Previous Post
Next Post

“Prominent non-Muslim political figures have embarrassed themselves by denying the self-evident connection of Islam to the Islamic State (ISIS) and to Islamist violence in Paris and Copenhagen,” opines, “even claiming these are contrary to Islam. What do they hope to achieve through these falsehoods and what is their significance?” It’s well worth clicking over to Mr. Pipes’ polemic; it lists all the mealy-mouthed misegos perpetuated by pandering pols post-Paris. Including, of course, President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson and former Democratic Party Chairman Dean’s statements. Which read as follows . . .

President Barack Obama tells the world that ISIS “is not Islamic” because its “actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith.” He holds “we are not at war with Islam [but] with people who have perverted Islam.”

Secretary of State John Kerry echoes him: ISIS consists of “coldblooded killers masquerading as a religious movement” who promote a “hateful ideology has nothing do with Islam.” His spokesperson, Jen Psaki, goes further: the terrorists “are enemies of Islam.”

Jeh Johnson, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security, assents: “ISIL is [not] Islamic.” My favorite: Howard Dean, the former Democrat governor of Vermont, says of the Charlie Hebdo attackers, “They’re about as Muslim as I am.”

Pipes’ explanation for American’s “leaders'” political correctness run amok:

First, they want not to offend Muslims, who they fear are more prone to violence if they perceive non-Muslims pursuing a “war on Islam.” Second, they worry that focusing on Muslims means fundamental changes to the secular order, while denying an Islamic element permits avoid troubling issues.

Translation: our politicians are cowards, pursuing a policy of appeasement.

As the son of a Jewish holocaust survivor, I feel especially aggrieved by my country’s rhetoric – and frightened. Resolute, mind you, armed certainly, but scared. Any society that deludes itself into thinking it can live side-by-side with people who wish to see its destruction is engaging in the most dangerous form of denial. How may bodies, how many decapitations and shootings and bombs do we need to see before we realize that Islamic fundamentalism is an existential threat?

Consider this wake-up call from the ironically anti-gun rights

Terrorism is a beast with an extraordinary ability to mutate. As soon as its victims have learned to cope with its methods, it develops new ones. Groups of anarchists throwing bombs follow the lone assassin who targets a king or a political leader. The hijacking of passenger jets is replaced by the transformation of aircraft into missiles against fixed buildings. All the time, the intention is to terrorize the largest number of people, eroding the ordinary man’s confidence in the ability of the authorities to protect him, and, in the long run, persuading a majority of the people, who just want to live their lives, to trade their freedom for the security that the terrorist promises in his utopia.

Paris was attacked not because of what the French do, as some blame-the-West intellectuals claim, but because of what the French are: infidels who refuse to see the light of Islam. The hope is that just as the Prophet forced the Arab tribes to accept Islam in exchange for protection, the “infidel” nations will also decide that it is in their best interest to submit.

I have little time for the “good Muslim/bad Muslim” arguments. Were there “good Germans” and “bad Germans” during World War II? Maybe so. But that didn’t stop Americans from taking direct, decisive and comprehensive action against the political and military structures seeking to destroy so-called Western values.

In the same way, we must not be afraid to oppose any Muslim or Muslim organization or Muslim state that rejects – and seeks to eliminate – the principles upon which this country was founded. The core principle being individual liberty. To paraphrase President Bush the younger’s pronouncement after the 9/11 attacks, either you’re for individual liberty or against it. Those who are against it are against us: Americans who embrace the concept of the sovereign citizen; and arm ourselves to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Paris cafe (courtesy

That is the “troubling issue” of which Mr. Pipes speaks. Where do you draw the line? People who kill innocent life in the name of Islam are, for anyone with half a brain, beyond the pale. They must be identified. They must face the full force of the law and, when necessary, destroyed. But what of gun control advocates, who are also against individual liberty? They don’t understand, acknowledge or accept the concept of a sovereign citizen. Are they the enemy, as well?

Yes. Yes they are. But there are enemies and there are enemies. Gun control advocates must be discredited and disabled within the confines of the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech from government infringement. Those who would take up arms against us to destroy our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights, whether they are Islamic fundamentalists or members of our own government, require a different and far more robust response.

As I type, the Turkish and American press is skewering President Obama for his less than adequate response to ISIS and its adherents. Clearly, he is not the leader we need to defend our country from its internal and external enemies. So, as we head for the next presidential election, I urge Americans to consider one key question: who has the moral rectitude and personal fortitude to do what needs to be done to degrade and destroy Islamic fundamentalism?

At the same time, I urge Americans to arm-up to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocent life from those who would gladly see us die to promote a cause that will not, can not, respect our life or liberty.

[h/t James]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. False flag event. Anything with this kind of press coverage is scripted.

    Not one of those little Froggies was packing, huh? Tell me more about how “gun free zones” are so great.

    • Maybe. Hearing/reading about this attack reminded me of a 1960s movie, “the Day of the Jackal.” It’s about a plot by the Foreign Legion to assassinate DeGaulle and it’s thwarted at the very last second as the assassin has his finger on the sniper rifle trigger.

      If it wasn’t a false flag event, this is an epic failure by the French intelligence and security departments. Like “heads will roll” failure.

      • When you are at war you do not prevent enemy actions. You use the best defensive measures to limit the damage and you use your offensive power to maximize the damage you inflict on the enemy. You cannot stop all the enemy’s attacks so don’t delude yourself into thinking that a particular measure will do the trick. There are lots of Israeli soldiers and police walking the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and yet there are still successful terrorist attacks.

      • It was an epic failure of intelligence in France. FIFY.

        Any country that allows huge numbers of immigrants, a certain percentage of whom they KNOW to be hostile to the host country, to establish themselves in a separate, segregated community within the nation’s borders into which the people, police and intelligence forces of that country CANNOT safely and routinely enter, is committing national suicide. Perhaps this will be a wake-up call for the too many European nations with the same dangerous evils festering within their own borders.

        Germany – Belgium – Sweden – Norway – ENGLAND. WAKE THE HELL UP!

        • There are very few real intelligence failures. Intelligence is a support function. We provide information to policy and decision makers. What you usually have are policy and decision failures. In this case the decision to allow unvetted refugees from an alien culture into your country and the inability of the West to wage Shermanseque warfare against a civilizational enemy are the problem.

          If you think intelligence can be made infallible then you have been watching too many spy movies. Intelligence is nothing more than informed speculation. Even lintelligence gleamed from inside sources and signals can be false and misleading. See Operation Fortitude.

    • Of course none of them were packing. French gun laws and culture have virtually eliminated any kind of carry by private citizens. Paris is not Tucson or Dallas.

  2. Not Islamic?

    Here’s the text of ISIS’s statement of responsibility.

    Islamic State
    Urgent: Statement about the Blessed Paris Invasion on the French Crusaders
    In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

    The Almighty said: “And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).” [Al-Hashr: 2]

    In a blessed attack for which Allah facilitated the causes for success, a faithful group of the soldiers of the Caliphate, may Allah dignify it and make it victorious, launched out, targeting the capital of prostitution and obscenity, the carrier of the banner of the Cross in Europe, Paris… Youths who divorced the world and went to their enemy seeking to be killed in the cause of Allah, in support of His religion and His Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and his charges, and to put the nose of His enemies in the ground. So they were honest with Allah, we consider them thusly, and Allah conquered through their hands and cast in the hearts of the Crusaders horror in the middle of their land, where eight brothers wrapped in explosive belts and armed with machine rifles, targeted sites that were accurately chosen in the heart of the capital of France, including the Stade de France during the match between the Crusader German and French teams, where the fool of France, Francois Hollande, was present.

    [They also targeted] the Bataclan Conference Center, where hundreds of apostates had gathered in a profligate prostitution party, and other areas in the 10th and 11th and 18th [arrondissements] and in a coordinated fashion. So Paris shook under their feet, and its streets were tight upon them, and the result of the attacks was the death of no less than 100 Crusaders and the wounding of more than those, and unto Allah is all praise and gratitude.
    Allah had granted our brothers their wish and gave them what they loved, for they detonated their belts in the gatherings of the disbelievers after running out of ammunition, we ask Allah to accept them among the martyrs and make us follow them.

    Let France and those who walk in its path know that they will remain on the top of the list of targets of the Islamic State, and that the smell of death will never leave their noses as long as they lead the convoy of the Crusader campaign, and dare to curse our Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and are proud of fighting Islam in France and striking the Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their planes, which did not help them at all in the streets of Paris and its rotten alleys. This attack is the first of the storm and a warning to those who wish to learn.

    Allah is Great

    “But honor, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad), and to the believers, but the hypocrites know not.” [From Al-Munafiqun: 8]

    • And notice how none of the main stream media have published this text.

      For fear of insulting Muslims. For fear of being politically incorrect.

      • I’ll write that on the nose of a few JDAMs on the next deployment.

        “Request denied, prepare to burn”

    • What should we do about the Muslim problem? As the article said, we do not have time to differentiate between good Muslims and bad Muslims. So let’s round them up and deport them, and not worry about it. This is nation is in danger, and from the smallest child, to the oldest man, they are dangerous. We cannot worry about petty details like civil rights now. If the government will not act, then private citizens will, killing every Muslims or Arab, just to be safe, that they can get their hands on. You cannot afford to judge an individual by their merits. No, and you cannot afford to ask them if they really believe in killing you. If they say that they do not want this, then it’s simply a lie designed to trick you. We must ban the practice of Islam in this country and kill every Muslim that we find. It is the only way to keep democracy and the constitution safe. That individual Muslims have no prior history of extremism is of no importance. They are simply sleeper cells designed to strike when you least expect it. All Muslim children are raised to hate you, and so you must hate them. Islam had declared war on the west, and this will surely bring their destruction.

      Now, you say that maybe the government does not have the tools to track everyone down. Well, I have good news for you. As soon as the attacks were over, we had politicians decrying the use of encrypted communication and privacy. We must end these things for the sake of security. We must restrict the freedoms of the people temporarily to get out of this mess. We need patriot act 2.0.

      It is simply to say that ISIS is the problem, but we know that the problem is Islam, and every single Muslim you meet. They secretly plot against you, and are not really Americans, even if they wear the facade. They simply are trying to trick you. Even if they call ISIS evil, they are simply controlled opposition. Every single one of them is a terrorist, every Muslim, and every Arab potentially too. Any evidence to the contrary is simply a disguise. They are clever and tricky.

      It should be obvious, that the above is sarcasm, but if it isn’t, maybe it’s because you’ve already met someone with similar ideas. You can expect violence to occur to more innocents, simply because they saw a woman with a hijab, or other such detail. ISIS is evil, but the many Americans who are Muslim are not. They are not your enemy, and their religion is not your enemy. To see evidence of this, just look at Assad. He is also a Muslim, and yet he is not interested in what ISIS has to say. The Kurds are also Muslims, and yet they fight ISIS. There are also Muslims in our military. Are they the enemy too?

      Freedom is difficult. It’s hard. We must judge individuals based on their actions, not because they have a religion that you do not like and do not fully understand. There is a reason most Muslims are not murdering infidels, and it isn’t because they are trying to trick you. It’s because they’re not interested in murder, as most people are not. I hope that nobody will decide to retaliate against disarmed Muslims in the coming months, because they too are innocent, but you and I know better. We know that they will even catch someone who isn’t a Muslim and will murder them out of ignorance. In this time, we must stand together against the enemy: ISIS, not all Muslims.

      • Well done. Loved the Poe’s Law.

        I served with Muslims in the military. I will not be part of the far right fascists who denigrate them simply for the name of their religion. Christianity has thousands of sects and even then the individuals don’t all believe the same exact things. Yet somehow all of Muslims are of one hivemind? The hate coming from the far right is atrocious and attaching this to the right to be armed is disgusting and hypocritical.

        • You decry painting all Muslims with the same brush and then carry out the identical slur against all conservatives. I for one am not interested in putting anyone in camps or wholesale deportation on religious grounds but I think you should slow your mouth down until your brain catches up.

        • Grindstone,

          I must have missed the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Allah. Surely he lived a peaceful life, and wasn’t a warlord who gave names like “gut ripper” to his weapons? Surely Muhammad never warred with and subjugated people, right?

          So if Muhammad lived a peaceful life, then I’ll eat my words and called Islam a religion of peace. If, on the other hand, Islam and the adherents thereof have a fundamental ideology that is anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-women, and anti-infidel, then the statements against Islam herein are accurate and appropriate. Maybe you’d be more comfortable in a politically-correct fantasy, but I am not.

        • No,…fascism is not Right-wing real estate. Fascism is a perverse Left-wing idea, all the way. That in itself causes waving red flags over your comment. The way you express yourself, you seem oblivious to the fact that it is not radicalized Christians who are carrying out terrorist attacks on innocents in Paris, it’s Muslims!! Where are the so-called moderate Muslims you speak of? Do you ever see a march of Muslims supporting America and proudly waving the Stars and Stripes? I sure-as-hell don’t.

          Willful blindness has never lead to wisdom…..ever.

        • Your statement lacks reason. But is does show your bigotry. Christians have not used suicide bomb vest or flown airliners into buildings with tens of thousands of people in them. You don’t have to go into their church. You have to take their religious material on some street corner.

          The Muslims in America will not be put into concentration camps like the 11,000 German Americans were. Or like the eight or nine thousand Italian Americans who were locked up and lost everything they owned. Or the tens of thousands of Japanese Americans who were locked up by the progressive democrat president.

          America is a much better place now. We have a half black president now if you have forgotten. Your fears are not based on reason and historical facts. But they do show how easy it to frighten and manipulate you into saying the most irrational things.

        • “Not denigrate them in the name of thier religion”?

          Let’s see, their religion is founded by a guy that committed mass murder; along with rape, pillage and plunder; And would chop your head off if you did not convert to his religion.

          To me, I would look at someone that followed and practiced the teachings of Muhammad; as I would look at people that practiced the beliefs and teachings of Genesis Khan, Atila the Hun or Charley Manson.

        • Oh that grindstone. Wants to be a democrat so badly he can’t stand it. Too bad he just can’t donate to the Hillary Clinton campaign using his Ebt card?

        • So Grindstone, let me make it even more blunt and to the point.

          Islam was founded by the beliefs and teachings of a mass murdering religious psycho.

          What am I supposed respect about the life and actions of Muhammad? What is there not to denigrate about the life and actions of Muhammad?

          What am I supposed to think about someone that holds Muhammad as an example to be respected and emulated?

        • Is it possible to have Islam without Sharia law? If a Muslim is not practicing Sharia law, they eventually will, or die. This is from my reading of the Koran. Did I miss something?

          • No. But not even Muslims agree on what is included in sharia — a lot of what some call sharia is actually cultural custom and not religious at all.

      • “As the article said, we do not have time to differentiate between good Muslims and bad Muslims.”

        Sounds identical to the challenges the grabber groups face with differentiating good guys with guns from bad guys with guns.

        • I said no such thing. We have to make a distinction between PEOPE who support our freedoms and PEOPLE who don’t.

        • @RF: Agree 100%. My comment, to which you replied, was a response to JAlan’s attempt at sarcasm and quoted his post for its ironic value and not to misinterpret your article. I kinda thought we were all saying the same thing. 🙂 Anyway, moving on….

      • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

        That said, however, when a religion exhorts, even demands, that its believers commit or condone illegal acts to coerce others who would prefer to freely exercise their own beliefs it loses the protections afforded a spiritual religion and becomes a secular enemy. No protestations of protection because they are worshiping Allah, the greatest god (The literal translation of Allahu Akbar is “Allah is greatest”, not Allah is great) can grant them carte blanche to forcibly convert or kill infidels.

        The irony is that the segment of radical Islam at the center of the problem is intentionally hiding behind our disgust over the Holocaust and positioning themselves as the aggrieved and persecuted in a so far successful attempt to make the western powers reluctant to address the larger political issues the radicals present to the stability (such as it is) of world order. We cannot sit idly by and watch these rabid anti-semites use the supposed persecution of Muslims as the same as the intentional genocide of the Jews as a shield while they systematically work to destroy western civilization and enslave the non-believers of the world.

    • ISIS is simply following the example set by their most perfect example of a disciple of Allah that was supposedly following the guidance of allah, the last prophet of Allah,

      People can choose to deny the historical and documented actions of mass murder, rape, pillage, plunder and conversion to Islam at the point of a sword by muhammad, but the followers of Islam know rhe truth.

  3. Where do we draw the line? If you want to harm me for living like a true American and your religion tells you to harm me.. You tell me, does that sound like as much warning as anybody could hope for?

  4. I say we take the fight to our violent detractors whenever we can identify our violent detractors. And we arm ourselves for the times when our violent detractors “slip through the cracks” and we suddenly find ourselves in the midst of an attack.

    As for taking the fight to our violent detractors, we do everything humanly possible to eliminate collateral damage. To wantonly disregard innocent life in our counterattack means that we are no better than our violent detractors.

    • So according to you we were no better than the Germans or the Japanese. They bombed cities, we bombed cities. They engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare and we engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare. They fought in cities and towns without respect to collateral damage. We fought in cities and towns without respect to collateral damage. They put people in concentration camps. We put people in [nicer] concentration camps. We are engaged in total war against a civilizational enemy. There are no limits now as there were no limits in WWII. The time for mercy is at the end the war not now. We should afford no more comfort to those living with ISIS then we did to Axis civilians and the citizens of allied countries that we had to liberate. To do anything less is to invite defeat.

      “You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.”

      General William Tecumseh Sherman
      to the Mayor and Councilmen of Atlanta

      • “They put people in concentration camps. We put people in [nicer] concentration camps. “

        They put people in gas chambers. We…didn’t.

        The internment camps were wrong and I really don’t want to see the US do that again. But to even pretend to equate the two is a bit disingenuous.

        Calling not outright murdering a few million people “nicer” is a nice euphemism.

      • It’s probably notable that during the attack on Pearl Harbor the Japanese fastidiously avoided civilians and any hospitals in their target area. While our counter attack was specifically aimed at civilians.

        But then shit got ugly all around and possibly the only thing to remember is that war is horrible dirty and corrupting business.

  5. “They must face the full force of the law and, when necessary, destroyed.”

    I’m going to go with destroyed in the case of the monsters that burned Paris down. Those arrested (and eventually convicted) dont deserve the free room and board that comes with life in prison. France needs to bring out the guillotine again.

  6. Boy, you will never hear Obummer say anything like the statement that Mr. Netanyahu spoke in that video.

  7. Hollande is stuck with a huge Muslim population in France. As far as our dear leader is concerned, his father was Muslim, his stepfather was Muslim, so what do you expect?

    • I expect, and I believe history will show, a president who is sympathetic to the aims of Islam and who, while he may not have directly assisted the efforts of radical Islam, has certainly done nothing effective to suppress it and has impeded the efforts of other leaders/nations to do so.

      He may not be a practicing Muslim, but I believe in his heart he supports their goal of a New Caliphate.

  8. “Gun control advocates must be discredited and disabled within the confines of the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech from government infringement. Those who would take up arms against us to destroy our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights, whether they are Islamic fundamentalists or members of our own government, require a different and far more robust response.”

    This is why we can’t have nice things. You couldn’t be more wrong here. Gun-control advocates fall into the exact same category: enemies of freedom. It’s perfectly fine to say “I don’t like guns and I don’t think you should have them”. It is a completely different thing to become a politician or government employee, elected or otherwise, and advocate for and pass laws that violate the bill of rights. Your acceptance of the idea that “terrorists” and gun-control advocates should be treated differently simply creates the perfect environment for the effect of their intentions to be realized. The Constitution allows you the right to say whatever you want as long as the politicians/government follow the rules of the people.

    One of those rules says that the “…right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. What is the most important part of that sentence? The most important part of that sentence is the period at the end. There are no “ifs”, “ands”, or “buts”. That is all. People either need to accept that firearm ownership is a core, fundamental, individual right of Americans or they can go elsewhere.

    If the first and second American politicians who advocated for civilian disarmament were shot right after the words were uttered, there would be no further attempts. If you don’t stop the bugs at the first sign of them, you’ll quickly find yourself with an infestation. As a result this inaction, California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc..

    • Great… Now get in your time machine and go way back to the very first politician that advocated for gun control and convince the people to shoot him dead.

      Chances are he was a white guy in the south promising to disarm the niggers so they might be more easily oppressed.

      What kind of welcome would you expect?

  9. Where do we draw the line between good Japanese Americans and bad Japanese Americans?

    Where to we draw the line between law abiding gun owners and criminals?

    Where do we draw the line between good cops and bad cops?

    Is an individual innocent until proven guilty or not?

    • Ain’t nobody got time for that, apparently. But it’s ok, we’ll just claim the actions of the few are representative of the whole (something we hate when MDA does to gun owners, but it’s fine when the far right does it to brown people who don’t bow down to the same idol as we do).

      And the slow march to fascism continues.

      • You’re being blinded by a false equivalency. National origin is not the same as religious belief. When a person follows the violent teachings of Muhammad – which he have objectively stated based upon the history of his life and the words of his teaching – then the outcome is predictable. Please, look up the life of Muhammad before you continue parroting the idiot liberal progressive meme that Islam is tolerant and peaceful.

        • “When a person follows the violent teachings of Muhammad – ”
          And there is the crux of it. All of this teachings weren’t violent, and more than 99.99% of Muslims don’t follow those violent teachings. But really, this isn’t the philosophical debate so many here keep turning it into. It is simple reality. There are a billion Muslims in the world. Very, very few of them are violently attacking non-Muslims in some kind of convert or die scenario. There is no mass global Muslim violent takeover. That’s just not real. It’s not happening. That is delusional.
          Moreover, to suggest that it is real is counter to the strategic needs of our nation. In order to defeat our actual enemies, the radical Islamic terrorist organizations and “ISIS”, which yes, are radical and Islamic, we need to separate them from the rest of the Muslim world. So many of you are uniting them. Literally uniting our enemy to a larger support base. We should be pointing out there differences, dividing them, not uniting them.

    • You are confused. Guilty until proven innocent is a concept for the courts, not the battlefield. In war there is collateral damage and blue-on-blue casualties. This is the kind of thinking on our side of the political fence that contributes to the carnage.

    • This demonstrates the error of conflating war with law enforcement, as we have done since Vietnam.

      When you’re dealing with an issue of law and law enforcement, then our system of justice is one of “presume innocence until proven, in a court, with a right of defense, guilt.”

      That’s fine when you’re dealing with individuals and individual actions.

      But… in a war, that’s simply not possible. And the demarcation between law enforcement and a war is, to my mind, simple. When you’re dealing with individual actions that lay outside the realm of acceptable behavior by you or the group to whom the actors belong, you’ve got a law enforcement issue and perspective (ie, innocence until proven guilty).

      When you’re fighting an idea… now you’re in the realm of war, and things get messy and dirty very quickly. When the issue is, what I like to call, a Big Idea (a defining ideal, something central that whips up people to a level where they’re ready to kill large numbers of other people to enforce their idea/ideal), you have war. Wars are classically the way nations/cultures/civilizations settle Big Ideas.

      In the Civil War, we were fighting a war of a Big Idea – and the Big Idea in the war was “should it be possible for one man to own another man as property?” That idea was the nut of the Civil War.

      In WWII, we fought Nazi fascism and Japanese military imperialism, both rooted in ideas of racial superiority. In the Cold War (and the dozen+ little hot wars throughout), it was a battle of democracy & human rights vs. communism. Communism has been the worst of all human Big Ideas, with the highest body count. Communists have a pile of bodies at least 60 million high to their credit. In my mind, the only good communist is a dead communist. There are no innocent communists. If we’re willing to hunt down and prosecute Nazis this long after WWII, then we should hunt down and prosecute communists – because the pile of bodies from the commies is at least 3X higher than the pile from the Nazis. Objectively speaking, communism is proven to be a more deadly Big Idea than Naziism.

      Our political leaders have done us a huge disservice since the the first modern Islamic terrorism 1970’s in refusing to admit that Islam is willing to kill huge numbers of people for their ideals. Islamic history proves that what we’re seeing now isn’t new, it isn’t a one-off or even infrequent in Islamic history. Islam has proven since their very inception that they’ve got a obsession with killing Jews. Read up on the Battle of the Trench to see the prototype battle of Islam in action.

      OK, you’re going to say “Oh, but DG, you keep yammering on and on and on about ancient history…”

      Very well. I’ll quit yammering about ancient history. Let’s talk instead about only 100 years ago – literally, 100 years ago. Go back to 1915 and ask the Armenians and Yazidi what they think of Islam. The Armenians were Christians. The Yazidi religion is unique, but it isn’t Islam. The Ottoman Turks, well, let’s just say they weren’t Methodists. 100 years ago, the Turks started a campaign of genocide against the Armenians – because the Armenians were Christian and not about to convert to Islam. NB, rape and sex slavery of Armenian and Yazidi women was a feature of that campaign, just as in the campaign today of ISIS against the Yazidi and Kurds.

      The word “genocide” was invented to describe this episode of history, BTW.

      Here’s the bottom line: We’re at war. Most people don’t want to admit it, and they’re not interested in a war with Islam. Islam, however, is interested in waging war on us. Our so-called leaders don’t want to admit it, but there’s a war here based on Big Ideas, and a disagreement over a Big Idea isn’t settled by law enforcement actions – it’s settled by war. And wars get messy. Innocent people get killed on all sides in a war.

      How messy? Well, people aren’t paying attention to the fallout in France. They’ve declared a 12 day “emergency.” Yes, that sounds all very nice. What people aren’t noticing is that in this declaration of “emergency,” there is no freedom of travel, there is no right against unwarranted search. The police can go anywhere and do nearly anything in their pursuit of who and what they want. The 12-day “emergency” is effectively a declaration of martial law, because the French military is now helping the police in these searches.

      As of today, the French president would like to extend that “emergency” declaration to 3 months. If the French extend that emergency to 3 months, you can bet both of your buttocks (and a few other things besides) that Obama will be paying very close attention to how that is received. French intelligence groups missed this attack coming – just as we missed 9/11. Think about what Obama will do if there’s a similar attack in NYC or DC.

      So here’s the bottom line: How much of your freedom are you willing to lose that we can maintain the fiction of the “innocent Muslim?”

        • The bad guys are refusing to honor the distinction between combatant and non combatant. In fact they seem to be aiming for the innocent, at least in Paris.

          We make an effort,not always successful, to hit the bad guys and leave the others alone. But it is war. Which is brutal and messy. If you cannot accept that innocents are going to get hurt in our reply to these atrocities then you need to move to a neutral country and pray the bad guys don’t come there as well.

          I love DG’s technical expertise about firearms and his apparent love of history, which I share with him. And he’s a damn site more eloquent than me. And there are times that I do not agree with his views on non gun items.

          But in this case he’s right.

      • “So here’s the bottom line: How much of your freedom are you willing to lose that we can maintain the fiction of the “innocent Muslim?””-
        Well there is another line. The one you cross when you start intentionally harming people who have never harmed the U.S., nor tried to, or the tens of thousands of Muslims that have fought along side of us. Or maybe you are just after the widows and orphans of the Muslim men who died fighting along side of us. When you cross that line you are nothing but trash. Trash to be destroyed, discarded and burned.

      • Sorry, but the “nut” of the civil war was state vs federal power. Slavery being one rather small division of the overall conflict. To think that the northern states would commit to a costly war for the sake of a people even they barely considered people is kinda silly.

    • “Where do we draw the line between good Japanese Americans and bad Japanese Americans?”
      They were Americans. That was the only line that should have mattered. Japanese inside the borders who were NOT Americans could have been deported or interred with reason. All others, in spite of fear and discrimination from their neighbors, should have been offered the full protection of their Constitutionally protected rights. Keep in mind that the most heavily decorated American fighting unit in the Second World War was not part of the United States Marines, it was the Japanese Americans who fought in Italy.

      “Where to [sic] we draw the line between law abiding gun owners and criminals?”
      Too easy. The line is bold and obvious – when the weapon is drawn with criminal intent the gun owner is no longer law-abiding. Up until that point he/she has exactly the same natural, civil and Second Amendment protections as everybody else.

      “Where do we draw the line between good cops and bad cops?”
      A good cop takes an oath to protect his community and the Constitution, and keeps that oath to the very best of his ability. A bad cop ignores his oath, acts in a tyrannical or even criminal manner, and assumes that his position of authority gives him immunity and protections not afforded to the citizens he is supposed to serve. A worse cop knows these things are going on and does nothing to stop or prevent them.

      “Is an individual innocent until proven guilty or not?”
      Yes, but…If you parade around in gang colors throwing gang signs and acting gangster you should rightfully be suspected of being a gangster until proven otherwise. If you walk into a Quickie Mart in the middle of the night wearing a black hoodie, a mask over your face, and your hand in your pocket you should be suspected of being up to no good. Not every proof of guilt requires a court trial and a jury verdict. If you saw a cougar walking down your neighborhood street would you take action to protect yourself and others from that animal, or would you wait to see if it was someone’s beloved and tame pet that just happened to get loose?

      The same goes for the followers of Islam. By associating with a group that has a known contingent of barbarous terrorists claiming to be working on behalf of the effort to dominate the world in the name of your religion you may face the same fate as the loose cougar. Until those Muslims who wish to actually live in peace and leave everyone else alone find a clear and distinct way to disassociate themselves from the radical Islamist terrorists they are in grave danger of being crushed by the same Juggernaut that will eventually defeat the Islamic fascists in their midst.

      • How exactly are they supposed to “disassociate” themselves? If you’re a guy working in a 7-11 in the US, just minding your own business, and some guy in France who happens to share your background shoots up a theater, what do you say to “disassociate” yourself from him when you already have nothing to do with him?

        It’s a “when did you stop beating your wife” type question. It presupposes guilt and evil intent on the part of the person being questioned. Most of spree killers we have hadhad in the US have been white guys. Should white guys have to “disassociate” themselves from that dangerous group within their number before we can trust them?

      • No offense Cliff, but the terrorists were all second generation “immigrants”.

        Being born on American soil does not make you an American. The dirt isn’t magical. Morals, culture and language make you American.

        If you are a practitioner of Islam, you will never be an American. Period.

        • I’m not sure American means what you think it means. All those Muslim soldiers in American army, what makes you more American than them?

        • Another person who preaches about what it is to be “American” while disregarding our constitution and centuries of tradition and law.


  10. Paris was attacked because of what the French (and other brainwashed/cucked Europeans) do, admit Muslims and other subversives from the Middle East into their land.

    • Exactly what I thought… very sad people don’t try to learn from the past and keep repeating it again and again. But hey, this time it’s not jews, it’s muslims… so it’s all good.

      But it’s even worst when we consider that we’re gun owners and all year long we always say to all anti-gun that we shouldn’t make any global thinking. We shouldn’t ban all guns for all gun owners if few of them are just bad sheep. And yet, when it comes to religion, we just can’t be just as objective.

      By doing so, Robert is now the new head of “Dads demand action against Muslim Violence”

    • Robert Farago is a descendant of a Holocaust survivor. Decedent means you are deceased – dead.

      As for your other comment:

      Fascism: “We have decided what is best for you. If you know what is good for you then you will not argue with us!”

      I believe that the efforts of radical Islamist terrorists fit this definition a whole lot better than attempting to apply it to people who are only attempting to defend themselves from being forced to submit to Islam or die.

    • “To paraphrase President Bush the younger’s pronouncement after the 9/11 attacks, either you’re for individual liberty or against it.”

      Ironically Bush Jr. was himself against individual liberty.

    • A: read up on what a facist is.

      B: nothing in that article was racist nor in any way impinging on anyone’s freedom. He stated clearly that we should NOT try to differentiate between good and bad Muslims. That we SHOULD differentiate between enemies and non enemies.

      That in my mind is a much clearer concept than dividing and sub dividing grouped of people along arbitrary lines hoping to weed out the worst in the process.

  11. Here’s where the rubber meets the road on the “ISIS doesn’t represent real Islam” and other such “no true Scotsman” fallacies about Islam:

    What do any of these commentators actually know about Islam?

    (insert sounds of crickets here)
    They have no credentials, much less any actual education in the study of Islam.

    OK, so what does the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, know about Islam?

    Well, he has a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree and a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad in Adhamiya. He’s at least a serious student of Islam – he’s invested a bloody big chunk of his life to studying it.

    But let’s employ some critical examination here: Is that “university” just some bunch of rag-tag mullahs dispensing Islamic screeds and issuing sheepskins? Nope, that is a for-real school:

    Here’s a little bit of background they give on themselves:

    “Al-Iraqia University (The Islamic University formerly), was established in 1989. It was the first university that taught Islamic Sciences to students from both Muslim and Arab world.”

    “Islamic Sciences.” OK, if we have such made-up degrees as “women’s studies,” then we can give them “Islamic sciences.” The Baghdad al-Iraqia University might not have the heft in the Islamic world that schools in Saudi Arabia have, but the nut of this issue is that the head of ISIS has a PhD in Islam. He’s got a for-real credential.

    Now, riddle me this: If a guy with a PhD in Islamic studies from a university that has been around since 1989 with a whole department called “Islamic Sciences” isn’t qualified to issue forth on “what is Islam?” then no one in the Islamic world is.

    In the US, where we have rampant credentialism posing as education, al-Baghdadi has the creds, the people claiming that his view “isn’t real Islam” don’t have the creds. Nor have they actually read the holy books of Islam… which, when read in the context of their time and culture, make Islam out to be as bloodthirsty and violent as historical accounts portray, and as violent as ISIS is being.

    • Well, here’s where the rubber meets the road for me:

      A quick Wikipedia search says there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. A quick Google search led to an article ( claiming up to 200,000 armed militants supporting ISIS. Which gives me a back of the napkin calculation of roughly 99% of Muslims who aren’t trying to kill me, at least under that banner. Add to that my own personal experiences working and hanging out with Muslims and I’m perfectly comfortable continuing to hang out and work with them.

      As for the question of what is “True Islam,” it’s hard for me to get past the sanity-check of asking what “True Christianity” is and reflecting on historical events like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. And I just can’t square whatever mindset justified those events with “love thy neighbor.”

      As for my credentials and education, they are few. I’m just a Dude with, like, an opinion, man. However, I do derive from (at least) 3 generations of ministers, and my dad has an MDiv of the not-mail-order variety. I’ve spoken with him about Islam and learned a few interesting things that never seem to come up in simple back-and-forth exchanges, such as that Islam considers Jesus a prophet. They just consider Mohammed a later / the last prophet. So, once again, it’s hard for me to square the notion that a faith that [also] reveres Jesus would generally condone slaughtering people who follow his teachings. Or random crowds of people doing everyday things.

      As for Islam condoning the killing of non-believers, well, I don’t recall enough of the particulars to speak authoritatively about that, but I did walk away from those conversations with my dad with the understanding that, as with the Bible and statistics, you can cherry-pick support for all manners of contradictory positions.

      • To your point about numbers: WWI wasn’t started by 1% of the population of Europe, or even 1% of any of the major powers. Neither was the 30 Years’ War, which was a nice little sectarian dust-up that killed about eight million people. Wars are usually not started by even a large plurality of people on either side. People just fall in after things get rolling.

        It certainly seems that Islam isn’t finding it difficult to find people who want to attack the west and die a certain death in the process. ISIS isn’t having difficulty in recruiting from Muslims in western countries, either. For me, the tipping point was reading of pampered young European women thinking that joining in the ISIS activities would be ‘fun’ – and then sneaking away from home and heading to Syria. Marketing is defined by how it peddles to young women. ISIS has figured out how to market themselves to pampered young women, and that’s makes them vastly different than other Aloha Snackbar outfits throughout time.

        • I can’t disagree with your assessment of the numbers and I don’t disagree with your concerns, but I also can’t bring myself to pass judgment on people solely on the basis of religious identification (that is to say, a self-applied label as generic as “Muslim”). To me the 99% is reason enough to continue treating everyone I meet with open trust and respect, while the 1% is more than reason enough to continue evangelizing armed self-protection and fighting the tireless battle against nitwit politicians who argue for taking away that option in the name of state-sanctioned “safety.”

      • I have also read that Islam allows for Christians to live in Muslim occupied lands if they pay a tax. As you say, there is a lot that doesn’t come out in back and forths and that is ignored by acts of terrorism.

        • Yes. This was called the jizya, and is a fascinating subject of research in the history of Islam.

          Sane males among those who were “people of the book” (ie, Christians and Jews) were allowed to remain in Muslim lands and not convert if they paid the jizya. Polytheists and believers in other religions were not allowed to remain in Muslim lands by paying the jizya.

          The jizya, basis for same, and collection requirements, are laid out in the Qur’an and the Hadith (especially the latter). There’s lots of sharia law that deals with this and other taxes and restrictions upon non-Muslims in Muslim lands.

      • “reflecting on historical events like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.”

        You answered this yourself…”historical events.”

        Those events are over. They are long in the past. The jihad is going on now.

        Don’t you think the “victims” of the Spanish Inquisition wanted to fight back? Don’t you think with the historical perspective of what violence a bunch of religious fanatics can wreak, they would have at least tried to stop it…by any means at their disposal?

        You have a lot more insight into the end game of such an endeavor, AND the information available to see it building. We are not peasants in the countryside ignorant of larger world events here. We can see this happening and we have the perspective to know it needs to be stopped.

      • The comments of a Christian minister, even if he is your father, about the core beliefs of Islam is hardly a compelling argument. You need to research Islam itself and the statements their leaders make (Death to America! Death to the Jews! comes to mind). You also need to actually read their religious texts for yourself, not rely on someone else to interpret them for you.

        I also have worked in the past for a company owned and operated by Muslims. My immediate superior was my very best friend at the time who pretended to be a good Muslim only out of fear of personal and social repercussions if he were to declare himself a non-believer. This is the conundrum that many Muslims face – they are NOT ALLOWED to declare themselves an infidel as it carries the sentence of banishment and/or death in their communities. Would you openly declare yourself agnostic or atheist if the penalty was to be hunted by your Christina neighbors and beheaded? That is why we don’t hear protestations from the 90% or so of Muslims who just want to be left alone.

        The Koran states that a Muslim may lie to and deceive an unbeliever. It says that it is right and proper to remove the head of an unbeliever or an infidel, to stone adulterers and homosexuals to death, and to demand that unbelievers either convert to Islam or pay a heavy tax, or they may be killed. This is a political tyranny disguised as religion.

        If you do your own research you will discover that Islam is the religion of peace. This sounds all very touchy-feely until you find that the accurate translation of the word Arabic word “islam” is submit or submission and the word for peace also means to submit. Therefore, the Islamic meaning of peace means that there is no more discord because everyone has submitted entirely to the authority of the Islamic leaders. Theirs is a peace of absolute submission, not free association and liberty. THAT is fascism.

        • The submission is a submission to no man, only to Allah. It’s the exact same thing Jews and Christians and some Buddhists and Taoist argue, they just all call it different things.

        • If I recall correctly Islam has no centralized leadership like a pope. How can we consider what some leaders in the faith are saying is more relevant than what other leaders in the faith are saying especially when they don’t or aren’t always working in conjunction with one another?

  12. good muslims/bad muslims… good jews/bad jews… good cops/bad cops… good firearms owners/bad firearms owners… yeah, let’s not try to enter into the details. I’m not a fan of Obama (not at all), but nobody even try to understand what he’s saying here. We should definitely stop making an overall hate against any muslims and start focusing on all terrorists (all of them, including islamic terrorist). No country, regardless how well armed and prepared we can be, could fight a spreading ideology (surely not against people that are ready to die for this ideology). Therefor, people should start to be ready to fight enemies, real enemies… and not try to englobe 2 billions people because of their faith (just because some of them are terrorists). It’s like trying to ban all guns because some gun owners are doing criminals activities. This kind of method won’t work, we all know it… why would it be any different with muslims and islamic terrorists? Most of the time, gov agencies and police already KNOW people that are radicals. They already KNOW where they are. In France, some of the terrorists were known by the police to be radicals… it’s like when we know someone has mental illness and own guns. Why are we waiting for a disaster to start to act? This doesn’t make any sense and that’s what we should start with. There’s well known radicals that preach violence, hate and prepare terror (and I’m not only talking about Washington DC or wall street)… we already know some of the places where radicals go. What are we waiting for to shut them down instead of going after anyone that would be named Mohammed? The direct hate against one group (for their ethnicity or religion) didn’t really turn well in the past… shouldn’t we try to learn from the past already?

    • So how are you going to square an agenda of “going after the people we know” with Constitutional civil liberties? Let’s leave aside political correctness.

      This is like the whole TSA security theater. We know full damn well who wants to hijack and blow up planes. Yet, we’re going through these bizarre bits of security burlesque to prove that we’re not singling out Muslim males with profiling. We’ve got TSA groping Mormon and Baptist grandmothers and making handicapped people remove their shoes in an effort to prove that we’re oh-so-enlightened and not biased against Muslim or middle eastern males.

      So you start a campaign to go after “those who we know.” OK, you’ve just admitted that you’re going to dispense with (at the very least), their freedom of speech/press, their Fourth Amendment rights, due process rights, etc. How are you going to square that up in court?

      The French have decided to do just as you say. They also have a list of people who they’ve been watching. They’re even now kicking in doors. Their “emergency declaration” has suspended civil liberties so that the police (aided by the military) can conduct sweeping search & seizure operations, and arrest those against whom they find evidence in warrantless searches.

      So… are you willing to tolerate that sort of suspension of civil liberties here in the US, so we can continue to say “Not all Muslims…”?

      • I’d rather suffer the consequences of honoring the civil liberties of those who don’t deserve any than the consequences of trying to play favorites with whose rights to suspend, when / for how long it’s OK and who gets to make those calls.

      • So what is your solution? We do know some criminals and terrorists but we won’t arrest them, we will just wait for them to do harmful actions to catch them?

        Going against people that are well known for be radicals and terrorists is exactly to prevent to have some B.S. global security measure such TSA and such (just like you describe).

        Yes, I’m all for going after people that are already WELL KNOWN for being radicals and terrorists by intelligence services and the police. Just like most of the time, we do know criminals, gangs and drug dealers… some of them have already been many times in jail and we still don’t do anything to prevent them to go back in the street to keep dealing and doing criminal activities. Do you prefer to not look at it to not see it?

        When terrorists are KNOWN for being radicals, there’s intelligence information about them. That’s something you can bring and defend in court. There’s leads and evidences that could be follow to mount a case. No need to violate anyone’s rights. But if I do know that you’re a drug dealer, I have proof you’re a drug dealer (and can do anything I could to get a valid proof)… so why should I wait for you to get caught after you do a very harmful act?

        Same thing with terrorist. If I know you’re a sleeping cell terrorist, I have proof you’re a radical and ready to commit terrorist attack, while should I wait? Sorry, but the best defensive strategy is not to stay passive about it… That’s my point.

        Intelligence services knew 9/11 was going to happen… they knew Charlie Hebdo was going to happen… and now we learn they knew the Paris attack was going to happen. I don’t think they were really pro-active. The more we wait, the more other people will get enough time to get ready for another attack… and the attack is happening.

        If I could search & seizure operations for 100 households… I would prefer to search 100 households that are already known for being radicals (and ISIS members) than 100 households that are only known for being muslims.

        That’s the difference between targeting any muslims and targeting islamic terrorists. As long as people will spend their time targeting muslims, it won’t be efficient. On almost 2 billions muslims, “only” 200,000 are part of ISIS… so why not try to focus all our effort on those 200,000 first instead to spread hate against 1,999,800,000 others?

        It’s like spreading hate against White people because some of them might be White Supremacists… That’s my point.

        • The problem is, as we’ve seen, we have a kakistocracy right now.

          eg: These clowns in DC turned the original increased, but delimited, powers of the Patriot Act into an authorization for a huge eavesdropping infrastructure by the NSA that is now re-re-authorized and the vote for which is unaccountable. The courts refuse to address the issue, and it hasn’t generated actionable intel that has prevented any attacks. But the NSA is now recording everything electronic here in the US and storing it until such time as they might have a warrant (which is doled out in secret by the FISA court) and then they can paw through the recordings they already have.

          So let’s say we carve out an exception for police to kick in doors “when we know who they are.”

          And what then if Hillary gets elected…

        • The problem, as usual, is that we try to have “more laws” (regardless if it’s on Gun Control or National Security) when we actually do already have all the laws we really need to stop the bad guys.

          But unfortunately, we know who are the bad guys but we don’t apply any current laws and we don’t punish them until it’s too late… More new laws or surveillance won’t change anything to the problem.

          And that’s why I’m saying it’s about time to act and target the bad guys most of intelligence services and police already know very well, and have perfectly identified.

          Just like we should already start to consolidate the south border to stop trafficking (from human, to guns and mainly drugs) before to even try to stop every small street drug dealer. Stop it at the source first…

  13. Let me see if I am understanding many of the comments here correctly.

    Because there is no such thing as an “innocent Muslim,” it impossible for any given Muslim to not want to kill me. Therefore I must declare war on all Muslims and presumably kill them first. This is my duty as a law abiding gun owner and proponent of civil liberties.

    What nuances am I missing?

    • Feel free to delete this comment in exchange for my “+1” down below. Salvatore said it more nicely than I did.

  14. ISIS aligns closely with the Koran. See: Sura whatever with the “strike the heads off of unbelievers” . More than a few verses. No I don’t believe all Muslims are terrorists-according to the terrorists everyone who doesn’t kill non-moose-lims are apostates. As I see Barry Soetoro whine about all this mess-we gotta’ let every Syrian in-not just Christians. Many millions of “moderate ” muslims-they are every one a target too…

    • No, ISIS abuses the Qur’an. I just finished reading a few hundred pages by a Muslim scholar that showed very nicely how they abuse the Qur’an the same way fundamentalist Christians abuse the Bible: they take things out of context both literarily and historically and ignore the picture of the whole. Now, with the Bible that doesn’t result in a lust for violence as it does with the Qur’an, but then the Founder of Christianity actually was peaceful and not a robbing, murdering primitive warlord with a thing for little girls.

      The big issue is that ISIS belongs to a recent strain of Islam which has decided it is right and ALL the other religious authorities in Islam are wrong, period. By pointing out that ISIS doesn’t represent all Islam, Obama is doing a good thing but he needs to realize that doing do is not an end but a starting point: a point from which to point out that these are idolaters who have put blood lust above Allah, and that Islam needs to clean its own house — because you’re right; they DON’T consider moderate Muslims to be Muslims at all. Without making the following points, the beginning point is… pointless.

      • The problem for Muslims is that ISIS’ interpretation has scriptural support. It’s “right there” in a plain reading. It doesn’t take much interpretation to arrive at al-Baghdadi’s position.

        • Yep. Especially when Muhammad, their last prophet of Allah, is the one that set the example of what a “good” muslim is in spreading Islam with mass murder and conversion to Islam at the point of a sword.

          Plus, that whole thing about being commanded to kill any muslim converting to another religion or becoming an athiest, makes it pretty hard to keep insisting that Islam is the religion of peace and have people believe it. At least, for those not blinded by the need to be politically correct.

      • Gee Roymond-what abuses do so-called Christian fundamentalists make> Salvation through the death,burial and resurrection of JESUS? Triune Godhead? Return of Jesus(very soon BTW)? Heaven,hell, angels ,demons? Right /wrong? Sin?Inerrancy of scripture? Opposition to homosexual “marriage”?,Priesthood of all believers? Let me know…pretty sure your ISIS buddies would be right at home with the 7th century pervert(illiterate) child molester founder of Mohammedism. BTW-many of us dumb hicks are familiar with the writings of the “prophet”-we don’t need a muslim “scholar” to ‘splain it to us.

  15. The problem becomes when people start to hate average Muslims who have done nothing wrong, who don’t support fundamentalist Islam, who condemn ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc., and who want nothing more than to worship in peace. Radical Muslims are the problem. Don’t misconstrue who the enemy is.

    • When everyone in the crowd is wearing the same uniform but only 10% of them, randomly dispersed, are shooting at you, how do you “construe” who the enemy is? Can you not construe that those other 90% who are not stopping the shooting are also to some degree your enemy?

      I belong to what is considered by many as a non-standard religion, but we do not advocate nor actively engage in the violent proselytization of others to our beliefs. If I discovered such an element in the group I would not walk away – I would run as fast as I could and declare them my enemy. I do not see a lot of that coming from so-called mainstream Muslims.

      • From 10 people owning and carrying a gun, how can you find out who’s the one that will use it to harm people instead of defending himself?

        So, all gun owners are responsible for the tiny percentage of people that are bad gun owners…
        Very similar thinking than anti-guns people.

        Oh and Ben Shapiro video isn’t based on facts… another propaganda video (not a big surprise than an Orthodox Jew just hate Muslims… just like a lot of Muslims hate Jews. Nothing new here, it’s been the case for thousands years already)

  16. Seems like the difference between the radical muslim and the peaceful muslim is that the radical muslim wants to kill you, and the peaceful muslim wants the radical muslim to kill you.

  17. The problem I see with these conversations is that it weakens us as the defenders of the 2A. There are many Muslims who stand with us in our cause of defending this country and defending 2A, and this sort of thing is truly offensive to them. Stereotypes should be left to the antis. Blaming an entire religion for the acts of these numb nuts is asinine. The majority of people both fighting ISIS and getting killed by them are Muslims. Here is a fact, most American Jews vote Democrat, the party of Civilian disarmament. Are they therefore to be trusted? Most violent crime in this country is perpetuated by Blacks. Are they therefore to be trusted? most mass shootings have been done by white American males. Are they to be trusted? (according to the far left the white gun nuts are the problem) That would be three asinine generalizations wouldn’t it? Yet Muslims, of whom only a tiny minority are terrorists, are all not to be trusted? Got it.

    • OK. Let’s talk about that.

      Here, I’d like you to read over this Pew survey of Muslims in the US, and get through all of it. There are quite a few important questions in here.

      I would like people to NB is the questions/answers on pp 31 & 32, then pp 53 & 54. NB not only the overall percentage, but notice the shift in opinion with age. NB the views held by males under 40.

      Now, when you’ve finished reading that, please get back to me on that “tiny minority” contention.

      • If you like to read so much, you might want to FactCheck some of those numbers…

        Just like Anti-Guns saying that 100% of the homicide by firearms were using firearms, therefor we should ban them to bring the number to 0… That’s a way to see “facts” and “numbers”.

        It’s really a shame that Gun owners aren’t smart enough to recognise an intellectual trap like the division of population over a religion matter. We should better stay focus on defending our rights to defend ourself, to defend our family, our country, regardless any other consideration and against any enemy (foreign and domestic). As simple as that…

    • For all those who point to the texts of other religions and point out the fire-n-brimstone passages in the Bible/Torah/whatever (which is a correct thing to do in this discussion), let’s consider this. Let’s use the Comedy Central show South Park as an example.

      South Park has made fun of:
      – Christianity, and in particular Catholics
      – Judaism, and Jews (relentlessly – and one of the founders, Matt Stone, is Jewish)
      – Scientology (Isaac Hayes was a Scientologist)
      – Mormons
      – Islam’s prophet, Muhammad – but not Islam itself.
      – and other religions in “Super Best Friends.”

      OK. Which is the only religion that has made them pull down episodes? Islam. And mind you, South Park’s ridicule and derision heaped upon the other religions completely outstrips anything done to Islam. The derision heaped upon the Catholic church, in particular, makes every other target seem pale by comparison. Do Catholics make bomb threats in response? No. South Park ripped the crap out of Mormonism in both South Park and with their Broadway play, “The Book of Mormon,” but the LDS church was polite and defended the right of Parker & Stone to do what they did.

      Muslims sort of make themselves stand out when they start making lethal threats – and in the case of Charlie Hebdo, carry them out.

  18. The problem with polling Muslums for their Opinion is that lieing ( along with cheating stealing killing and raping) is totally accepted, so you dont really know what their opinion is, accept that if they follow and believe the Quran then you probably aren’t getting the truth.

  19. The difference between Judeo christian values and Islam, is the way in which the believer is guided thru life.. The bible teaches it’s believers, with an emphasis on honesty, kindness and treating your fellow man with dignity, while the Quran teaches conflict, confrontation, killing, and contempt for their fellow man.

  20. It’s concerning when so many people, presumably so set against infringing on the Second Amendment would so readily infringing on the very essence of the First.

    Positively appalling.

  21. To head off the argument here, let’s get one thing clear: I myself never said that there was a “Tiny Radical Muslim Minority”. Quite the contrary. I’m aware that, depending on what part of the world you’re in, you could find that most of the local Muslims support radical Islam, sympathize with radical Islam, or oppose radical Islam. I do my research. Here. Have an infodump. This is just a fraction of it.

    “4 in 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country.”
    “1/5th of British Muslims sympathize with the ‘feelings and motives’ of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July [article is from 2006]”.
    “99% thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity”.
    “91% of British Muslims still feel loyal to Britain.”

    Almost 1 in 4 British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified.

    “Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable.”

    “It does not appear that the views of US military presence are affected by the approval of the host government. Even if the government has requested the US forces, majorities or pluralities oppose their presence. Respondents were offered two statements about the hosting of US forces by a Muslim country’s government. ‘When requested by the government of a Muslim country, the presence of Western troops can be helpful for security and stability.’ The second statement said that ‘Even when requested by the government of a Muslim country, the presence of Western troops in a Muslim country is a bad idea.’ The second statement was preferred in all of the seven publics who heard the question. It was selected by majorities in Egypt (86%), Jordan (63%), the Palestinian territories (59%), Turkey (56%) and Indonesia (51%). It was selected by pluralities in Pakistan (49% to 16%) and Azerbaijan (49% to 32%). It is noteworthy, however, that Palestinians had the largest minority seeing US troops as an acceptable presence under the right conditions (33%).” [page 10]

    “Hezbollah receives its most positive ratings in Jordan, where 55% of Muslims have a favorable view; a slim majority (52%) of Lebanese Muslims also support the group, which operates politically and militarily in their country. But Muslim views of Hezbollah reflect a deep sectarian divide in Lebanon … [m]ore than nine-in-ten (94%) Lebanese Shia support the organization, while an overwhelming majority (84) of Sunnis in that country express unfavorable views.”
    “While views of Hamas and Hezbollah are mixed, al Qaeda – as well as its leader, Osama bin Laden – receives overwhelmingly negative ratings in nearly all countries where the question was asked. More than nine-in-ten (94%) Muslims in Lebanon express negative opinions of al Qaeda, as do majorities of Muslims in Turkey (74%), Egypt (72%), Jordan (62%) and Indonesia (56%). Only in Nigeria do Muslims express positive views of al Qaeda; 49% have a favorable view and just 34% have an unfavorable view of bin Laden’s organization.”
    “At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion. Majorities of Muslims in Jordan and Nigeria also favor these harsh punishments.”
    “When asked for their views about democracy, majorities in most of the Muslim communities surveyed say that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government. This view is especially widespread in Lebanon and in Turkey, where at least three-quarters of Muslims (81% and 76%, respectively) express a preference for democratic governance. Support for democracy is less common in Pakistan, but a plurality (42%) of Muslims in that country prefer democracy to other types of government; 15% of Pakistani Muslims say that, in some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable, and 21% say that, for someone like them, the kind of government their country has does not matter.”
    “Many Muslims see a struggle between those who want to modernize their country and Islamic fundamentalists. Only in Jordan and Egypt do majorities say there is no such struggle in their countries (72% and 61%, respectively). … Eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan say suicide bombing and other acts of violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies are never justified; majorities in Turkey (77%), Indonesia (69%) and Jordan (54%) share this view. Support for suicide bombing has declined considerably over the years. For example, while 74% of Muslims in Lebanon said these violent acts were at least sometimes justified in 2002, just 39% say that is the case now; double-digit declines have also occurred in Jordan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia.”

    And so on. It goes on forever. I’m not disputing that there are many–and, in some countries, perhaps even most–Muslims who, to varying degrees, think that ISIS and other such outfits are justified in doing what they’re doing. The statistics are there, from numerous different sources [no, none of them are Fox News, with their big bag of bullshit]. I’m not disputing that. I’ll just repeat exactly what I said before: “The problem becomes when people start to hate average Muslims who have done nothing wrong, who don’t support fundamentalist Islam, who condemn ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc., and who want nothing more than to worship in peace. Radical Muslims are the problem. Don’t misconstrue who the enemy is.” There was a time when Christianity was just as gung-ho about murdering people who believed differently as radical Islam is right now. This stuff comes in waves. No religion is immune. India, with its Hindu majority, is having a huge problem right now with people attacking, in some cases murdering, Muslims accused [often with no evidence] of eating beef [Hindus consider cows to be sacred]. Good luck finding an organized religion that is free of people committing violence in its name. To put the blame on average Muslims for what the crazy assholes are doing is just as misguided as blaming your average Catholic for the fact that sexual abuse was and is widespread throughout the clergy, or an average Mormon for the fact it has its roots in racism and misogyny and has radical, excommunicated offshoots that perpetuate sexual violence against children. Nothing good is at the end of the road of demonizing an entire group of people for the actions of some within that group. Chances are you know some Catholics who are perfectly good people and who wholly and unambiguously are disgusted by the actions of the clergy. You don’t blame them for what they had no hand in and do not support. Remember that ISIS is itself openly killing Muslims in areas they control who do not agree with them. As with any religion, there are sects and different areas of belief everywhere. Just look at Christianity. The number of different “sects” is astounding. Baptist. Lutheran. Episcopalian. Catholic. Born-Again. Charismatic. It goes on. A very long lost. So don’t throw all Muslims under the bus because of what these groups are doing–that’s what those groups want. ISIS *wants* you to hate average Muslims, to discriminate against them, in order to force them out of society and make them feel like radicalizing is the only way they will survive []. If you fall into this trap, you’re playing right into ISIS’s hands. Good job.

  22. The only logical solution is to ban Islam, but we can’t have that because our Jewish puppet masters fear that they’ll be next.

Comments are closed.