Only Islam Can Save Us From Islam

In the Washington Post, Petraeus complained about the “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam”. The former general warned that restricting Muslim immigration would “undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.”

At Rutgers, Obama claimed that restricting Muslim immigration “would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism.”

If we alienate Muslims, who is going to help us fight Muslim terrorism?

You can see why Obama doesn’t mention Islamic terrorism in any way, shape or form. Once you drop the “I” word, then the argument is that you need Islam to fight Islam. And Muslims to fight Muslims.

This is bad enough in the Muslim world where we are told that we have to ally with the “moderate” Muslim governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Muslim terrorists whom they sponsor.

Petraeus has troublingly close ties to the Saudis. He defended their oil dumping program, praised the role of Islamic law in fighting Islamic terrorism and endorsed their Syria plans. While defending the Saudis as allies, he blamed Israel for America’s problems with the Muslim world. The narrative he was using there was the traditional Saudi one in which Israel, not Islam, is the source of the friction.

He defended Pakistan as an ally and claimed to believe the Pakistani excuses that they did not know Osama bin Laden was living right in their military center and that they really wanted to fight the Taliban.

Obama’s “partners” against “violent extremism” have included Muslim Brotherhood terror supporters at home and abroad. He backed Al Qaeda’s LIFG in Libya, Iran’s Shiite terror militias in Iraq, Al Qaeda allies in Syria and those are just a few of the worst examples of his partners against extremism.

Petraeus and Obama view terrorists and state sponsors of terror as important allies. Their policies have led to multiple terrorist attacks against Americans. And they still insist that we need Islamic terrorists as allies to protect us from Islamic terrorists. We need moderate theocrats to protect us from extremist theocrats. We need the Saudis and Pakistanis to save us from the terrorists whom they arm and fund.

But it’s Muslim immigration where their argument really shines.

The United States faces a terror threat because a certain percentage of the Muslim population will kill Americans. Every increase in the Muslim population also increases the number of potential terrorists. Muslim immigration increases the terrorism risk to Americans every single year.

These are undeniable facts.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. Muslim populations are a hole. Immigration is the shovel. Dig deep enough and you’re six feet under.

Even if the mainstream narrative about a moderate majority and extremist minority were true, how could the cost of Islamic terrorism justify the expansion of even moderate Muslim communities?


9/11 cost us $3.3 trillion, over 10,000 dead, a national loss of privacy and traumas inflicted on millions. What could any number of moderate Muslims possibly contribute to outweigh all that? If it were a debt, it would take a thousand years to even begin balancing out those scales. And instead of trying to make amends, Muslim groups like CAIR and ISNA have waged a relentless campaign to undermine national security and defame Americans. They have refused to cooperate with law enforcement, defended terrorists and denounced America. These are our “moderate” partners.

But the Obama/Petraeus narrative about needing partners in Muslim communities in America implicitly concedes that Muslim communities at home, like the Saudis and Pakistanis abroad, create environments in which Islamic terrorists can safely operate. They admit the existence of Islamic no-go zones where the FBI and local law enforcement are ineffective so that we have to treat parts of Michigan or New Jersey like Pakistan or Iraq, trying to work with untrustworthy allies to gain intelligence on enemy territory.

We have to work with CAIR or ISNA, the way we do with the Saudis or Pakistanis, even though they’re untrustworthy, because they’re all we have in parts of America that have become enemy territory.

This argument is terrible enough in the Middle East. But it’s horrifying in the Midwest.

It’s bad enough that we sign off on “partners” who finance terrorists and then pretend to fight them in Syria or Afghanistan, do we really want to be doing this in Illinois or California?

The real problem, as Obama and Petraeus indirectly concede, is that Muslim communities create an ideal environment for Muslim terrorists. The last thing that we should be doing is building them up.

Even if Muslim communities were an asset, the Obama/Petraeus narrative is that they benefit us by helping us deal with the problems that they cause. The obvious question would be to wonder why we need them in the first place to help us cope with a problem that wouldn’t exist without them.

Obama insists that we need Muslim immigration so that Muslims will help us fight Muslim terror. But if we didn’t have Muslim immigration, we wouldn’t need Muslims to help us fight Muslim terrorism.

Muslim immigration isn’t a solution. It’s a problem posing as a solution. And we are told that we need to make the problem bigger in order to solve it. Muslim immigration has yet to reduce terrorism in any country. The increase in Muslim populations has not made Europe any safer. On the contrary, it has increased the risk of terrorism. The same is also true in Africa, Asia and across the Middle East.

The plan to reduce the risk of terrorism by increasing the Muslim population has failed around the world. Nor has it ever worked in the United States. What are the odds that it suddenly will now?



Building a counterterrorism strategy around creating more terrorism is not a strategy, it’s a suicide mission. Using Muslim immigration to fix a terrorism problem caused by Muslim immigration is like drilling a hole in a boat and then trying to plug it with water. Europe is sinking and if we don’t stop importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, we’ll be facing the same problems that Europe does.

“It is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric,” Petraeus insists.

It’s a compelling argument, but not in the way that he thinks it is. If Muslims can’t handle the full spectrum of argument, debate and namecalling that is a part of life in a free country without turning homicidal, then something has to go. According to Petraeus, it’s freedom of speech. According to others, it’s Muslim migration. Americans will have to decide whether they would rather have freedom of speech or Muslim immigration. Because even the advocates for Muslim migration are increasingly willing to admit that we can’t have both. The choice is ours.

Either we can hope that Islam will save us from Islam. And that Muslims will protect us from other Muslims. Or we can try to protect ourselves and save our lives and our freedoms from Islam.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/only-islam-can-save-us-from-islam.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+%28from+NY+to+Israel+Sultan+Reveals+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%29

Behead those who insult mohammed and islam...!?


What they are actually saying is... Behead those who tell the truth about mohammed and islam and everyone else who refuses to submit to them and their beliefs!!!

Members of every religion assert that people who carry out violence in the name of their religion are not representative of it. Muslims do this as well. Obama is simply looking at reality and seeing that a) most Muslims aren't terrorists and b) employing a communications strategy that seeks to deny terrorists the claim that they're fighting for God.

This is just more anti-immigration rhetoric masquerading as a national security piece.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Members of every religion assert that people who carry out violence in the name of their religion are not representative of it. Muslims do this as well. Obama is simply looking at reality and seeing that a) most Muslims aren't terrorists and b) employing a communications strategy that seeks to deny terrorists the claim that they're fighting for God.

This is just more anti-immigration rhetoric masquerading as a national security piece.

Obama has not got the first clue about the problems of literal religion, including you, which is odd, since you live in a state where it is prevalent.
You still cannot understand can you something that is very problematic?
Where Islam is engineered to act at anything it deems a threat.
You would not have Muslim terrorism, without either Muslims or Islam, that is a simple fact.
The reality is at its core teachings, it teaches to kill those who blaspheme against their religion.
That is a fact.
It teaches that those who leave, after given a chance to repent, which if they fail to, should be executed.
It teaches that if anyone transgresses, to fight and kill them.
It teaches the best way to by pass every law and command, is to sacrifice yourself killing who they deem the enemy, through Jihad and martydom
These are central teachings, which you see happen daily all over the world.
You have a brain, when are you goiing to start using it and stop making excuses for where we have seen the very same with Christianity for nearly 2000 years?
Its only because many Christians are now secularists and not literal that we do not have as big as an issue as with do with Christians, but there still is some issue'es like in the US, but again you clearly have learnt zero from history

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Members of every religion assert that people who carry out violence in the name of their religion are not representative of it. Muslims do this as well. Obama is simply looking at reality and seeing that a) most Muslims aren't terrorists and b) employing a communications strategy that seeks to deny terrorists the claim that they're fighting for God.

This is just more anti-immigration rhetoric masquerading as a national security piece.

Obama has not got the first clue about the problems of literal religion, including you, which is odd, since you live in a state where it is prevalent.
You still cannot understand can you something that is very problematic?
Where Islam is engineered to act at anything it deems a threat.
You would not have Muslim terrorism, without either Muslims or Islam, that is a simple fact.
The reality is at its core teachings, it teaches to kill those who blaspheme against their religion.
That is a fact.
It teaches that those who leave, after given a chance to repent, which if they fail to, should be executed.
It teaches that if anyone transgresses, to fight and kill them.
It teaches the best way to by pass every law and command, is to sacrifice yourself killing who they deem the enemy, through Jihad and martydom
These are central teachings, which you see happen daily all over the world.
You have a brain, when are you goiing to start using it and stop making excuses for where we have seen the very same with Christianity for nearly 2000 years?
Its only because many Christians are now secularists and not literal that we do not have as big as an issue as with do with Christians, but there still is some issue'es like in the US, but again you clearly have learnt zero from history

Again, you seem unable to understand any effort to identify fundamentalism as the problem. Fuck off, sparrow-fart. Go read yet another book about World War II.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:



Obama has not got the first clue about the problems of literal religion, including you, which is odd, since you live in a state where it is prevalent.
You still cannot understand can you something that is very problematic?
Where Islam is engineered to act at anything it deems a threat.
You would not have Muslim terrorism, without either Muslims or Islam, that is a simple fact.
The reality is at its core teachings, it teaches to kill those who blaspheme against their religion.
That is a fact.
It teaches that those who leave, after given a chance to repent, which if they fail to, should be executed.
It teaches that if anyone transgresses, to fight and kill them.
It teaches the best way to by pass every law and command, is to sacrifice yourself killing who they deem the enemy, through Jihad and martydom
These are central teachings, which you see happen daily all over the world.
You have a brain, when are you goiing to start using it and stop making excuses for where we have seen the very same with Christianity for nearly 2000 years?
Its only because many Christians are now secularists and not literal that we do not have as big as an issue as with do with Christians, but there still is some issue'es like in the US, but again you clearly have learnt zero from history

Again, you seem unable to understand any effort to identify fundamentalism as the problem. Fuck off, sparrow-fart. Go read yet another book about World War II.

And again you prove what a pathetic little regressive turd that you are and its idiots like you that creates the rise of the Far right

Again i see you cannot counter my points, so crawl away you pathetic ignorant idiot,. even Tommy knows more than you and he is a racist idiot

I mean even if we go with the idiots regressives view he has on fundementalism and the fact he would then place the vast majority of Muslims as fundementalists being that the vast majority are all literal believers, even though there will be those that are not conservative. He is thus proving my point even more on the stupidity of bringing in then more fundementalists to their country. As would be the case as many Muslims are literal believers and to Ben now, fundementalists all of them that are literal believers
Thanks Ben, you prove what a ignorant leftist regressive idiot you truly are

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Members of every religion assert that people who carry out violence in the name of their religion are not representative of it. Muslims do this as well. Obama is simply looking at reality and seeing that a) most Muslims aren't terrorists and b) employing a communications strategy that seeks to deny terrorists the claim that they're fighting for God.

This is just more anti-immigration rhetoric masquerading as a national security piece.

Obama has not got the first clue about the problems of literal religion, including you, which is odd, since you live in a state where it is prevalent.
You still cannot understand can you something that is very problematic?
Where Islam is engineered to act at anything it deems a threat.
You would not have Muslim terrorism, without either Muslims or Islam, that is a simple fact.
The reality is at its core teachings, it teaches to kill those who blaspheme against their religion.
That is a fact.
It teaches that those who leave, after given a chance to repent, which if they fail to, should be executed.
It teaches that if anyone transgresses, to fight and kill them.
It teaches the best way to by pass every law and command, is to sacrifice yourself killing who they deem the enemy, through Jihad and martydom
These are central teachings, which you see happen daily all over the world.
You have a brain, when are you goiing to start using it and stop making excuses for where we have seen the very same with Christianity for nearly 2000 years?
Its only because many Christians are now secularists and not literal that we do not have as big as an issue as with do with Christians, but there still is some issue'es like in the US, but again you clearly have learnt zero from history

So what's the opposite of a literal interpretation of religion?

Are you saying its secularism?

Paul Ettinger wrote:I mean even if we go with the idiots regressives view he has on fundementalism and the fact he would then place the vast majority of Muslims as fundementalists being that the vast majority are all literal believers, even though there will be those that are not conservative. He is thus proving my point even more on the stupidity of bringing in then more fundementalists to their country. As would be the case as many Muslims are literal believers and to Ben now, fundementalists all of them that are literal believers
Thanks Ben, you prove what a ignorant leftist regressive idiot you truly are

Wrong. The vast majority of Muslims are not literal believers.

So let's see if you can answer a question: what is the opposite of literal belief?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:I mean even if we go with the idiots regressives view he has on fundementalism and the fact he would then place the vast majority of Muslims as fundementalists being that the vast majority are all literal believers, even though there will be those that are not conservative. He is thus proving my point even more on the stupidity of bringing in then more fundementalists to their country. As would be the case as many Muslims are literal believers and to Ben now, fundementalists all of them that are literal believers
Thanks Ben, you prove what a ignorant leftist regressive idiot you truly are

Wrong. The vast majority of Muslims are not literal believers.

So let's see if you can answer a question: what is the opposite of literal belief?

Prove that I am wrong, as you are the least of anyone I will take the word of.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:



Obama has not got the first clue about the problems of literal religion, including you, which is odd, since you live in a state where it is prevalent.
You still cannot understand can you something that is very problematic?
Where Islam is engineered to act at anything it deems a threat.
You would not have Muslim terrorism, without either Muslims or Islam, that is a simple fact.
The reality is at its core teachings, it teaches to kill those who blaspheme against their religion.
That is a fact.
It teaches that those who leave, after given a chance to repent, which if they fail to, should be executed.
It teaches that if anyone transgresses, to fight and kill them.
It teaches the best way to by pass every law and command, is to sacrifice yourself killing who they deem the enemy, through Jihad and martydom
These are central teachings, which you see happen daily all over the world.
You have a brain, when are you goiing to start using it and stop making excuses for where we have seen the very same with Christianity for nearly 2000 years?
Its only because many Christians are now secularists and not literal that we do not have as big as an issue as with do with Christians, but there still is some issue'es like in the US, but again you clearly have learnt zero from history

So what's the opposite of a literal interpretation of religion?

Are you saying its secularism?

Never stated that as you can be religious and secularist

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

So what's the opposite of a literal interpretation of religion?

Are you saying its secularism?

Never stated that as you can be religious and secularist

I didn't say religious.

I asked what is the opposite of literal belief, oh wise one?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Never stated that as you can be religious and secularist

I didn't say religious.

I asked what is the opposite of literal belief, oh wise one?

Figuarative and now you are going to render your own Quran imperfect by arguing off this

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I didn't say religious.

I asked what is the opposite of literal belief, oh wise one?

Figuarative and now you are going to render your own Quran imperfect by arguing off this

I think you mean metophorical, oh wise one.

Christians may have a metophorical belief but that's not the only other form.

Most Muslims are (wait for it.....): contextual. Not literal, not metaphorical.

All interpretations of the Quran are supposed to be contextual, based on jurisprudence (that's a big word, look it up).

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Figuarative and now you are going to render your own Quran imperfect by arguing off this

I think you mean metophorical, oh wise one.

Christians may have a metophorical belief but that's not the only other form.

Most Muslims are (wait for it.....): contextual. Not literal, not metaphorical.

All interpretations of the Quran are supposed to be contextual, based on jurisprudence (that's a big word, look it up).

Doh they have basically the same meaning dummy

ha ha ha Muslims literally believe in hadiths as deeds done in Muhammads life, that is not contextual.

So the Quran is imperfect then, if you cannot gain what it actually means

That would then be the biggest and most flawed book in history as a guide

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I think you mean metophorical, oh wise one.

Christians may have a metophorical belief but that's not the only other form.

Most Muslims are (wait for it.....): contextual. Not literal, not metaphorical.

All interpretations of the Quran are supposed to be contextual, based on jurisprudence (that's a big word, look it up).

Doh they have basically the same meaning dummy

ha ha ha Muslims literally believe in hadiths as deeds done in Muhammads life, that is not contextual.

So the Quran is imperfect then, if you cannot gain what it actually means

That would then be the biggest and most flawed book in history as a guide

Thank you for proving to Ben and others on this thread that it is you who don't know anything about literalism.

Your childish comment speaks volumes about your level of ignorance. See how simple it was.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-Muslims-unity-and-diversity-executive-summary/


Which shows the majority follow a literal belief, whether it be on einterpretation, nobody can claim what is the correct interpretation as lets face it nobody can prove the Quran is not unaltered through its history and the hadiths, well, they do not even see the light of day until centuries later and Muslims believe them literally.

You have to hand it to apologists, who try their upmost to deny problems in Islam

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Doh they have basically the same meaning dummy

ha ha ha Muslims literally believe in hadiths as deeds done in Muhammads life, that is not contextual.

So the Quran is imperfect then, if you cannot gain what it actually means

That would then be the biggest and most flawed book in history as a guide

Thank you for proving to Ben and others on this thread that it is you who don't know anything about literalism.

Your childish comment speaks volumes about your level of ignorance. See how simple it was.

lol, again becaue you say so, you are just a pathetic little boy without any knowledge of your own faith and how it is so corrupted by the hadihs

The only thing simple is an idiot so taken in as you are by works to such an evil entity that claims to punish people for simple non-belief, or leaving the faith to have them killed

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thank you for proving to Ben and others on this thread that it is you who don't know anything about literalism.

Your childish comment speaks volumes about your level of ignorance. See how simple it was.

lol, again becaue you say so, you are just a pathetic little boy without any knowledge of your own faith and how it is so corrupted by the hadihs

The only thing simple is an idiot so taken in as you are by works to such an evil entity that claims to punish people for simple non-belief, or leaving the faith to have them killed

Lol!

Do you think that post makes you look rational or a deluded miserable git?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


lol, again becaue you say so, you are just a pathetic little boy without any knowledge of your own faith and how it is so corrupted by the hadihs

The only thing simple is an idiot so taken in as you are by works to such an evil entity that claims to punish people for simple non-belief, or leaving the faith to have them killed

Lol!

Do you think that post makes you look rational or a deluded miserable git?

I think it works perfectly in how what is wrong with Islam in how you react.

That speaks volumes as to what is wrong with islam and many religions, based on how their believers react

A book isn't imperfect just because it's not to be interpreted literally ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:A book isn't imperfect just because it's not to be interpreted literally ...

Again you are an idiot as the bases of the book is meant that it is perfect, as it supposed to come from their deity.
Now you tell me, how is something not straight forward if its perfect?
The problem is Muslims render the Quran redundent by elevating hadiths to as if they were surah's from Allah.
If a book is easily interpreted in so many ways, as the Quran is and even worse on words that can have multiple meanings, then the message is a failure from the start, but there is one simple fact you cannot ignore. The majority view on the main aspects remains the same
Jihad
Transgression
Apostacy
Martyrdom
Blasphemy
Inequality

Ben_Reilly wrote:A book isn't imperfect just because it's not to be interpreted literally ...

but it does mean it is JUST a Book.
And Being Just a book, when you say it is imperfect you are probably referring to the current condition of the individual copy.


Didge may be a wanker but the Quran is just a book
AND like the Bible and Torah it is still Factually bullshit, So as a work of fiction 'perfection' is in the eye of the beholder.


As I have said before, better than the bible in its literary qualities but still poor compared to other older 'religious' works like Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid.

Maybe the book is perfect but the reader isn't.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Maybe the book is perfect but the reader isn't.

Nope we don't live in a geocentric universe. books wrong.
None of the cool toys we have built would work if the book was correct.
From Space travel to the internet and CPUs, If the we got the laws of Physics that Badly wrong none would have worked in the way they are currently Working.


the rest is just opinion having established the 'know it all god' Actually knew nothing, the rest is take it or leave it, suggestions from one proven imperfect. The Quran/Bible Actually Proves that God is failable and imperfect OR a liar, or both

Quran is no different than the bible, just stuff people at the time thought was true. Stuff we now know with 100% certainty is completely wrong.

I don’t care what some old dumb ass in the desert thought, the stars don't lie but men do
.