Thread: Religion of Peace ?

Obama wants to negotiate with Iranians - the same folks who executed this woman for killing her rapist:



http://allenbwest.com/2014/10/iran-e...killed-rapist/

Religion of peace strikes again: Pakistani Christian man and pregnant wife burned alive

Written by Allen West on November 12, 2014

Yesterday we shared the words spoken by President Obama’s special envoy on ISIS, retired Marine General Allen, who told a gathering on Monday in Kuwait, “we must also tell a positive story, one that highlights our respect – our profound respect for Islam’s proud traditions, its rich history, and celebration of scholarship and family and community.”

Sadly today I was emailed a copy of a letter sent by Catholic League President Bill Donahue to President Barack Hussein Obama on a most heinous and sickening incident in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — relating to its archaic and barbaric blasphemy laws.

As reported by the Catholic News Agency, “The reported killing of a Christian couple in Pakistan by a mob on Tuesday has sparked calls for the nation’s government to protect its people, and especially its minorities. “The burning alive of a Christian couple is a test case for our government. Our government must provide protection to all citizens and especially to the poor and downtrodden Christians,” Fr. James Channan, O.P., director of the Peace Center Lahore, told CNA Nov. 4 in an email interview.”

“That morning, Shahzad Masih and his wife Shama, a Christian couple, were allegedly killed and their bodies burned by a mob after they were accused of desecrating the Quran. The couple lived in Kot Radha Kishan, a city located nearly 40 miles southwest of Lahore. The wife Shama was pregnant, and the couple had three additional children.”

I challenged the politicized words of General Allen as bad policy and reiterate that position. A year ago in the summer I had the honor to meet a young Pakistani Christian woman named Julie Aftab who, because of her refusal to convert to Islam was attacked and had acid thrown on her and down her throat.

And even when taken to the hospital for treatment, she was shot because the rumor was spread that she had offended Islam — the Muslim doctors refused to treat her. Blessings of God that Julie was rescued from that horrific situation and brought to America. She now lives in Houston and I understand she’s about to be married and has finished her undergrad studies there.

What manner of barbarism is this? And what manner of cowardice refuses to denounce it, preferring games of political correctness? Another bad policy.

This recent story from Pakistan where the Christian community lives in constant fear is chilling.

Here is a short synopsis,

“Legal Evangelical Association Development, a Pakistani minority rights group, was told by Muhammad Rafique, one of the Masihs’ coworkers, that following the recent death of Shahzad’s father, Shama collected some of his things, burning them and throwing the ashes in the garbage. According to Rafique, their employer noticed this, and charged that some of the burnt pages were from the Quran; he then detained them. They owed him money, and he refused to release them without being paid. It was then announced from local mosques that the couple had desecrated the Quran, and a mob forced their way into the room where the Masihs were held, beat them, and then burnt them alive in the kiln’s furnace.”

Here is the entire letter sent to President Obama by Catholic League President Donahue yesterday. http://34stby2ora6b105yxl1yqt7219yg....dent-Obama.pdf

I suppose even presenting this story will once again earn me the label of “islamophobe” — feel free. I will not relent in reporting this savage barbarism that we believe can be conquered by appeasement, dismissal or calling a different name. Is this a Pakistani version of “workplace violence?” I encourage you all to copy this letter and send it to the White House, attention President Obama, State Department attention John Kerry, office of Senator Mitch McConnell, and office of House Speaker John Boehner, and demand cutting off all foreign aid to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until they revoke their insidious blasphemy laws and also release the Pakistani doctor who identified Obama bin Laden — Dr. Shakil Afridi.

We must stand for human rights and I am waiting to hear from the women’s rights groups appalled at the heinous torture and murder of Shama and her unborn child.


http://allenbwest.com/2014/11/religi...-burned-alive/

A Brief History of Islam

In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east.

Imperialistic

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

Colonialist

The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist rulers did not have to pay.

Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:

Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not;
Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not;
Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and
Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.

In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the conquered lands became second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land."

We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.

In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.

The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.

[continues ... )

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

But let us return to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem

The U.S. News article states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as it goes. The article goes on to say, "most Muslims [will] tell you about Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred." Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam, beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.

When we left our truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads, Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps most important, the decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to Islam became the Muslim policy.

In approximately 750, the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s; building small mosques on the top of Christian churches; enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches; attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem; etc.

Why the change after nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is a general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important priority; their later caliphs had no first-hand remembrance of Mohammed; the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers being established in Spain, North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc.; and the instability of the caliphates and resulting civil wars.

The point about conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist only with little significant forced conversion content. With respect to Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run by western religious orders reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European ties were victorious in a civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim funds when pro-western rulers came to power.

So much for the PC, U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the Crusades, "the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the battle of Portiers?

The following is just an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians by Muslims.

But let us move on to the Crusades themselves.

The Crusades

First, a word about my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the Crusader's acts, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts.

A question occurs to me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word" Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?

Let us rewrite the beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."

Now, I fully realize that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes. However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie, which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.

( continues )

To beat the dog one more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.

Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of course! In the 20th century alone:

1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.

2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.

3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.

4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.

5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.

6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.

7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.

8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.

9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.

10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.

11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.

12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.

13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.

14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.

Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?

Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism."

Yes, I also know that in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history. But in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial, bloody wars unabated.

One final point. Muslims base their claim to the city of Jerusalem upon the belief that Jerusalem has been a Muslim city for centuries. It may be that Muslims were never a majority in Jerusalem. We cannot prove this for all time periods, but we know that Muslims were a minority in the first several centuries after the Muslim imperialist conquest and during the century of Christian occupation during the Crusades. And we know that in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem was not considered important to the Muslims, but it was to the Christians and Jews. The Muslims made cities other than Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian colony. Many Caliphs never even visited Jerusalem. Therefore, there was a steady stream of Jewish and Christian (but not Muslim) immigrants into Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, including a major immigration of Karaite Jews in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, and a steady stream of Armenians for hundreds of years, until there were so many Armenians that an Armenian Quarter was established in Jerusalem. Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of Muslim population in Jerusalem:

1844 -- 33%

1896 -- 19%

1910 -- 13%

1922 -- 22%

1931 -- 22%

1948 -- 24%

1967 -- 21%

1972 -- 23%

1992 -- 25%

Richard C. Csaplar, Jr., is a member of the Board of Trustees of Regent University and an attorney with Day, Berry, and Howard of Boston, Massachusetts, where he specializes in financial law.

... thus ends the lesson ...

Obama Sides With Muslim Brotherhood Over Al-Sisi In Islam Debate, Insists Islam Is ‘Religion Of Peace’
Egyptian president says Islam's radical way of thinking is "antagonizing the entire world."
Peter Brown — January 13, 2015


Obama has sided with traditionalist Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood over modernizers such as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

The current Obama administration policy uses Brotherhood-aligned groups in the United States to re-educate potential jihadis.


Al-Sisi, on the other hand, called for a meeting Jan.1 at Islam’s leading seminary and questioned traditional doctrines of the religion.

He said, “Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is seven billion — so that they themselves may live? Impossible!”

He went on to say during the speech:

“That thinking — I am not saying ‘religion’ but ‘thinking’ — that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!”

Obama has repeatedly praised Islam as a “religion of peace.”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/oba...gion-of-peace/

Latest ISIS Propaganda Video Shows Young Boy Executing ‘Spies’
January 14, 2015 By TPNN Staff Writer



As the Obama regime continues to make the claim that ISIS is not representative of Islam, the Paris terrorist attack by Muslims who shouted “We avenged for the Prophet Muhammad,” and still contends that the murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood by Muslim Nidal Malik Hasan, who shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ was workplace violence, ISIS continues to slaughter people and make videos to show off their atrocities.



In the latest propaganda video released by ISIS, a young boy is shown executing two Russians accused of spying. The boy, believed to be from Kazakhstan, previously appeared in another ISIS propaganda video which featured children being trained with AK-47’s.

http://www.vocativ.com/world/isis-2/...child-soldier/

The video has been edited by Vocativ so that the actual graphic execution is not shown. However, the video is still disturbing not just for what happened to the men who were killed, but because of the words uttered by the older ISIS member and the celebratory stance of the young boy after the killing. http://www.vocativ.com/world/isis-2/...child-soldier/

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/14/horri...ecuting-spies/

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

YAHOO NEWS LEFT OUT CRUCIAL DETAIL IN AIRASIA ‘ALLAHU AKBAR’ STORY
Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 9:55 AM

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Yahoo News sourced their version of this article to the New Straits Times Online. So I went to this website and found the original article http://www.nst.com.my/node/69503 and it turns out Yahoo News left something very important out

Analysing the recording while listening to their final words like “Allahuakhbar” repeatedly, give the investigators goose bumps, Nurcahyo said.

“It is as if we can feel them… Allahuakhbar, Allahuakhbar were the last words said before they died,” he said referring to his experience examining black boxes from past crashes.

The phrase “he said referring to his experience examining black boxes from past crashes” was completely left out of the Yahoo News story even though the story is almost identical word for word. Why they would omit such a crucial detail, I’m really not sure. But I certainly can’t do that which is why I’m bringing it to your attention.

http://therightscoop.com/revealed-la...#ixzz3OvyVrKB7

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge January 14, 20015

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles[I]
by Wochit 1:00 mins

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

https://screen.yahoo.com/white-house...124405904.html

Coincidence ???? Cross Posted.

BTW ... just today I find that my posts are not showing us when I enter them. There is a slight delay, several minutes; is this happening to anyone else ?? Glitch - updates - NSA ??

White House spokesperson Josh Earnest yesterday defended the release of five more GITMO unlawful enemy combatants by stating it is the existence of GITMO that is inspiring attacks by extremists.

Well, let's do a simple analysis.

Did GITMO inspire the heinous execution of Leon Klinghoffer -- who was thrown off the cruise ship Achilles Lauro sitting in his wheelchair?

Did GITMO inspire the Beirut barracks bombing in October 1983?

Did GITMO inspire the Khobar towers bombing or the bombing of the US Embassies in Africa?

Did GITMO inspire the bombing of the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Towers, or September 11, 2001?

Did GITMO inspire Nidal Hasan to stand upon a table shouting "Allahu Akhbar" while gunning down unarmed Soldiers and DA civilians?

Was GITMO the inspiration for the beheading of a woman at work in Moore Oklahoma?

I am sick to death of the Obama administration operating under the ruse of a policy that blames America for the barbaric and savage actions of an enemy they cannot even bring themselves to define -- remember former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called it "man caused disasters."

It must be evident to all that the progressive socialists of Barack Obama's ilk are incapable of defending and protecting the United States. Their misguided sense of politically correct benevolence only serves to embolden the enemy, which they are aiding and abetting by replenishing their force.

Still Think Islam Is A Religion Of Peace?
You Won’t After Seeing This
Tim Brown April 21, 2013

While many in the media, including Fox News, CNN, the Washington Post and others, including politicians like Barack Hussein Obama and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) continue to promote the lie that Islam is a "peaceful religion," Freedom Outpost is allowing David Wood of "Answering Muslims" to respond to their claims from the Qur'an, in context, to demonstrate the lie that is being perpetrated on the American people that Islam is a religion of peace. Many of my own friends think Islam is harmless, but the reality of the Qur'an's teaching tells us something very different. If you have any doubts that Islam is not a peaceful religion, this short video clip should convince any thinking person to reconsider an evaluation of Islam.



Here's one of David's tweets to WhyIslam following the Boston Marathon bombing. David is calling into question the out right lying and deceptive practices of those in Islam in only revealing what they want to and then twisting even what they reveal to further their cause of jihad.

WhyIslam @whyislam

"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills A SOUL unless for a soul or for... http://fb.me/1O6dlrNiq

David Wood @Acts17

@whyislam How about quoting the next verse for once?
You know, the verse that calls for the slaughter of those who "make mischief."

10:39 AM - 19 Apr 2013

Wood puts in context the verse often cited by politicians and media pundits to affirm Islam is peaceful. They claim:

Qur'an Sura 5:32 – For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

This is cited "to the children of Israel," not to Muslims. In fact, it is taken from the Mishnah Sanhedrin, which reads, "Adam was created alone to teach you that if anyone destroys one life, Scripture recokons it as if he had destroyed a whole world; conversely, if anyone preserves on life, Scripture reckons it as if he had preserved a whole world."

However, Muslims like Rep. Keith Ellison does not want to expose what is commanded of Muslims. He calls for context. So, Wood gives him context and here is what is in the very next verse, which is not about Israel, but about Muslims.

Qur'an Sura 5:33 – The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

You see my friends Islam quotes out of context the verse and applies something meant for Israel to themselves, but they never tell you what they are commanded to do and why.

Thank you David Wood for making this point! Absolutely brilliant!

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/st...AhB7TlKToXj.99