Union Jack over Yorktown

Let’s cut to the chase. Islam, as it exists today, is a ‘religion’ (sic) that seeks to either convert or kill infidels. I am unaware of any significant faction of Islam that has come out and set itself in opposition to this. Admittedly, there are some individuals who have publicly stated that they repudiate this policy, but they are then immediately forced into hiding or condemned to languish in some sort of (U.S.) government-sponsored protection program.

As such, strictly speaking, Islam is not a religion but a ruthless mercenary movement that is often exploited by secular enemies to inflict pain on one another. This is where Islam derives its funding and power. If communism should succeed in bringing down the Free World with the help of Islamist extremists, Islam would find itself crushed within the span of less than a decade. Most Islamists are not smart enough to know that they are merely the pawns in a much larger fight for world supremacy.

In India, as soon as a Christian church is built somewhere, within days a mosque springs up within earshot. Often noisy open-air celebration are quickly organized to intrude on Christian high holy day celebrations. The police is brought in to keep things from getting out of hand. Hindu Temples are now closed to non-Hindus because it has been noted that Muslim visitors tend to make a nuisance of themselves. In order to keep from pointing a finger at the troublemakers, any non-Hindu is now prohibited from entering most sacred Hindu shrines.

Islam is not tolerant of other religions. It does not seek to coexist peacefully. In fact, Muslims who renounce Islam are under threat of death.

It is a fact that AQ conducts its terror all over the world under the banner or Islam. Again, no faction of Islam has come forward to denounce AQ’s repeated atrocities in its name.

Islam cannot win militarily. It seeks to achieve its aims through propaganda, terror and threat. In it’s dealings with non-Islamic states, it is permitted - even encouraged - to lie to secure its advantage. Therefore, any agreement with Islamists - signed or secured with a handshake - is not worth spit.

Lastly, all manner of myths have sprung up surrounding the 9/11 attacks on New York’s World trade Center. One is that Bush personally had a hand in it. Shrug. Another is that no Jews died because they were alerted to what was about to happen. Shrug. Let me suggest a third: Nadler mentions that Muslims also died in the attacks. This is not difficult to accept. Islamists, after all, show little regard for their own anywhere in the world. It is a fact that many more Muslims have died since AQ’s reign of terror than non-Muslims. Nadler may also be technically correct because the hijackers also died on 9/11. However, I have heard of no Muslim innocent dying as a result of the 9/11 outrage. A cursory scan of the internet does not lend credibility to the assertion that innocent Muslims died. If any had, I’m sure their families would have been repeatedly trotted out in front of the TV cameras.

I don’t see how the Carmelite Nuns example figures into the argument. What I do see is akin to the Union Jack being raised over Yorktown to presage the war‘s end in favor of the enemy.