Defining the Problem

headsI fully expect disagreement on what follows but I’ve been examining my own reasoning as it applies to Islam and its clear connection terrorism.

That’s not to say that all Muslims are terrorists – or even a significant percentage of them are – but the fact remains that, going all the way back to the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, almost all of the terrorist attacks on America have been perpetrated by Muslims (the Oklahoma City bombings being the notable exception).

I have been wondering about them – the innocents, that is. There are millions of Muslims who will never commit an act of terrorism, just as there are Christians who will also never commit such a horrible act. As a Christian, I feel no responsibility for the imbeciles of the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK or the actions of the Irish Republican Army – even though all could be defined as “Christian” by certain standards. I can see how it would be easy for Muslims to feel the same way about ISIS, al Qaeda or Hamas.

These thoughts lead me to ask: are we overreacting to Islam’s role in terrorism and if we are, then why?

I can only speak for myself and while I believe that Islam is totally incompatible with the founding principles of America, I do believe that I am overacting and generalizing where there is no logical basis for doing so.

Sure, it is a fact that terrorist attacks on America and American interests have been, as a rule, perpetrated by Muslims who see America as the “Great Satan” – but should all Muslims be painted with the same brush?

I know that not every single Christian spoke out against aforementioned imbeciles of the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK or the Irish Republican Army even though I think it reasonable to assume that the majority of Christians are not supportive of the violence and vile conduct these groups prosecuted. If Christians are not (or did not) publically speaking out in unison about these groups, I think it is unreasonable to expect all “moderate” Muslims to speak out against ISIS, al Qaeda or Hamas even though on an individual level, they detest these groups.

For me, I have reconciled my mind to the fact that my reaction has more to do with the action (or inaction) of leadership than the actions of any adherent to Islam. By that, I mean the refusal of American – and global – leadership to put a name the danger and do what is necessary to destroy it.

At a national level, the federal government of the United States is responsible to “provide for the common defense”. This is actually one of the enumerated powers of the government, having been specifically set forth in the Constitution. As such, it is also their responsibility to define any threat because, as it is with any successful root cause/problems solving exercise, defining the problem is the first and necessary step in resolving it. It is also the job of the President of the United States to communicate this definition to the citizens of America and state when and how he plans to use American power to eliminate the threat. George W. Bush did exactly that in Afghanistan and Iraq and was excoriated for his trouble.

In general, Republican presidents are pretty good about this process. W’s father, G.H.W. Bush did it well in Gulf War I and before him, Reagan did it with the USSR. Perhaps it is the Democrats devotion to postmodernist, relativistic thought but Bill Clinton was milquetoast in doing so and President Obama’s rationale is so muddled that he appears to ignore the threats and tries to diminish them to such a degree that he actually seems to be protecting Islam from criticism by offering tacit support to those Muslims who are our enemies.

I’m not saying that Islam is not responsible, I am saying that no more than we would declare war on all Christians for the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK or the IRA, we should not do so with all of Islam.

For better or worse, individuals tend to take their cues on national security threats from the government and its leadership. Governments, by their nature and construction, have more assets and more access to information than the average citizen does for assessing true national level threats. When the leadership do not use that information to clearly define those threats, the citizenry cannot accurately focus their minds on a clear threat definition and the resultant actions necessary to eliminate it.

In large part, the federal government is the reason for the apparent generalization of Islam as a threat because they are so immersed in political correctness, the true threat is never defined and only superficial actions are taken, leaving the rest of us to assume based on the information we have. If we are not to assume that Islam is our enemy, our leadership needs to define the real threat, put a name to it, wall it off by clearly identifying its roots and then take definitive action to destroy it.

t and its leadership. Governments, by their nature and construction, have more assets and more access to information than the average citizen does for assessing true national level threats. When the leadership does not use that information to clearly define those threats, the citizenry cannot accurately focus their minds on a clear threat definition and the resultant actions necessary to eliminate it.

In large part, the federal government is the reason for the apparent generalization of Islam as a threat because they are so immersed in political correctness, the true threat is never defined and only superficial actions are taken, leaving the rest of us to assume. If we are not to assume that Islam is our enemy, our leadership needs to define the real threat, put a name to it, wall it off by clearly identifying its roots and then take definitive action to destroy it.

32 thoughts on “Defining the Problem

  1. DUDE!

    Have you not read my many posts on Islam, or have you just dismissed them as “hateful?!”

    I will agree with you: we have no justification for condemning individual Muslims, but we are TOTALLY justified in condemning ISLAM!

    The principles of Islam are the problem. They are the photo negative of the Judeo/Christian faiths.

    Those Muslims who find a “peaceful religion” in what Muhammad said are violating the commands of Muhammad. They are to Islam as the Westboro Baptists are to Christianity. Westboro clearly violates the commands of Christ and the message of Christ’s Gospel. At the same time, those Muslims who refuse to fight infidels and to spread Islam by the sword are violating the commands of Muhammad.

    Now, I am well aware that there are those — many Muslims included — who will point to the passages of “peace” in the Qur’an, but these people either do not know their own faith or are lying to you! Muhammad “abrogated” those passages. In other words, he said they no longer apply. Muhammad said that war is the current command for ALL Muslims — war until there is ONLY Islam!

    I took the time to read Islam’s holy books (all 5 of them!). I wanted to know what Muhammad said Islam is — not what ignorant people tell me it is. I have tried to share what I learned with those who will listen. I have repeatedly cited the Islamic sources for my conclusions, Yet, for some reason, no one can or will accept the truth here.

    You know, there is a passage in Revelation that suggests the West will help bring the final beast back to life: the beast with the mortal head wound. The two-horned lamb that speaks like a dragon will work in the presence of the dragon. I have come to believe this beast — the fourth beast — is Islam, and that two horned lamb are the apostate Jewish and Christian churches in the Western world. Thus, according to this imagery, we in the West — through our politically correct madness — are “causing the world to worship the beast.” When we make excuses for evil, we strengthen it. We bring the beast back to life and we encourage the world to worship it.

  2. Problem defined:

    In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:

    “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. …”

  3. 1740, Problem defined by Voltaire:

    “…that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: …”

    • spookchristian,

      Not to pick a fight with you, my friend, because that is certainly not my intention. However, upon reading the page you have linked us to, I have to tell you that it is in gross conflict with the history of Islam I learned. To be sure, early Church leaders appear to have considered Islam as an apostate branch of Christianity, much like Gnosticism. But the Jewish culture/religion was much stronger in the area where Muhammad was and first started his religion. What’s more, Muhammad — himself — blames the Jews (not the Christians) for his troubles getting more of the ‘sacred texts.’ In fact, Muhammad cursed the Jews for refusing to continue the sales of Old Testament Scriptures to him for his use in the creation of his new religion. It was around this time that the shift in Islam occurred, Allah suddenly “abrogated” all the peaceful passages that Muhammad had lifted from the Bible and the war between Islam and the Jews started. The Christians were then thrown into the mix as ‘the great’ Satan because they believe in the Trinity, whereas the Jews are only thought of as the little Satan because they do not recognize the Trinity. But, either way, I found no evidence of record of Jesuits, the Catholic Church or Free Masons having any hand in the origins of Islam. If anything, it was more Muhammad’s blending of the Old Testament into the ancient moon god of his fathers (directly connected to Baal) than a perversion of Christianity.

      Still, in the end, Islam is not what the West believes it is and it is CERTAINLY not what our leaders and the “enlightened” among us keep saying it is. Islam is — by definition – the very essence and spirit of antichrist.

    • The King James Bible itself was created for Political Purpose !! Well known.

      The occult symbolism and connections found in….. “the death cult created by the pedophile camel driver and worshipper of the moongoddess’ vulva and demanding SUBMISSION of the entire world” ( ie islam )…. were added later. They were added later to Christianity and Judaism also as the practitioners of those Black and white arts came to merge their craft with prevailing religious thought in their regions.

      This doesn’t mean that the inception of either of the two religions nor the Cult was started by those practicing the hermetics of Hermes Trismegistus.

        • You know that islam venerates and worships the moon goddesses vulva Right ? And by islam , I mean those who are the most committed muzzies who go on Hajj. allah was/ IS the local arab moon goddess.

          The Opus Dei and other Jesuit organizations the Sppok-meister mention as well as the Jewish Kabbalah have symbolism associated with them that have long history in the occult. But much of that was added in the middle ages ( though not all). The Jesuit Sun symbol is one which goes back THOUSANDS of years actually.

          Because of these splinter groups folks like the Spook-meister make an equivalence relationship between all of Judaism and Christianity.

          I HOPE you know the history behind King James purpose for assembling the team and writing the bible he/they did.

          • Don,

            Yes, I know that Allah is derived from the moon god/godess of the region, though that moon god has been known by many names. In this case, my understanding is that there are also three daughters involved, as well. Acknowledging them almost got Muhammad killed by his first followers, resulting in the later revelation that “the prophet” had been taken over by Satan (hence Islam’s “Satanic verses”).

            I also know that Allah is not really a proper name, but is derived from an Arabic contraction that basically means the god over all other gods. And that is what I am told allahu’akbar actually means: not ‘god is great,’ but “Allah is greater.”

            As for those who claim all forms of Christianity are likewise derived from some form of ancient paganism: I DISMISS THEM! Most are ignorant of the real revelations found in the Jewish faith, and the rest are just open enemies of God — the one True and living God, YHWH.

            Finally, yes, I know the origins of the KJV of the Bible, but this does NOT mean it is a bad translation. It is a decent translation, it just removed all the commentary found in the Geneva Bible of 1599, which is the Bible our founders used to win our freedom and establish our nation.

            • Yes agree with your post almost 100 %.

              Except about the KJV. It was/is much more than merely a version without prior commentary. Text was changed.

              EG Luke 2:14
              (1) KJV : ” Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men”.

              Vulgate Latin of St Jerome after triple cross referencing Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew sources for Council of Carthage in 397 AD…:

              (2) “…gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis.”

              Closer , Truer Translation as per Dousy-Rheims and The Jerusalem Bible and many others…:

              (3) “Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will”.

              The KJV and the Douay and other translations are completely different messages !! Intentionally so.

              • Don,

                Understood and agreed. The only point I think I would make is that the men who translated the KJV Bible were not intentionally trying to change the text, or deceive the reader. They simply did not understand the Hebrew and Greek cultures as well as they needed to to better understand the meaning of the plain text. A perfect example:

                Suppose you are reading something from today, only you are 1,000 years into the future. How would you translate the following?

                “I store my contacts in the cloud.”

                Literalists would claim that this meant the people of today somehow stored their contact lenses or ‘maybe’ their rolodex in the clouds. Those who had a skeptical view of our society would point to that line as proof that we had lost our minds. But the truth of what that line means to us today will only make sense to those who, 1,000 years in the future, have some understanding of our world — and even then, there is a real chance they will get it wrong. After all, the men who translated the 1599 Geneva Bible were also trying to be true to the original text, but the politics of their day (i.e. the Reformation) still tainted some of their understanding. However, to their credit, they did manage to confine the majority of their editorials to the commentary section and not the translated text.

                Anyway, back to the topic at hand: you cannot make such comparisons to Islam as Muhammad was illiterate and he wrote nothing himself. The oldest Qur’ans do not agree with each other, and the differences are much more significant than those we are discussion about the Bible. Add to this the FACT that the first Qur’an was written some 150-200 years AFTER Muhammad died and his first-hand contemporaries had died in jihad, and then factor in the FACT that Muhammad’s own wife told us that as much as 1/3 of Muhammad’s “revelations” were lost (a goat ate one of them) and you see that we couldn’t possibly be dealing with a real god as Allah cannot seem to preserve his word. YHWH has no such trouble, as the oldest texts we have from Scripture are in almost complete agreement with the modern translations.

                • I think there was intention in the Team that King James assembled. As there was intention in their “employer”. I don’t believe it was innocent misunderstanding at all. But let’s leave it at that.

                  What you say about the Ancient versus newer modern translations is supported further by all the new texts that are continually being found…..and their coinciding with both other old texts and the modern translations.

                  Yes I have heard the “a goat ate God” reference….lol . Pretty telling huh ! His yougest wife is also the source of his pedophilia rape…..SHE told what happened to her first hand !!

                  1000 years from now , hopefully “I store my contacts in the cloud” will be translated … “And lo, I didith seek to hide mine most precious from the AlGore fascists “.

  4. Utah,

    Have to disagree with you profoundly on this one.

    If the muslim world WERE standing up to this sick aspect of their religion ….there wouldn’t even BE a muslim terrorist movement now.

    Further, data and polls CLEARLY show that the Majority of “moderate” muslims DO IN FACT support terrorism in the furtherance of their faith. One of those recent polls was done in England and Western Europe. The percentage was OVER 50 % of those calling themselves “moderate” believed this.

    Finally knowing that the West and the East ( Think India and even China) are actively fighting this…..although not nearly as vigorously as they should, the “moderate” muslim world would seem to have a GREAT many allies to help them, and the combined effort would Cement the “living together” meme perfectly. A meme those like CAIR are trying to use as Slogans for their cause.

    But instead they are SILENT ! And Joe is right…..they are silent FOR A REASON.

    And wrt the Westboro Church…..they WERE vilified in the Press and by many Christian leaders…..those leaders spoke for their Parishoners. In short The West and Christians DID condemn the Westboro bunch and many folks felt affinity with that criticism, and the Criticism was LARGE. And they weren’t even Beheading people !!!!!

  5. So we all agree that this is a controversial subject, right?

    I fully understand all the arguments and I do understand that the Quran preaches, promotes and condones violence against non-Muslims – or in the case of the Sunni, Shia and Shiite, any one particular brand who the other brands as not sufficiently Islamic.

    How do you criminalize someone for what they believe and MIGHT do, could someone tell me that? Isn’t that the very thing that we fight against when progressives do it?

    I simply refuse to hate a Muslim that has never lifted a hand to me, I’m not going to be like Hamas who hates Jews just because they are Jews…but if there is a group who happens to be Islamic that threatens me, my family or my country, I will do whatever it takes to eliminate the threat.

    My gut tells me that if you want to expel Muslims just because they are Muslims, you might want to think that one through because there could come a time when your particular belief or demographic falls out of favor as well.

    So if I follow your arguments about “moderate” Muslims, if every Christian doesn’t speak out against Israel (some Christians boycott Israel), that means that they agree with other Christians who do? Yeah, “The West and Christians DID condemn the Westboro bunch and many folks felt affinity with that criticism, and the Criticism was LARGE” – but were there mass marches in the streets like we are expecting of Muslims? No, there weren’t.

    I your understand your points but I am speaking about actions, not beliefs. Do you realize that what you propose is tantamount to criminalizing beliefs?

    A person can believe anything and still not act on it – if they never act, are they a true threat? Possibly – but we see every day evidence of groups like ISIS taking it beyond beliefs and into actions. I actually believe that Islam is more of a cult than a religion – but there are a lot of cults out there that don’t behead people on a regular basis…The same could be said of communists or Democrats – are we going to put them in jail and attack them because of what they believe?

    What I’m talking about is avoiding another episode of Japanese internment camps.

    Do you not think that if “moderates” might easily turn into radicals, a good dose of whup-ass generously applied to the actual troublemakers would go a long way toward discouraging that? This was part of the point that I was trying to make – our leaders refuse to take that step. It is common knowledge that people will gravitate toward the strong horse, not the weak one and the reason that people don’t gravitate toward the US as much as they used to is not that they have changed as much as we have. America’s leaders are afraid to project our strength because we are racists or something. If America offered the same vision of strength and stability that we did from the end of WWII until the 1960’s, we wouldn’t be having these issues – not that the rising tide of terrorism against the US coincides with the rising tide of progressive pacifism in America.

    Coincidence – I think not…

    I’m not pro-Islam by any stretch of the imagination…and as far as the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the IRA – I was only using them as examples where there weren’t a majority of people marching in the streets today to condemn them – like we expect the Muslim community to do with ISIS and Hamas. I wasn’t equating them to each other.

    Name the threat and destroy it. To do less is folly. If we piss off Muslims when we do, then tough – if they don’t like it, then take care of it on their own…but I think it is a mistake to indict those who do not present a threat simply because they are Islamic. As the old saying goes, there are no atheists in foxholes – I would assume that there are would be no moderates, either.

    • Uthah,

      Please accept that this is not an attack. What follows is a sincere attempt to show you your own cognitive dissonance.

      OK, you said you are not against individual Muslims. I agree: it is not the individual I oppose, but their religion. But that brings us to the words you said near the end of your comment:

      “Name the threat and destroy it. To do less is folly.”

      Islam IS the threat — PERIOD! You even admit this at the outset when you admit the Qur’an commands violence (you did leave out the Hadith, where the message is even stronger).

      So, let me ask you something: if ISLAM is the threat, how do you destroy it without confronting the individual Muslim?

      But this brings us to another point too few in the West understand (mostly because they refuse to listen tot hose of us who are trying to educate them). Muhammad commanded deception in the furtherance of jihad. He even boasted that Allah is the best of deceivers. Muhammad also said that war is deception. The Qur’an and especially the Hadith (which is the second highest holy book in Islam) both command deception against the infidel. It gives Muslims “permission” to lie and even act in ways counter to Muhammad’s commands — so long as it is for the purpose of advancing Islam.

      Then there is the Sunni/Shi’a rift. Shi’a believe the individual can declare his own Jihad (Muhammad said this, so they are in keeping with the fundamentals of their faith). But the Sunni have added to Muhammad’s commands — much as the Pharisees added to the Law of Moses and as the Catholics and many other men have added to Christ’s Gospel. What the Sunnis have decided is that only the Caliph can declare jihad.

      Now, this is the point — and hear me very clearly, please:

      While you and I cannot know the heart of the individual, we can and do KNOW that ALL Muslims follow a religion that allows them to lie and commands them to break any treaty they make with infidels within 10 years or less.

      We KNOW that ALL Muslims are commanded to spread Islam by the sword until there is ONLY Islam, and to kill those Muslims who do not do so (they are apostates).

      So, how does one dismiss the threat inherent in every Muslim and still keep with your assertion of destroying any and all threats?

      Do you see the problem? Can you see that your line of reasoning is only confounding the problem? If not, then explain to me how and why Thomas Jefferson — after studying Islam the same way I have — came to the same conclusions I have but you have not. Are you telling me you consider your wisdom on this matter superior or more enlightened than Jefferson’s? Because, if you are, then you have just undermined a good part of the founding ideology of this nation…

        • No, we have YOUR option: we do nothing and we allow Islam to take over America and the Western world.

          That only leaves one question you need to answer: Are you going to convert, or will you let them take your head?

          • That’s not MY option! If I were president, I would pull a Middle East Hiroshima, as well as block their oil exports.

            The answer to your question: I would not convert; I would lie. God knows my heart.

            • 1 — If you nuke the Muslims in the Middle East, you will turn the majority of your “moderate” Muslim friends into screaming, head-taking jihadis. So, that shows your ignorance of Islam.

              2 — If you think you can lie with your mouth and still be saved, you are wrong. So, that shows your ignorance of Scripture.

              The world does not conform to your desires, Kells. We have to conform to it and the rules by which it operates. Continuing along the path you and Utah and those like you seem to want to travel is going to end in ruin. You need look no farther than France and England to see the truth/result of the road you are pushing us down. Why you guys cannot see this is beyond me, but I suspect it is because you are looking with material eyes and not Spiritual ones.

                • I have repeatedly given the solution. You just don’t want to accept it.

                  For those who still do not get it: when it comes to dealing with Islam, I STAND WITH JEFFERSON!

                  • What does that mean? Seriously. Are you saying you want troops on the ground? Are you saying boot Muslims from this country? I just don’t understand where Jefferson would stand in the 21st century. Simply put, I do not understand what Jefferson would do to solve the problem.

                    • Kells,
                      Read the Thomas Jefferson 1785 post. Read all of the information about the 1st Barbary War, and then read about the 2nd Barbary War. There is only winning, or losing. There is nothing else.

                    • Texas, I read and enjoyed the post. Basically, it said that we paid a fee for 15 years, then we went to war with them (which appeared more naval than ground) won the war, paid em for the remaining prisoners, then didn’t go to war again til 1812. I guess I’m not understanding what you boys are getting at. WWJD in 2014?

                    • Kells,

                      Are you that dense? “Basically a naval war?!?!?” What part of “to the SHORES of Tripoli” makes you miss the LAND part that WON that war?

                      Good grief, we are doomed!

                      BTW: WWJD? Read Deuteronomy. He already answered that for you, and it is VERY bloody for Islam. If you doubt me, read Ezekiel 37-39 and the rest of the lands/peoples the prophets says Christ will personally judge when He returns. They are ALL Muslim nations — ALL OF THEM!

                    • B., I said mostly naval, because there were more sea than land battles. The WWJD was a reference to Jefferson, since I cannot seem to get an answer from either of you…..

    • Yes it is Controversial.

      Actually there were MANY voices in the Christian Community…..many editorials and enough marching on a consistent basis AGAINST the KKK and the IRA to make it clear to the world that the majority of the Western World condemned those organizations. It doesn’t have to be ALL PEOPLE participating to get the messages across. The LACK of ANY significant “moderate” or “good” muslim participation in condemning what is Politically Correct to call “radical islam”, is a stark contrast to the Collective Western voice against the example you mentioned.

      Further, our Christian Pulpits are pretty much open to public scrutiny as to messages preached. The same IS NOT true of the muzzie’s Mosques. And there is plenty of evidence collected through hidden camera work from the 1990s onward to show that at least SOME of the message preached in these “holy places” is Hate America and pro Jihad, and actually quite violent itself……for a “House of God”.

      When you combine this fact with the ever INCREASING deafening silence of the moderate muzzies just as there is a Concomitant INCREASE in “radical muslim” violence it is clear to see that the “moderate”, so called “good” mohammeddan worshippers have NO interest in condemning violence done in their name and in the name of their Death-Cult.

      What we are talking about is a Pattern !!! And if we wait until the muslims “lift a hand” to be energized, then we will ALL end up like that poor woman in Oklahoma. And I can tell you that is what all those muslims who “haven’t (yet) lifted a hand are waiting and hoping for “…, that we wait.

      Now I will give you that there may be some of these “good” muslims who don’t want the violence etc….. but they are living in denial of the Truth , especially of what their “religion” actually comands them to be and do. And by THEIR silence only lend support to he “radicals” as well as the Stealth supporters….ie “Moderates”.

      Rand Paul said yesterday on an interview by Hannity that the World NEEDED to see the Consistant and Active condemnation of the muslim world against this jihad as wellas tyhe active Participation of the muslim world in putting it down militarily. About this I am in Agreement with ” Paul, the Youngel ” 100 %.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.