stood up in force to ban GOD in there debates,
    they already demand rights and which would be taken away from AMERICANS ROOTED,
    that is telling us of what is coming in the USA and arrogantly soon enough, if there is no one and there is no one now to back them of where they belong and where they should be
    that is no political voice loud enough to create changes, and sa long as this leadership encourage their presence and advances the danger for THE USA is very high,

    ReplyReply
  22. Tom says: 74

    @Wordsmith:

    Hi Wordsmith,

    I agree with many of your points, which you’ve expressed much more elegantly than I have, but I have to question this however:

    I believe it is the politics of how a segment of the left (and Ron Paul non-interventionist/isolationists on the right) believe that it is America’s foreign policy that is the problem- that we are the aggressors, imperialistic, responsible for innocent Iraqi civilians and children being murdered, abu Ghraib, etc.

    I doubt there are Muslims who walk into Fahrenheit 9/11 or listen to Ron Paul at the RNC and walk out angry and susceptible to radicalism. If anything, I imagine there are many Muslims in America who are happy just to hear anyone in America talking about a taboo subject, something that is a common narrative in much of the Middle East regarding America, but never heard here. I think it’s far more likely radicalism is imported online, or in person, from overseas, by people who hate America and would make Michael Moore look like a Right Wing apologist by comparison. If there is any domestic ingredient, I would say perhaps it’s the Right Wing anti-Muslim rhetoric and anger, in conjunction with very real acts of anti-Muslim violence and vandalism, that impact Muslims in America every day, particularly after an event like Boston.

    ReplyReply
  23. Dc says: 75

    I’ll ask it one more time: It’s been said/claimed that these 2 boys did what they did….for a political reason. What did these 2 boys gain politically by doing this bombing?

    No, but the Iraq war is not in the distant past; and Obama’s drone strikes outrages many Muslims in the Islamic world. The “war” is still on.

    What you have just described is “revenge” based on a religion. What “is” the Islamic world? And where is the country “Islam”?

    ReplyReply
  24. Tom says: 76

    @Dc:

    DC, I didn’t respond to your question above about this, since it seemed to me that Mata covered it well. I’m not entirely sure what your confusion is regarding political motivation. “What did these 2 boys gain politically by doing this bombing?” You’ll have to ask them. It’s a fallacy on your part to tie their motivation to a defensible and logical outcome. It’s political because of the reasons driving the motivation. That’s what motivation is, something that drives an action. It’s not contingent on an outcome. I’m also not sure why you keep going on about the timing of their grievances. You make it sound like ten years ago is a long time. Depending on how you define it, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict goes back 60 – 200 years and it’s about things that are politically tangible, land, property, resources, control, power. Do you see that strictly as a religious matter?

    ReplyReply
  25. Dc says: 77

    2 sides can fight…and each can have different motivation. You’ve said that “politics” was the motivation for ALL such attacks. And so I ask the pertinent question….what did they gain politically for this attack that they have given their lives for? There would have to be an answer to that to square your logic/assumption. And there is not. They did not gain anything politically from this…and their motive was not politics. It was religion…which you also admit but do not see what I’m trying to say. US gov did not plant bombs in Boston.

    I don’t know how else to say it.

    All religions have their fanatics. Islam seems to have more than their fair share in the last three decades,….

    The understatement of the last 3 decades.

    As far as honor killings predating islam…..we LIVE NOW. How may of us “still” do honor killings? (hold up your hands)

    In regards to changing policy in Iraq and Afghanistan…please use your head here. We are out of Iraq. And we have a forced/planned withdrawal from Afghanistan that was in place and started BEFORE this bombing ever took place. So, that could NOT have been their political goal (to change this policy). The drones are mainly in Pakistan and Yemen. …two places you did not mention and they did not mention (or supposedly mention).

    They didn’t say…we did this for the drones. And IF they did….then their reason for doing this would NOT have been because of the Wars in Iraq and/or Afghanistan (ie, a political goal seeking to change policy) but for killing “muslims”. Please check your logic.

    War, to the soldier who fights it…is NOT about politics. You can ask anyone who’s ever been in combat.

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 78

    You read, (maybe…) but you resist learning, Dc. Apparently, unless you get an answer you want to hear, you will remain resistant. Can’t bother with this nonsense further, so this is my last input.

    That the US is out of Iraq makes no difference to Islamists who see the west’s influence in putting elections in the very heart of their most treasured Caliphate as blasphemous to their grotesquely distorted vision of Islam.. elections which they consider unIslamic. They have waited in stealth to start overthrowing the apostate Muslim leaders who cooperate with the West. Most know it as “Arab spring”. It was predicted and promised by Zawahiri in his open conference that I linked to above circa 2008-09. To those of us expecting it, simply because we listened to their aberrations of religion, it was no surprise.

    It is not for the blood of Muslims spilled, because the very same Islamists spilled more Muslim blood than American. They have no problems assailing their peers, as evidence thru history.

    You insist they “gain” something from their actions, yet terrorism has not changed US foreign policy. In fact, it’s done the opposite. Terrorism motivated increased US military action both under Bush and Obama.

    So if you insist they must “gain” something, and remain blind to the Islamists quest for governing power, then I guess what they gained was valuable 24/7 press, and more blanket anti-Islamic statements from some Americans. Any PR is good, just because it keeps you out there. But anti-Islamic statements from Americans is pure victory for Islamists.

    ReplyReply
  27. Dc says: 79

    NO Mata…YOU (and others) have insisted that they gain something politically by this. Not me..I’ve argued all along that this was not politically motivated….but religious.

    So, they had nothing to gain politically from doing this that you can find….but that doesn’t matter….ie., it was still political…based on US policy. I think that about covers it.
    Sad.

    ReplyReply
  28. Dc
    I thought of your question: what do they gain for what they have done,
    I think they gain THE PRESTIGE AMONG THEIR PEERS,
    the peers are the other he learned from, no matter that they die, it’s a family pride also,
    and the other terrorist to become, and those in the USA already they are energize by the scope of the killing and injuries, because they are of the same wishful killer mind,
    for them , DEATH is not a problem , not at all,
    it is a place where the 72 virgins will be giving them their wildest dream sexual gifts,
    so ,DEATH is an end to their effort to answer the IMAN teacher of the book telling
    to do this for the cause with the ending of ilimited pleasures forever,
    this is a young 2 young or more at the age of sexual urges which are totally impress by the book they where raise to obey and believe, so we can expect their future actions if they are given easy tips like the
    blowing bombs they made following the recipe given to them step by step.
    the rest is what happen so terrible it’s unimagineble by ROOTED AMERICANS,
    which are raise to be in a different upper level and GOD LOVING the 10 COMMANDS
    so neither side understand the other, and the GOVERNMENT STUPIDLY bring them both together
    in this AMERICA, as if they try to change their minds ingrained by centuries of teaching to hate whoever is different like CAIN killing ABEL for not being like him,
    AMERICA stop that mixing, because you are responsible to loosing the young AMERICANS who get indoctrinate by those evil young person or TEACHERS who are under that mindset,
    OBAMA, by welcoming the MUSLIM you inject the worm in the APPLE now rotting slowly
    on some AMERICAN youth,

    ReplyReply
  29. Skook says: 81

    I am about to leave for work, but I want to thank all of you for your contributions. There has been a great deal of analysis of the situation among our readers, and it is obvious. The sage writing of Word was exceptional and seemed to be the thread that helped reason why these differences of opinion are here among us.

    The quote of Deputy Defense Minister Danon of Israel is another binding element that i think we all agree upon.

    “It is never helpful when a moral equivalency is made confusing terrorists with their victims. The only way to deal with the evils of terrorism it to wage an unrelenting war against its perpetrators, wherever they may be.”

    This means infiltrating the mosques and universities until radicals no longer feel they can trust their recruits, like we did with Ayers, Bouduin, and Dohrn with their homicidal groups.

    Now, they are respected by America’s Left, are prominent members and lecturers at our universities, and have the president’s ear. Obviously great things can be accomplished through stealth and infiltration of terrorist cells.

    ReplyReply
  30. MATA
    hi,
    ONE THING I READ about RON PAUL AGENDA, it struck me as very logical,
    I heard it from JUSTME95,
    it’s the need to not extend the WARS ,which OBAMA change the NAME WAR into another not related name so to hide it he think,
    but RON PAUL made a lot of sense by saying, he would send one active elimination to answer any threat,
    and have the troops come back right after the work is done,
    HE USE HIS OWN WORDS, I come in with my own words of what I understood and capture my agreement on how it should be done, not like straining the war to the point it is now because OBAMA sign a deal with KARZEI who is showing hatred for the AMERICANS MILITARY in there getting shot in the back by those they teach to fight and killing the enemies on top of that and getting killed and wounded for staying so long in there, where the ROE will not bring any VICTORY but ONLY COFFINS AND DISABLE BRAVEST OF THIS AMERICA,

    ReplyReply
  31. johngalt says: 83

    @Dc:

    Mata’s, and Word’s, point is sincere and correct. The extremist muslims perpetrate their acts of terrorism from a political standpoint. They just simply choose to do so under the guise of adherence to their religion. Everything they desire is political in nature, even when they dress it up in religious wrappings.

    ReplyReply
  32. MataHarley says: 84

    Dc: NO Mata…YOU (and others) have insisted that they gain something politically by this.

    Really? Would you like to link to where I said that? Or are you confusing your own insistence that they “gain” something for it to be political, and deliberately closing your own eyes to the facts presented about geo-political Islamists, Muslim on Muslim violence and the promise to, and fruition of, overthrowing apostate Muslim leaders that cooperate with the evil west?

    There also seems to be some confusion on your part that it’s important that the US is out of Iraq (nope, we still have base/presence there), and Afghanistan is on a withdrawal path (we are still there too). You, who apparently does *not* know this enemy, thinks that our “withdrawal” from these nations are sufficient to appease them… ergo, in your mind, that just *can’t* be a reason.

    Were we in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even Saudi Arabia, when they attacked our embassies in the late 80s, Dc? Why on earth would you think that shuffling our troops and bases around in that region would make an iota of difference? Fact is, Islamists don’t even want our embassy presence in Muslim nations as it’s western influence that is unwelcome in their intended Caliphate… or haven’t you noticed?

    Dc, you need to seriously ponder just why there is so much Muslim on Muslim violence. It’s going on before your very eyes daily, and has been for as long as you’ve been alive, no doubt.

    Ask yourself…. why are fundamentalist groups always some of the loudest voices at the forefront of government overthrow in Muslim nations?

    Why are hardcore Islamists protesting and boycotting elections in Muslim nations?

    Why do Islamist Muslims kill more of their own than anyone else?

    Why do you think the tribal warloads fight amongst themselves? They are all Muslim, and all children of Islam.

    The answer is simple. Power and control. It doesn’t matter that these two bombers were at the bottom of the jihad food chain. They were recruited, trained, and/or inspired to be human lackeys for geo-political Islam.

    BTW, you have had your questions answered multiple times by me, and others. In fact, your question was answered by Bomber Two himself…. but again you decide you like your own reason best.

    That you refuse to accept the answer, complete with links to historical context, because it conflicts with your own more emotional conclusion is your choice. However do not continue to insist no one has given you an explanation.

    ReplyReply
  33. Dc says: 85

    johngalt,

    I accept people are being sincere.

    ….what is the political standpoint of the Boston Bombers? It defies logic to suggest that all of this is 100% political, and yet no one can identify what these 2 were after politically, what they stood to gain “politically” or what their goal was “politically”. There “is” however, plenty of evidence to suggest that this was an act of revenge/retribution for killing muslims in holy lands. That is not a political goal, nor a policy. It’s revenge.

    ReplyReply
  34. johngalt says: 86

    @Dc:

    You are thinking of the bombers in the individual sense. However, there are apparent links to a bigger group, and that is where the political motivation comes in. I will admit, though, that the individuals, such as in the case of the Boston bombers, revel in the religious motivation to commit such atrocities.

    But we cannot concentrate on the individuals alone, or we lose sight of the forest from which they come. And that forest has behind it a political motivation dressed up in the religious ideology they project to the world. In the end, their motivation is nothing more than control over peoples and regions of the world, and that is purely political.

    ReplyReply
  35. those who interrogate the bomber at the hospital where interrupted without even asking or be notified, they are SHOCK by the action,
    that judge came and gave the miranda right to the bomber
    when the questioning was not finish, who order it, well you should know that it’s OBAMA in charge of any of those decisions, so easy to see,
    he doesn’t want to get the questionning to go further, WHY is the best QUESTION
    if you can get a true answer, i’s not sure ,the FBI think valuable answers are lost because of the
    guy come in and read the miranda,
    COULD IT BE AN IMPOSTOR MAGISTRAT NOT CHECKED BECAUSE HE SAID HE WAS A MAGISTRAT
    sent by ?????????????????????
    the FBI claim the lack of communication between the agency,
    the FEDERAL is being pointed at,
    someone try to cut the info might be increminating that person in high place, or AN IMAN?
    I think there is MUSLIM infiltration in all those GOVERNMENT AGENCIES PUT THERE BY THE LEADERSHIP LEANING ON THE MUSLIM SIDE AND their task is TO PROTECT THEM,

    we could know if we find who is MUSLIM in all the AGENCIES IN THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION,
    we are at the time to pay attention on who and where do they work in the GOVERNMENT this from
    all scales of the ladder, going to the TOP LEADER
    in AMERICA, and how come they get jobs that should belong to rooted AMERICANS,
    more of it is they had been given order from the top
    how’s that for willingly stop an interrogation,
    is CAIR influence OBAMA to put a stop to what the TERRORIST would bring?

    ReplyReply
  36. Dc says: 88

    John..
    Define: Lone Wolf.

    The apparent link to a group is to the religious zealotry and ideals perpetuated and nurtured by radical Islamic groups and Imams all over the world who encourage intolerance, hate, and who sanction and condone murder of innocents.

    To focus on the “political” aspect of this is simply one more attempt to divert attention away from the issues and problems that are unique to Islamic religion in the modern world we live in. And the fundamental role it has played in fomenting hatred and intolerance around the world that have led people to kill and maim in it’s name.

    ReplyReply
  37. RAND PAUL came to FOX to explain what he meant, and
    that has nothing to do with drones in THE USA,
    he was talking of new weapons to pursue a terrorist and send the bullet from the car
    he said it would be saving lives of the LAW OFFICERS IN A TAIL PURSUE
    of those dangerous criminal terrorists,
    there is new weapons,I read about it,

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>