For decades the Communists informed us that they only wanted "peace" with us and that, since that was their ultimate goal, we had absolutely nothing to fear from them. The only problem was that our definition of peace was a tad different from theirs--same word--diametrically opposed meanings. The Red version of "peace" meant, and still means to this day, "absence of resistance to Communism." A lot of folks still don't realize that. Unfortunately, our situation with the Muslim world and its religion and worldview doesn't seem to be that much different.
Over a year ago I wrote an article about Muslim terrorism. Someone I know emailed me and told me that my article could have been written by the Anti-Defamation League, and he obviously disagreed with it. He tried to explain to me how peaceful the Muslim really were regarding Christianity. Needless to say, on this one issue, we disagree. So, just for the record, I hold no brief or sympathy for the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionists, or the Muslims. Both the religions of Judaism and Islam deny the divinity of Jesus Christ as God's Son and the Trinity as well--so I disagree with them both. I suspect that may make a few folks mad at me, but then, what else is new?
Having said that, I will move on to what some Muslims seem to be doing today at places like Fort Hood, Texas. When the news of the Fort Hood shootings first broke, Comrade Obama cautioned people against "jumping to conclusions." It would seem that the "conclusion" he was afraid people would jump to was that the Fort Hood incident was one more case of Muslim terrorism.
From everything I've been able to read so far, any government investigation of this horrible incident will take great pains to pussyfoot around the terrorist aspect and may well become the "Warren Report" of the Fort Hood case. We've all read about the "lone, psychotic gunman syndrome" for almost every political shooting since Lincoln's.
Pastor Chuck Baldwin wrote an article for News With Views.com in which he asked some pertinent questions. He wondered why qualified soldiers were not allowed to carry their own weapons on base. He stated that made about as much sense as not allowing airline pilots or teachers to carry their own weapons for self-defense. He noted the judges have the authority to carry their own weapons in the courtroom. He said: "If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers." That's plain logic. But don't look for logic to prevail in our present political climate.
Pastor Baldwin noted that the shooter, (excuse me, I meant "alleged" shooter), Major Nidal Malik Hasan had tried to contact people associated with al Qaeda, that Hasan's classmates had reported his anti-American views, which included "...his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution." You have to wonder, with a track record like that, how this guy ever got into and managed to stay in the military. Let alone reach the rank of Major! And then Pastor Baldwin asked a real corker. He said: "How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most." I have to admit, that's a very good question--one I don't expect any government investigation to answer in any credible manner. He noted that some of the first reports mentioned multiple shooters. He thought that scenario made more sense. He noted that: "The 'one shooter with two handguns' explanation makes no sense." He could well be right--and if he is--then who might the other shooters have been--more Muslim terrorists that are still out there?
Pastor Steve Wilkins of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana has also made some cogent observations about the Fort Hood event. He observed: "So, once again, another one of Allah's boys has attempted to disprove the fact that Islam is a religion of peace. How everyone is falling over themselves trying to find proof that Hasan was an unstable 'Islamic extremist,' a 'jihadist,' a 'fanatical terrorist,' etc., etc., anything but what he really is: a faithful obedient Muslim. Here's the problem: As long as we continue to portray Islamic terrorists as 'extremists,' 'nutcases,' and 'whackos' we're missing the point. The ones who kill are not extremists--they're simply faithful Muslims. All devout Muslims must submit to the Koran which obligates them to kill Christians, Jews, and all other 'unbelievers.' Those who refuse to do this are the exceptions. They are the abnormal ones NOT Hasan...Until we acknowledge this, we'll continue to put ourselves at risk." Pastor Wilkins gives you a brief critique of Islam that the managed media, the prostiitute press, never will.
There is also an article on CARM entitled Islam, the religion of peace and terrorism." The writer notes an email received from a Muslim that stated: "Truthfully, your condemning of our faith would probably have you warned, and if you persisted, would have consequences, of which I am not sure. But there have been cases where people have been put to death for maliciously harming the image of our noble master Mohammed, the best creation of God. But you fail to see that Islam means peace..." Islam means "peace" the same way Communism means "peace." So the emailer is a member of the "peaceful" religion of Islam, yet he threatens consequences for any who would dare to disagree with Islam. Typical Communist "peace!" The writer of the article quotes several places in the Koran where Allah urges war, killing, and the slaying of non-Muslims, notably Quran 8:12, Quran 9:5, Quran 9:73, Quran 33:60-62, and Quran 47:4 among others.
The article's author concludes, and accurately so, "What are we to conclude if a Muslim takes the Quran seriously? Is he not obligated to slay non-Muslims, to go to war, to kill those against Islam...Isn't this what the verses are teaching? Yes they are and this is the source of Islamic terrorism."
To be continued
