|
Moral Bankrupcy dooms the world-wide terrorist networks: HAMAS Gunmen fire on the I.D.F. while Hiding in a crowd of Children
THIS IS HOW REAL MUSLIMS DESCRIBE ISLAM:
Islam is the name of a way of life which the Creator wants
us to follow.
We avoid the word religion because in many non-Islamic
societies, there is a separation of "religion and state."
This separation is not recognized at all in Islam: the
Creator is very much concerned with all that we do, including the political, social, economic, and other aspects of our society.
Hence, Islam is a complete way of life.
Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity,
and therefore the Qur'an is the last Message which Allah has sent to us.
Its predecessors such as the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels
have all been superceded.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html
University of Southern California Muslim Students Association
Why the Left and the Islamist Jihadi's will
lose
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote of Waterloo:
"The Old Guard is beaten! The Guard retreats!"
An officer with a livid face passed me yelling out these words of woe. "Save yourselves! Save yourselves! You are betrayed!"
cried another. "Save yourselves! Save yourselves!" Men were rushing madly to the rear, blundering and jumping like frightened
sheep. Cries and screams rose from all around me. And at that moment, as I looked at the British position, I saw what I can
never forget. A single horseman stood out black and clear upon the ridge against the last red angry glow of the setting sun.
So dark, so motionless, against that grim light, he might have been the very spirit of Battle brooding over that terrible
valley. As I gazed, he raised his hat high in the air, and at the signal, with a low, deep roar like a breaking wave, the
whole British army flooded over their ridge and came rolling down into the valley.
-- read the rest from "How The Brigadier Bore
Himself At Waterloo," by Arthur Conan Doyle
Arthur_Conan_Doyle/The_Adventures_of_
Gerard/How_The_Brigadier
The four principal reasons for removing Saddam Hussein in spring 2003:
- The first justification for the war was to prevent Saddam
from acquiring or using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and to prevent him from providing such weapons to a terrorist
group. Certainly this purpose has been achieved: No American president will again have to wonder how far advanced Saddam's
WMDs program is.
- The second justification for war was humanitarian: Ending
a 30-year reign of murder, torture, and repression. This is what the majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq seem to care most about,
and it is why most of them continue to feel positively about the war. This, too, has been accomplished. Still, it remains
to be seen if the gains made so far will be consolidated and advanced, or eroded and erased.
-
The third justification for the war was that it was part-and-parcel
of the war on terror. Here America's success is more difficult to measure.
There can be no doubt that Saddam's Iraq was, with Iran and Saudi Arabia, the most important Middle East government
providing political support for terrorism. Irrespective of whether Saddam's regime had meaningful links to al-Qaeda or the
9/11 attackers, there is no argument that Saddam harbored the likes of Abu Nidal, funded Palestinian suicide bombers, and
helped train and support other international terrorists. The exact extent of this activity is unknown, but clearly it's no
longer happening, and this must count as a success in the war on terrorism.
-
The final justification for the war in Iraq was that it would
begin the process of changing the political face of the Middle East — the so-called democracy goal. Opponents of the
war claim it has failed because Iraq is not yet a democracy and other Middle East dictatorships have not yet fallen like dominos.
This would seem a rather premature condemnation — a week into the life of the sovereign Iraqi government.
Right now, the outcome is completely unclear. It will be a success if an elected Iraqi government stabilizes the political
situation by becoming the accepted and lawful authority in the country while maintaining freedom of the press and competing
political parties.
As for the domino effect, there will not be one until the outcome in Iraq becomes clearer. Already there have
been some small responses in the Arab world, and questions of movement toward the rule of law and consensual government are
closer to the political agenda than they were before. But this slight favorable movement could be completely reversed if the
U.S. is defeated in Iraq and a new Sunni dictatorship comes to power.
|
