I have serious concerns about the way George Bush is conducting the war on terrorism, but at least he recognizes we are at war. Britain seems more interested in protecting its British Islamofascists’ feelings than protecting its people from murder and mayhem.
Islamofascists have declared war on the world, and they’ve decided to bomb London at will, which is proving stunningly easy to do since the government won’t racially profile. No commuter will ever feel safe again, and that’s the idea. Britain’s response? They’ve adopted a localized cops-and-robbers approach.
Irwin M. Stelzer, writing for the Weekly Standard, says it’s because Britain fails to recognize its condition:
British culture now dictates a confused response to terrorists. Start with the unwillingness of the majority of the British people to recognize that they are indeed in a war. The flak-jacketed, heavily armed men and women lining my road to Heathrow last week were cops, not troops. America is at war, Britain is playing cops and criminals. These are very different things, with important implications for policy. Just as the Clinton administration decided to respond to terror attacks as if they were bank heists — he sent the FBI overseas — Britain has insisted on applying the law and procedures of the criminal justice system to terrorists. The entire panoply of legal procedures that prevent detention, deportation, and arrest of Muslim clerics calling for the blood of Britain’s infidels is available to the as-many-as 3,000 terrorists whom the authorities estimate live in Britain, many trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or with actual battle experience in Iraq. Whatever rights U.K. law doesn’t confer are available to the fledgling jihadists as a result of Blair’s decision to sign on to Europe’s Human Rights Act….The consequences of this equation of multiculturalism with the virtue of tolerance began with a refusal of the Blair government to get control of Britain’s borders. As a result, there are hundreds of thousands — no one, including the government, knows for sure just how many — of illegal immigrants roaming around Britain. And many of these are not at all like the Mexicans who come to America to find work. They are attracted by the generous welfare payments to which they seem to have immediate and unrestricted access, and in many cases by the freedom to preach jihad.
While the brits are careful not to “offend” Muslims, Muslims show their appreciation in blood.
Related posts: London Bridge Is Falling Down, More Terror In London?
Dumb Headline of the Day: Police Hold Three in Failed London Attack. What exactly failed? At least one bomb went off, and at least one person was injured. I wonder if the person lying in the hospital considers the terrorist attack a failure…
Update: Meanwhile, back in Gotham City…
(Hat tip: Malkin)
What do you think of the the use of “homegrown” terrorist being used? I find it a bit misleading that just because those who committed the act were born in Great Britain, they (those in power and the media) seem to think this in and of itself would have dettered someone from being a terrorist. I am reminded of a psychiatrist who is just foaming at the mouth to label this form of “illness”.
America is in the same predicament as GB. No one assimilates, everyone is their own little “group” and there is no loyalty to America (or country of birth).
Comment by Renee (the Old One) — 07.25.05 @ 7:12 am
La Shawn:
Brits are where Clinton was. They see all terror as a law enforcement.
Yet even conservatives are so obsessed with civil liberties they don’t see the forest through the trees.
Conservatives and Leftists alike would love to see the terrorists disappear, but they don’t want to sacfifice one bit of their perceived “civil liberties”. But, to be secure, people just have to make some compromises.
This argument reminds me of the man who called Gun Talk, a radio show about guns.
The caller asked the host how he could keep his gun loaded and ready to defend against intruders, but remain absolutely safe for his children.
Dream on - all of them.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 07.25.05 @ 7:27 am
Ditto what Frank said…
Dream on - all of them
Comment by Renee (the Old One) — 07.25.05 @ 7:35 am
Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) is getting creamed by the media elite for suggesting that if the USA were attacked by an Islamic nuke the correct response would be to “bomb Mecca!”
Why wait for the nuke? Do it now!
Comment by pajamazon — 07.25.05 @ 9:08 am
I went out of town this weekend for a family reunion luau. I did not watch the news and you know what…….I FEEL GREAT!
For those of you sick of muslims and their brand of murder and the simply plain buffoonish answers offered by the people we elect, then try this. Just take new holidays. Don’t watch the local or cable news. Put down the newspapers. Do this for about a week if you can stand it. Three days minimum and just watch your stress level fo way down.
While you are away, there will be many conservative warriors out their fighting the crusades and pushing back the left. Take a break and watch your blood pressure drop.
Don’t let the muslims, Democrats and the spineless RINOs destroy your health. I am going to fight back in other ways. Mainly with my vote and my wallet. Instead of worrying about what these tree swinging idiots we elect do or do not do in office, I am just going to organize to send them home and to keep RINOS out of office.
WARNING: FOX News has another Amber Alert out for a missing white girl(they totally ignored the missing black grack baby girl in Tampa) so expect to be bombarded with the story over and over and over again. This may be a good time to take your news holiday.
Comment by Raymond — 07.25.05 @ 9:26 am
Then you have morally equivalent quislings like the mayor of London.
“
Mayor blames Middle East policy
The destroyed bus (News website reader Obi Felton)
Mayor’s comments
Decades of British and American intervention in the oil-rich Middle East motivated the London bombers, Ken Livingstone has suggested.
The London mayor told BBC News he had no sympathy with the bombers and he opposed all violence.
But he argued that the attacks would not have happened had Western powers left Arab nations free to decide their own affairs after World War I.
Instead, they had often supported unsavoury governments in the region.
Mayor blames Middle East policy
The destroyed bus (News website reader Obi Felton)
Mayor’s comments
Decades of British and American intervention in the oil-rich Middle East motivated the London bombers, Ken Livingstone has suggested.
The London mayor told BBC News he had no sympathy with the bombers and he opposed all violence.
But he argued that the attacks would not have happened had Western powers left Arab nations free to decide their own affairs after World War I.
Instead, they had often supported unsavoury governments in the region. …”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4698963.stm
The day our govts are infested with this mindset, we may as well submit to islam or be prepared to die by their sword.
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 9:47 am
John Major: Deport all who ’spit hate’
Former British Prime Minister John Major seems to be on the right track …
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 07.25.05 @ 9:48 am
The perfect solution to islam around the world is to apply the same type of laws that essentially destroyed the Ku Klux Klan as the major political and terrorist entity it was during its hey day.
In a nutshell, it says that it is illegal for tow or more people to congregate for the purposes of preaching or listening to messages of hate, violence and terror. Other laws had outlawed masks. We could twist that law to no only outlaw the covering of the face, but the wearing of costumes like the ones woen by the imams and the “ninja chicks” in black.
Comment by Raymond — 07.25.05 @ 10:04 am
“Conservatives and Leftists alike would love to see the terrorists disappear, but they don’t want to sacfifice one bit of their perceived “civil libertiesâ€. But, to be secure, people just have to make some compromises. - Frank”
Frank, being a conservative is fundamentally ABOUT protecting civil liberties. What are you thinking? That is the fundamental premise of conservatism, when you start destroying that, you start destroying conservatism at its ideological core.
The premise of freedom, democracy, and fundamental rights under the constitution is the foundation of conservative philosophy, any restriction of that and you dimish the very conservative philosophy that you claim. That is why I use the term ‘fake’ conservative.
We are defending a philosophy, a way of life that we deem to be the appropriate and fair way (in its theoretical form). You advocate demolishing that. How much security are you willing to trade for freedom? And that is the difference between a real conservative and a fake one. To a true conservative, the ideal of freedom is superior to the ideal of security. The difficulty is working out the ideal of freedom while maintaining security.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.25.05 @ 10:06 am
PS, H/T to Decsion ‘08 on the link above.
Here’s another from Captain’s Quarters:
“In a little-noticed blurb in yesterday’s London Times, Britain sentenced an al-Qaeda operative for his participation in the 9/11 attacks. Mohammed Afroze got seven years for plotting attacks overseas on 9/11 to coincide with the attacks on America. However, Afroze’s choice of targets certainly bears review, as Melanie Phillips and RattlerGator point out: AN INDIAN man was jailed in Bombay yesterday for plotting to fly passenger jets into the House of Commons and Tower Bridge in London on September 11, 2001.
Mohammed Afroze was sentenced to seven years after he admitted that he had a role in an al-Qaeda plot to attack London, the Rialto Towers building in Melbourne and the Indian Parliament. … ”
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005037.php
AMD
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1705386,00.html
How many people know that Al Queda also intended to send two planes crashing into London, one into Melbourne and one into India’s Parliment.
India? Attacking India on 9-11-01? What on earth does India have to do with GWOT prior to 9-11? Because Hindus are infidels as well.
“ Top al-Qaeda man convicted in Mumbai:
Mohammad Afroze was convicted of several accounts with a 5 year and 7 year rigorous imprisonment (concurrent). Although he was convicted of 4 accounts equating to 2 sentences… he was acquitted from the charge of conspiring to wage war against the nation.
Police said between 1997 and September 2001 Afroze and his brother entered into a criminal conspiracy with their uncle Mubarak Musalman, who resides in UK, to commit acts of depredation on the territories of UK, Australia and USA. Police said they had planned to hijack passenger planes and dash these planes in populated buildings and important places like House of Commons at UK and the Indian Parliament. Afroze had taken training in flying of aircraft in Mumbai, Australia, US and UK in order to execute the plan, police said adding for undergoing the training, Afroze had forged documents of his HSC certificate and marksheet. …”
Full details available at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1180406,curpg-1.cms
Looking at the penalities given this madman, it is obvious that Britian needs to toughen their anti-terror laws. The man only got sentenced for forging documents and conspiracy for depradation, but was acquitted of intent to commit terror.
Likewise last week, Germany let one of the terrorists wanted by Spain walk because of technicalities — the poor terrorist’s human rights were violated. [playing the world’s tiniest violin]
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 10:07 am
Renee, O/T. I dunno, but “the old one” doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling, I’d rather go for “the original”
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 10:14 am
Dell, so busting someone for exercising free speech to shout fire in a theater when there is none would be a violation of our liberties?
It’s evident from the writings that our forefathers would have run the terrorist out of the country, if they didn’t hang them for sedition.
There is a BIG difference. Freedom of speech does not allow one to shout ‘fire’ in a theater. Likewise, freedom of speech does not permit advocaing an overthrow of our government by killing everyone. Yes I know we can forcibily change our govt, but that was meant in the case where our govt has lost sight of we the people and it falls upon us to throw the bums out either by votes or guns. Islam on the otherhand, has no intention of overthrowing the govt in order to restore power to the people, they seek to replace our govt with their Sharia. Granted, this could “peacefully” happen if the muslims become the population majority and vote sharia into place. But that is still quite a ways off demographically speaking.
Wahhabiis are not willing to wait that long, hence the incessant vile speeches about overthrowing by the sword/terror. There is nothing unconstitutional about banning that kind of speech and even deporting en-masse those who hold that view.
If that religion seeks nothing but to undermine the people of the US, there would also be nothing unconstitutional about banning islam if push comes to shove.
Finally, don’t forget about the role that President Thomas Jefferson (he who stated that democracy is unsuitable for any but a Christian nation) and the orginal USS Enterprise played in defeating the first GWOT back in the dawning of the 19th century.
“ The Barbary Wars, 1801-1805
Since the sixteenth century, corsairs from the Muslim states of North Africa had controlled the Mediterranean sea lanes by force. At the time the United States won its independence, the states of the Barbary Coast–Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco, and Tunis–had been preying on the world’s merchant ships for three hundred years. The Barbary pirates’ methods were fairly simple: cruising the Mediterranean in small, fast ships, they boarded merchant ships, overwhelmed the crew, and took them captive. The crews were held in captivity until their home countries agreed to pay ransoms for their release. If no ransom was forthcoming, the crews were sold into slavery. Over time, most countries found it expedient simply to pay a yearly tribute to the sultans, thereby buying their ships free passage through the Mediterranean.
As a part of the British Empire, the ships of the American colonies were protected by the Royal Navy and by treaties between the Barbary States and England. However, once the United States became an independent nation, this protection was gone, and the new U.S. government was quickly forced to make treaties with the sultans of North Africa.
In 1796, the tributes to the sultans were modest; Tripoli’s, for example, was $56,000. But the pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli, believed he could demand higher tribute and sent a message to the United States demanding a new treaty. The demands arrived in March 1801, just after President Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated. Jefferson had long disagreed with the policy of paying tribute and argued that it would be cheaper to build a navy than give in to the sultans’ ever-increasing demands.
Jefferson sent a naval “squadron of observation” consisting of three frigates–the President, the Philadelphia, and the Essex–and the sloop of war Enterprise. The American fleet arrived in Gibraltar on July 1, 1801, under the command of Commodore Richard Dale. Upon his arrival, Dale was informed that Tripoli had declared war on the United States on May 10, 1801. …”
http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/06/06a.htm
http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/06/06b.htm
Dig this, as CINC, Jefferson did all this with nary a mother-may-I? from congress.
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 10:28 am
Daily tanslations of common PC terms:
“War on Terror” = war on islam
“Jihadi” = muslim
“Islamofascist = muslim
“Islamic Extremist = muslim
“Mainstream nominee” = liberal
“Consensus nominee” = liberal
“Mainstream conservative = liberal
“…opportunity to unite” = give us what we want because you cheated to get into office and we liberal Democrats should still be in power
“Moderate” = liberal
“Nonpartisan” = wimpish capitulation to defeated political entity
“Nuclear option” = talking tough, bluffing with no intention of taking action
“Swing vote” = cowardly response to be overwhelmed by or uneducated on an issue. Manifestation of laziness and lack of conviction where decision maker waits for the most popular decision to emerge rather than the correct Constitutional one.
“Neo-con” = I have no freakin’ clue what a neocon is
“Black leader” = charismatic black politician, radio talk show host or pastor of a large “getcho money” church. Exploiter of the uneducated. Black liberal Democrat who has some type of advanced degree.
“Civil rights” = special rights
“Affirmative Action” = reverse ddiscrimination
“Guest worker” = Mexican illegal alien
“Political Refugee” = Illegal alien with light or white skin with greater job skills than being able to bend over in hot sun and grasp fruits and vegetables.”
“Diversity Program” = Indicates company hires and is populated by large number of homosexuals
Comment by Raymond — 07.25.05 @ 10:37 am
Andy, you make good points.
“so busting someone for exercising free speech to shout fire in a theater when there is none would be a violation of our liberties? - Andy ”
I acknowledge there are limitations on all ‘freedoms’ as a personal freedom extends only as far as another nose and certain ‘externalities’ of personal freedom must be moderated by the government like libel, contempt of court and the scenario you mentioned above etc. But remember, every time we cede a measure of freedom to create government efficiency and stability, we move closer to totalitarianism in some form. That is why (and I classify myself as a conservative), it confuses me when right wingers say ‘we are moving closer to socialism (a form of totalitarianism) when issue such as universal health care etc come up, but simultaneously encourage more totalitarian government control in other areas, this being the one. When we give the government the power to restrict any form of liberty provided in the constitution we must acknowledge that we simultaneously move a step towards totalitarianism. If that is the acceptable consensus of the population, then so be it, however lets be honest about what is occurring.
“If that religion seeks nothing but to undermine the people of the US, there would also be nothing unconstitutional about banning Islam if push comes to shove. –Andyâ€
I think this is the primary difference in your position and mine. I don’t consider Islam the enemy of US, I consider practitioners of certain sects of Islam to be enemies of the United States be demonstrated action and activity. To me this is similar to the KKK and their statement that they represent Christianity. Should I be ‘anti-Christian’ because of the representation of an anti-black faction? Same logic.
Secondly, the power of America is in the freedom that it has, even the freedom of dissent. I should be able to say right now, I hate America and that should be protected. However, I think there is room in the instance of a terroristic threat which makes a specific statement towards the ‘destruction’ of America. There we agree. I think if someone is openly advocating an attack or a bombing on America then this should then their should be legal ramifications as this moves beyond a simply act of verbal disagreement or even vehemence against the system to the advocating and promoting an actual act of violence. There is a difference.
However a law such as this should be universal as opposed to ‘religion and race’ specific. It should be heavily regulated and guarded against abuse, and it should be voted on.
I think I have made it plain on my position in regards to terror. We catch and kill the people who are trying to kill us first. But we do so with the maximum effort to protect the fundamental freedoms provided for in the constitution and resist as much totalitarianism as possible.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.25.05 @ 11:31 am
For Andy
Sorry La Shawn
Comment by Renee (the Orignal) — 07.25.05 @ 11:43 am
MUST READ
Be sure to read… how the Norwegian government is covering up the incredibly high percentage of rapes caused by immigrants. about the spread of Kurdish riots in Iran. how police in the U.S. are preparing for suicide bombers. R.J. Rummel…
Trackback by Geopolitical Review — 07.25.05 @ 11:49 am
Dell, mostly reasonable. However, I would think that as a Christian, you should be able to recognize that islam, as a spawn of Satan is first an enemy of God, his chosen people, of Christians and of all non-muslim believing infidels and finally, even against themselves — in that order.
I think I mentioned it before, just because a group calls itself religious, does not automatically confer the full force of freedom of religion. This principle has been in existence from the founding of our country. Anytime a so-called religion advocates and practices the breaking of our laws, the hand of justice is free to smack them down.
IOW, fine to say you don’t agree with certain US positions, but when you incite or seek to exercise it, you can and will get shot down. You can be sure that if a group of people decided to resurrect Baal worship — which islam is but a “tidied” up re-incarnation — our govt can constitutionally shut them down, deport & even imprison practioners.
Now perhaps you may be worried that the same methods that we would use to ban wahhabiisim could down the road be used against us and that would be valid. However, our forefathers have put the onus on we-the-people, not the legislative branch nor SCOTUS, to ensure that doesn’t happen.
The time to take apply chemo/radiation to root out the cancer is now and if the leaders continue to diddle instead of taking care of the safety of the people, rest assured that their heads will roll literally if the ‘unthinkable’ happens.
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 11:57 am
The founders were intent on protecting political speech. Certainly, you have the Constitutional right to say “I hate America.” But you also have the responsibility to explain what your grievance is and to cooperate with those charged with protecting the order and domestic tranquility.
If you are engaged in seditious speech, you have the burden of proving that your speech is not advocating the violent overthrow of the lawful government or bringing harm or danger down on the citizenry.
Unfortunately, the old saw about “yelling fire in a crowded theater” has been so separated from the SCOTUS case in which it appeared that it has lost most of its meaning. (Much like Jefferson’s “wall of separation of church and state” phrase has been taken so far from its context.)
English common law and our codification of it has always tied rights to responsibility.
I can not see any abridgement of any one’s “civil right” to yell fire in a crowded theater. You just will not be protected by the first amendment in the sense that anyone may say anything anywhere anytime they wish.
Go ahead and stand tall and yell that you “hate America.” The police will protect you. But you must be ready to handle the public disgust you arouse. And you must be “responsible” in your response.
Now if Imams and Imam wannabes are stirring up their gangs of Islamic thugs to act against the peaceful order and domestic tranquility, there is no first amendment protection for them. And there never has been.
I am in favor of a renewed set of Alien and Sedition Acts that will stand current Constitutional muster. Much of what would be in those acts is in the Patriot Act, but I believe we can be more direct in the case of Sharia law and the concepts of a theocratic order being higher than the Constitution of the United States.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.25.05 @ 12:00 pm
Heliothrope, right on!
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 12:43 pm
It happens. As I said, they had the right idea. - Admin
Comment by Aaron — 07.25.05 @ 1:15 pm
Begone, gnat. Build your readership the old-fashioned way instead of trolling LBC. - Admin
Comment by Aaron — 07.25.05 @ 1:51 pm
“Dell, mostly reasonable. However, I would think that as a Christian, you should be able to recognize that islam, as a spawn of Satan is first an enemy of God, his chosen people, of Christians and of all non-muslim believing infidels and finally, even against themselves — in that order. – Andyâ€
I think most of the secular materialism in America posing under the guise of Christianity (Satan comes as an Angel of Light) is equally as damaging. But that is a different discussion.
There has to be a set of uniform laws which have the lowest common denominator of protection for the citizenry of the US. I does no good to have theoretical freedom, in a nuclear wasteland. So I don’t disagree that we have to be pro-active in the war on terror. But what does that mean? Does it mean we instantaneously deprive rights of US CITIZENS, based upon religious speculation, and ethnicity?
Remember history, our American history is not kind and has demonstrated an abuse of ethnic minorities and a restriction on their ‘constitutional freedoms’. You are absolutely right when you say, “Now perhaps you may be worried that the same methods that we would use to ban wahhabiisim could down the road be used against us and that would be valid. However, our forefathers have put the onus on we-the-people, not the legislative branch nor SCOTUS, to ensure that doesn’t happen. - Andyâ€
It does scare me, and if you are being realistic about it Andy, you know that laws are much easier to implement then they are to remove in the real world, and the government once it acquires power typically is very reluctant to give it up. That is why preservation of liberty must be first and foremost and everything must be done to preserve it as long as it is rationally and pragmatically possible.
Just a question, how many people of the Islamic faith do you know personally?
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.25.05 @ 2:10 pm
Dell, I know enough of them. I have African friends that will never see their families again because they converted.
I even knew a couple of local Pali students in our German Dorf back in ‘96 that kept asking if we had nukes where I worked at, cuz they thot they’d like to get their hands on some for Israel. Naturally, CID thot they were just harmless kids fantasizing about jihad.
With regards to islam, there are snakes and then there’s vipers. There is no violation of our civil rights whatsoever to go after the vipers amongst us. Since it is the Wahhabis doing all the inciting, the constitution very well expects our govt to do something about it. Because the wahhaabis put themselves over our govt, it is no ’sweat’ to simply — as Heliotrope points out — put together a new seditious acts law that targets not islam, but targets what they say and do.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do you ever recall pirates of the high seas getting due process? No, they were exterminated as quickly as we found them simply for matching the profile.
It’s nice to express worry about losing our rights, but we have already lost some of the underpinings to things like the right for society to shun and scorn aberrant behavior, the right to life for all humans, regrdless of development/deterioration and so on.
Evangelicals are constantly railroaded by the MSM/DNC as being extreme/out of mainstream. The only thing they lack is a law to permit re-education camps for us. But they have already taken God out of everything else, ie school, public square etc.
When our forefathers spoke of freedom of religion, they had in mind the multitude of denominations within Christendom and the freedom to not believe any of it. But they surely wouldn’t countenance paganism such as islamic sharia taking precedent over our preamble to the constitution and our basic rights. And it’s not like they didn’t know who the barbary barbarians were — as I pointed to Tom Jefferson’s original fight with them earlier today.
In any case, we can agree to disagree, but lest any of my representatives wonder, I’m demanding that they ban the vipers from our shores.
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 3:30 pm
Dell, read this and see if you don’t think this multi-culti-don’t-judge-people-by-what-they-say-or-do-sim isn’t going to be the death of us yet?
“ Mark Steyn: Mugged by reality?
July 25, 2005
WITH hindsight, the defining encounter of the age was not between Mohammed Atta’s jet and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but that between Mohammed Atta and Johnelle Bryant a year earlier. Bryant is an official with the US Department of Agriculture in Florida, and the late Atta had gone to see her about getting a $US650,000 government loan to convert a plane into the world’s largest crop-duster. A novel idea.
The meeting got off to a rocky start when Atta refused to deal with Bryant because she was but a woman. But, after this unpleasantness had been smoothed out, things went swimmingly. When it was explained to him that, alas, he wouldn’t get the 650 grand in cash that day, Atta threatened to cut Bryant’s throat. He then pointed to a picture behind her desk showing an aerial view of downtown Washington - the White House, the Pentagon et al - and asked: “How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it?”
Fortunately, Bryant’s been on the training course and knows an opportunity for multicultural outreach when she sees one. “I felt that he was trying to make the cultural leap from the country that he came from,” she recalled. “I was attempting, in every manner I could, to help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I could.”
So a few weeks later, when fellow 9/11 terrorist Marwan al-Shehhi arrived to request another half-million dollar farm subsidy and Atta showed up cunningly disguised with a pair of glasses and claiming to be another person entirely - to whit, al-Shehhi’s accountant - Bryant sportingly pretended not to recognise him and went along with the wheeze. The fake specs, like the threat to slit her throat and blow up the Pentagon, were just another example of the multicultural diversity that so enriches our society. …
Read the rest at
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16034303%5E7583,00.html
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 3:44 pm
Andy, that is just stupid (the behavior of the woman above), and not what I advocate at all.
But, being that you see the attack on Evangelicalism (of which I am one), then you should be MORE sensitive to the argument that I am making. In many instances the radical liberal side already equates us in similar fashion to radical Islam by virtue of the fact that we hold to a dogmatic view, and a objective morality position. Do you think it is that much of a stretch that laws used to restrict ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ won’t be twisted to restrict ‘Evangelical Fundamentalism’?
Remember, once you give the government power, it is difficult to get it back.
Comment by Dell Gines — 07.25.05 @ 4:02 pm
Why do we even let people IN whose values and culture are wholly incompatible with Western [Christian] civilization? And that is America, in Great Britain, the situation is far worse: they have LARGE, monolithic, populations of these people, and no attempt is made of assimilation or acculturalisation.
We do not need new laws, we need the Law of God in our hearts. The best government is self-government, and with that gone, no form of government or constitution is worth anything; our own excellent U.S. Constitution becomes just a piece of paper.
That Western Man has neglected these truths makes me convinced that the time of European man may be drawing to a close.
Comment by Mark Slater — 07.25.05 @ 4:07 pm
A lot of interesting comments and insights, even if it went a bit astray. Getting back to the subject of terrorist problems in London, Daniel Pipes has a piece on a government (GB) survey of muslims in England and their “take” on being citizens of “their” country vs citizens of Islam. Vexatious stuff.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2797
Comment by Merry Whitney — 07.25.05 @ 5:23 pm
Dell, let me put it this way. Do you think Jesus was sensitive to the vipers and white-washed sepulcures?
Democracy has to be maintatained, as in we have to work at it and to pray for our leaders. In the event an Evangelical’s worst nightmare comes true and we are sought out and persecuted for our faith, does that make you scared? Would you worry about losing your house, car and all the good-life knick-knacks?
In a way, I’d almost welcome it because the net effect would be a revival here. If Christianity can survive and thrive in China and North Korea, it wouldn’t hurt us if we got tried by fire a few times.
More importantly, it’ll eliminate a lot of the chaff that passes for ‘liberal’ christianity. So don’t be a quisling and worry about what the patently christian-hating liburls might say about us. Stand-up, be proud, no compromise. We know where we’re going in the end, do they?
Remember, the govt derives it’s power from us. What we give, we can take back. Last I heard, we were in the majority.
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 5:43 pm
I was for racial profiling, until I heard that Palestinians started using women as suicide bombers. Sure we can target Arabs, but then they’ll recruit people who look European.
Comment by Chuck — 07.25.05 @ 7:51 pm
Here’s an interesting aricle of a Palestinien that got to wondering about the Jews, investigated and accepted the truth that islam is a lie and converted to Christianity. All because he wanted to double-check the assumptions and preachings of the Jew-hating jihadiis.
Hallelujah!!!
http://www.theshepherdsvoice.org/israeli/is_the_dome_of_the_rock_muslim_jewish.html
Comment by Andy — 07.25.05 @ 9:36 pm
Andy,
If you have not done so yet check out “More Than A Prophet” by Emir and Ergun Caner (to former Muslim brothers who are now Christian). Both of them are now professors at two seperate Christian seminaries.
Comment by Renee — 07.25.05 @ 10:15 pm
Ergun “Butch” Caner was once my pastor (Central Baptist Church, Aurora, Colo.) and he often spoke directly and succinctly about the Mohammedan mind-set. Thanks, Renee.
And thank you, Andy, for that bit of encouragement!
Comment by Mark Slater — 07.26.05 @ 1:08 am
Renee, thanks for the heads up. You too Mark!
Comment by Andy — 07.26.05 @ 4:07 am
Mark Slater,
I have heard Ergun on some interviews and have seen four of his sermons (pre-recorded). You haven’t lived until you hear him preach “the Gospel According to Oprah”…LOL
He is very “to the point” and does not beat around the bush (which I like).
Comment by Renee (the Orignal) — 07.26.05 @ 7:28 am
Talk About Biting The Hand That Feeds You
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004600000-2005340267,00.html
Comment by Renee (the Orignal) — 07.26.05 @ 8:07 am
Renee, why is it that those who have experienced evil up close and personal very “to the point” compared to having led
sheltered” lives?
Maybe we should require our ministers to experience a little trial by fire to get rid of the PC mamby-pambism impurities.
Comment by Andy — 07.26.05 @ 9:39 am
I agree Andy. Maybe some of them should take the trip with Jane
Comment by Renee (the Orignal) — 07.26.05 @ 9:47 am