Monday, April 14, 2008

A WORLD WHERE THE BAD GUY WON

...
History tells us that the founder of ‘the religion of peace’ lied, cheated, stole, slaved, raped and murdered his way into power. These things are not dark secrets; they are historical facts readily available to any who want to know. But we don’t want to know, and the enemy is riding it for all it’s worth. We are even content to hear enemy lies come out of the mouth of the most powerful infidel on earth, a man whose bottom line purpose is to protect this country and its citizens from our enemies, a man who you’d think, after six years[!] would have found out for himself who the hell the enemy is and then act accordingly. Instead, he’s consistently been a mouthpiece for enemy propaganda, which has led him to fight a minimalist war, desperately trying to prove he’s not fighting a fellow religion, while that religion is killing us through its true believers.


Our government’s lack of fight in our defense gives the enemy aid and comfort and hope that they will be able to build The Islam Bomb in time and do what Mohammed would have done with it. It is our president’s belief in his pacifist religion, his ‘turn the other cheek/love thy enemy’ religion, that has allowed the enemy’s violent religion to make even more headway into our culture after it would have been inconceivable to do so after 9/11. Have Muslims ever been so brazen in their demands?


Bush is fighting a compassionate war against the scum of the earth and the entire world’s going to pay for it, along with future generations. We don’t want to know that Mohammed was a villain for the ages. That wouldn’t be nice to know, and so we afford this devil sainthood status, while we pretend that Muslim terrorists are acting outside the religion’s moral bounds. And to their everlasting shame, our protectors, along with those who are meant to tell us the truth, have sold us out and have left the battle to Individuals who risk their lives to tell the full, ugly, unspeakable truth about how the founder of Islam god away with murder and is still getting away with murder through his most slavish followers.


Islam, on its own, failed to get Mohammed what he really wanted; power over others. It lost in the arena of ideas over a millennium ago, but was rescued from its failure by Jihad, which has kept it alive as a zombie religion living off the lives of others to this day. Mohammed’s pretense at prophet hood was finally revealed when he conceded that Allah’s word was impotent without his sword. Mohammed supposedly preached Islam peacefully for 13 years before the bloodletting began, but peaceful men don’t become mass murderers when things don’t go their way.


We are being warred upon by a part of the world where the bad guys won. A world where they spend almost all of their time telling themselves they’re good while damning all others as evil, with full faith and no reason. But the comparative standard is getting to be too much for them to deal with in a world where it’s becoming increasingly clear that Islam is the problem. Our good ‘makes’ them look bad by comparison, and their only response to our moral challenge is to kill the competition. Like prophet, like followers.


The only way the enemy can have their evil recognized as the unchallenged good in the world is to obliterate any and all moral standards with only the moral negation that is Islam left standing. Islam never had a chance in hell without violence and so what exists in the world that calls itself Islamic today was built on the blood of infidels, making all of Islam not worth one iota of respect.


Muslims can no longer force Islam onto a world where devastating power lies in the hands of Infidels. But this enemy is counting on us to continue behaving like overly civilized non-Muslims in the face of their daily outrages. They will push us to the brink, because that’s what they do. The Muslim world will finally force us to change them the way we were forced to change Japan. They must be made to fully understand, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their entire culture is in the thrall of evil. They must be shaken from their faith, for the sake of the entire civilized world. Mohammed played them all for suckers in his getting them to believe that Islam was any more than his lust for power, and his legacy of evil will bring hell to those who are determined to perpetuate it. Our physical power stops the enemy from having their way with us, but our moral weakness encourages them to continue killing us. A timid good stands no chance against a righteous evil. The only way the enemy will renounce terrorism is when they come face to face with it.




© 2008 Bosch Fawstin


53 comments:

Damien said...

Its sad, really. As for Bush's unwillingness to be more ruthless, I think the reason may have a little more to do with political correctness than with religion. In some ways we where more of a Christian nation during WW2 than we are now. Yet we were more willing to do what was necessary. Some of the Free World's leaders are worse than Bush on this. Many refuse to even involve themselves in this fight or they pull out, after one terrorist attack. They still seem to think appeasement works. They haven't learned much from history. I can't remember who said this, but I think it came from RightWingNews.com.
"Evil always wants more,"
And that doesn't just go for Islam, that goes for all evil.
Remember Chamberlain and Hitler?
Bosch, maybe your next editorial could be about what you would do differently if it was up to you. How could we fight this war more effectively. They haven't won yet.

phuckie slum said...

"Our good ‘makes’ them look bad by comparison, and their only response to our moral challenge is to kill the competition. Like prophet, like followers."

and:

"The only way the enemy will renounce terrorism is when they come face to face with it."

Amen! Very well written. Excellent article!

I believe that eventually, just like how the Swastika was blown away from the Reichstag building by the allied forces, Mecca will be blown up to shatters. Like Nazism, it'll be the days of the past.

It's a very conclusive mission for the civilized world to unite against ultimate evils tyrant like Hitler, but 1,400 years difficult to crush another from a whole infinitely inferior culture.

However, I don't think the main reason is necessarily the fact it's inconvenient for westerners to put blame on a different culture, but it's the fact the demon tyrant, mofuckmad, is long dead and gone and the only address we currently have is his hordes of followers, as if they are another respectful civilization on earth.

Damien said...

phuckie slum,

I pretty much agree with you, the overwhelming majority of Muslims won't just suddenly become peace loving moderates through rational discord. Their definition of evil is anything non Islamic. Part of the problem is that their sick ideology tells them everyone is at war with them, who disagrees with them. In an email to a friend I once asked, How would one of these violent Islam-o-Fascists view peaceful "Infidels" like the Amish? If you take Islam literally, the existence of peaceful non Muslims makes no sense, since isn't anyone who rejects Islam supposed to be EVIL? Yet how can someone truly be your enemy, if they are so non violent, they couldn't kill you if their lives depended on it? If Islam did take over America, they would force the pacifist Amish to convert. So how is it that the Amish are responsible for you having to fight them? How is it that they are both so evil and so peaceful? An Islamist might have an answer to questions, but I bet it wouldn't make any logical sense, what so ever. The best they could probably do would be to point out that the Amish are Infidels. But off course that doesn't do anything does it?

Muslims are so filled with hate that the Pope's prayer for there conversion is seen by them as evil, but not forcing Infidels to embrace their religion through the most barbaric violence. Much of the Arab world still refuses to accept the fact the crusades are over. They hate the Christian crusaders so much for for fighting a conflict for largely defensive reasons. They have no problem with Islam conquering Christian Lands, but they get enraged at idea of Christians (or any other Infidels,For that matter) invading Muslim lands. They even have a problem with non believers who have allied themselves with Muslims. One of Osama Bin Ladin's big beefs with the Saudi royal family was it allying itself with us infidels during the first Golf War, and not Al Qaeda. How do you reason with this mentality? You can't.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Damien,

The way I see it, the buck truly stops with Bush, since he is the leader of the free world. There may be leaders who are worse than him against Jihad, but they're not in charge of the most powerful country on earth, and so their negligence is not as significant as his. No doubt, political correctness has done its work on us, hurting us tremendously in this post 9/11 world, I've written about it ad nasuem, but our commander in chief’s 'favorite philosopher' and his pacifist influence is killing us.
What would Jesus do against Mohammed? Nothing.
Bush isn't Jesus, but his specter has stayed Bush's hand and has put us in a state of never-ending war, a war that we could win relatively easy if we put our mind to it. Closing down every single last Madrassa on earth is a start and would save the next few generations, ours and theirs. Bombing, with no warning, Tehran and any state capital of terror. Iran has been murdering our soldiers in Iraq and have not paid any price for it. It’s a dereliction of duty on our part.
If you'd like to know what I think we should do differently, I suggest reading all of my essays and most especially reading The Infidel. My major suggestion is that we fight this war like a war. It doesn't matter that this pathetic enemy can't fight on par with us, once they kill people and commit acts of war, all out war is what they should get in response, collateral damage be damned. What was 9/11 if not ALL collateral damage? The enemy shot their load on 9/11 and we respond in a way so as to not engage in overkill against them. Why? Because of what 'the world' would think. Damn ‘the world’ if they only speak out against what we do, never what the enemy does. I know that even the most liberal among us expect the Muslim world to act like savages, though they wouldn’t dare say so, but that expectation lessons the condemnation they should receive, which leaves us condemning ourselves for not behaving perfectly civilized even at war.

Bosch Fawstin said...

phuckie slum,

Thank you, glad you liked it.
I have a scene in the Pigman story that I don't want to give away, but it's a visual that I showed a liberal who felt she had to look away from it, not that it's gratuitously violent, but because it says it all in as concise a way as I can muster about what needs to be done. I'll leave it to your imagination for now. Can't wait for all to see it and give and take on it.

phuckie slum said...

I can imagine Pigman field kicking a c4 strapped terrorist with remote detonation at the Kabbah. His kick put superman into shame.

Pigman blinks, the remotes gets activated on impact.

Pigman then knees a liberal.

phuckie slum said...

damien,

Exactly. Zero reason. It's revolving mainly around hate, crying (and a hell of a lot of whining) and absoluteness.

Their culture gave birth to a religion that retain their own dark ages. You can see mixtures of western life styles in Turkey and other drops of civilization at other non arab Islamic paradises, but the Ill-slamic effect is too prominent to miss.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Phuckie Slum,

Ha, nice, But I ain't sayin outside the story what it is, though I'm itchin' to.

And damn well put:

'Their culture gave birth to a religion that retain their own dark ages.'

Along with 'ill-slamic', ha.

Damien said...

Hey Bosch,
Phuckie Slum,
etal,

Here's an interesting, and disturbing article.

http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.
com/2007/10/terrifying-brilliance-
of-islamic.html

Put the url in your browser. It talks about how Islamic memes have made our enemy so strong. Its a terrifying, but important Citizen Warrior blog post. Its very informative. I recommend you read, soon if you haven't already.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Bosch,

I am sorry, I forgot to comment on your ideas for fighting our enemies. I like them. They are very good. We need to be more Ruthless. But Ruthlessness alone won't be enough either. We need to be both Ruthless and use our brains. To your list of things we should do, I would add, unshackling our intelligence agencies, developing new top secret weapons and body armor technology, And lots of covert opps by our special forces. The covert opps we are already doing, but maybe not enough. I don't know, since they don't publish that stuff in the paper for a very good reason. Lets use deception, make the enemy think we are going to do one thing and then do another. Sow confusion among the Islamists. Lets also corrupt as many of them as possible and turn them into double agents working for us. That might not be easy to do, but even one spy inside Al Qaeda could save the lives of thousands of Infidels. Lets, Use tactics developed by some of the greatest military leaders in history. Chinese philosopher, Sun Tzu's the Art Of War, comes to mind. In fact, I think there is even a book called "Sun Tzu's The Art of War, And The War on Terror: Ancient Wisdom And Modern Warfare." At least I think that is what it was called. I bought it for a friend, but now I can't find it.

Do you like any of my ideas for combating this vile enemy?

Fellow Infidel said...

Amen: "Damn 'the world'". Everyone in America (with the exception of the coasts) is thinking it. Thanks for saying it! I'm going to write you in as a candidate in November, or maybe Pigman.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Fellow Infidel,

I'm sorry, I can't accept the nomination. I am not even thirty years old yet. I think the constitution requires you to be thirty six before you can legally run for president. I was born here, In America, so I could run someday, but I don't know if I would be a good enough politician. Also no offense to Bosch, but Pig Man is a fictional character, that would only be a good protest vote, at best. Even then I wouldn't recommend such a waste of a vote. I am not saying it wouldn't be nice to have someone like Pig Man in office, but it does no good to vote for someone who isn't a real person. If you are going to do that you might as well vote for Micky Mouse.

Godfrey of Utah said...

Maybe so Damien. I don't think it is a good idea to waste a vote on a fictional character either (no matter how good it is). Im not saying who I will vote for, but I will say I want someone who is willing to take off the gloves, tell our detractors to "Bugger ('Porker' for the Muslim ones) off!", and will build on the sucesses of the Bush Administration. Now you can call him what you want, it is your right. But it is mine to recognize and acknowledge the good he has done. Before he came along, we did not go after them at all. I think the reason he calls Islam a religion of peace is because as a politician, sometimes if you need help from someone, you have to kiss some butt (Which is why I will not make that a career). Perhaps we need to get out of the "Tit for Tat" mentality.

Rebel Radius said...

I wonder if it will be like a domino effect.

Britain, France and Holland governments are all pressure cookers, with their governments holding down the lid by the tips of their fingers.

I suspect there will come a point where the peasants will revolt. Their frustration will be echoed through unprecedented rioting.

Once things start to erupt in Europe, I seriously think that this will be the catalyst for a wave of global rebellion against islamism.

phuckie slum said...

I mentioned this blog to my friend.
I talked about bosch and his upcoming graphic novel he's working on called "the infidel", an anti-jihad comic, and that he is a former muslim turned completely away after 9/11. I also added bosch writes fiercely against islam.

My friend, who's an ultra liberal, had a clear disapproving face of like "man, you're really a racist", and Hmmm'd me when I finished talking as if he held himself back not to expose that I am a bigot!

Phew! He's so courteous!

Bosch Fawstin said...

Damien,

I bring this up because it's been chronic; If you want people to follow your links you can't give them any reason not to do so. Learn how to link and you'll get us to where you want us to go.

Your ideas on fighting Jihad are good ones, but as with any good ideas, we need the people on top to implement them, and what we have on top is not good enough. We will need a powerhouse in the whitehouse to end this threat once and for all. Until that happens, we will allow this enemy to live and kill us another day.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Fellow Infidel,

Thanks. I remember hearing once too many times about how we 'squandered' the sympathy of the world after we responded to 9/11 and it really pissed me off. The idea that 'the world' 'loves' us when we're victims, but hates at all other times.

Bosch Fawstin said...

godfrey of utah,

Bush will leave office with Iran intact as the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism in a post 9/11 world. If I ever had Any appreciation for his efforts in this war, this monumental dereliction kills it. Bush Doctrine? Pure Rhetoric.

Bosch Fawstin said...

rebel radius,

Muslims are every day turning the most tolerant, reasonable, peace-loving people in the world against them. And they will push us to say and do things we never thought we would. There will come a point during this war where we will be stopped cold and fully realize why we're fighting, and finally jettison our misplaced concern with Islam's well being, with 'fixing' Islam, with our being concerned about Islam's future, where we will all feel the desire to loudly declare 'Islam be damned!'

Bosch Fawstin said...

phuckie slum,

Has your friend ever said anything memorable against the enemy? I assume, his being a liberal, that he saves most of his vitriol for his own and stays clear from unloading on those who really deserve it out of shear fear. Like those 'heroic' libs who call Bush Hitler, they'd never say 'Osama bin Ladin is Hitler'

Damien said...

Bosch

I am sorry, I won't post anymore urls, until I learn how to post direct links.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Damien,

Apology unecessary, it's just better if you make the link as accessible as you can.

Anonymous said...

WOW!!! TRUTH HURTS BUT IT DONT KILL.

Bosch Fawstin said...

True.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Even the Wall Street Journal is wondering what the hell Bush is Not doing against Iran. Hat tip to Lindsay Perigo from SOLO. Here are a few choice words from the WSJ op/ed :

'Iran is contributing to the death of GIs, is arming our enemies in Iraq, and is proceeding to ignore the world by enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. Is the Bush Administration merely going to slink out of office with that legacy?'

Anonymous said...

I am, as most europeans, mostly socialist by nature, trying to get along with and help ALL that "comes with peace".

Because of my job, I get to speak with alot of arabs that are muslims the same way as most europeans are christian - rather casual and more due to tradition than to actual belief. They are as stunned by the western worlds lack of prober reaction against the extreeme muslims as you and I. As many of them say "you can not reason with these people - you have to fight fire with fire".

I myself, do not consider islam to be more violent than any other religion on this earth. Its the narrow minded people that takes their "holy books" as truth, and act upon it - that are dangerous and violent. Imagin if the extreeme hardcore christians that do exist and do kill and hate, had the real power in this world - that would be just as bad (but without the beard).

What happens when you try to reason with someone who truely hates you - he will have no respect for you, and he will continue to "attack" you untill he wins.

Now what happens when you hit hard on someone who truely hates you - he will still hate you, but he will respect you, and remember the beating he recieved the last time he had a go at you.

Either do it with all means - or dont do it at all.

Bosch Fawstin said...

anonymous,

Your Arab/Muslim friends get it, we must fight terror with terror, as that's the choice tactic our enemy has chosen and our going short of that gives us what we have today, a drawn out pretense at 'war', while the enemy remains alive and well and ready to kill us.

But Islam, by nature, is far more violent than any other religion on earth. There is NO equivalent of Jihad in any of the religions. The Crusades were a counterattack against the Jihads, and there was nothing in Christian theology which could justify it, so it died out as the Jihads continue to live on to this day. There was no murderous 'prophet' like Mohammed in any of the religions. This is a seriously overlooked point, when people attempt a moral equivalency among religons. All religions are Not created equal, and all but Islam seem to share the Golden Rule. And I don't need to follow a religion or believe in a God to understand that and appreciate it.

But your final point is well taken, the enemy Only respects us if we answer them in kind.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Who said this?

'....It matters to the security of people here at home if we don't work to change the conditions that caused 19 kids to be lured onto airplanes to come and murder our citizens...."

This is an unashamed, clear sympathy for the enemy, as if they're innocent victims, as if they're kids, [Mo Atta was around 30] who've been duped, as if they don't have their own reasons for murdering us, apart from conditions We can fix. People who fly planes into buildings can't be talked into it or talked out of it, they come to it with their own mind made up, they're long gone and locked to carry it out. Here's the short video, with the WTF? words near the end.

Anonymous said...

Exterminate them like bugs I say..

kill a couple million of them.. If they don't "get it" Exterminate a few million more.. If they still don't "get it" Exterminate every last one of them. They are a scourge on the planet.

Bosch Fawstin said...

You obviously don't want to attach your name to such a post, or to be clear about exactly what you mean. And who's 'they'? You could be a Jihadist talking about Infidels for all I know.

Damien said...

Bosch,

The thing that Bush doesn't realize, or fails to mention in his speech is that one of things that caused the conditions that made it possible for those "kids" to become suicidal murderers is Islamic Theology.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Damien,

That's the problem exactly. And the question is Why?
Why do most Americans know more about what powers the enemy than the man charged to protect us? This is unreal to me. What excuse does he have not to know? What Right, as commander in chief, does he have NOT to know? It's one thing to talk out of his ass on 9/12/01 about how peaceful Islam is, while being flanked, incredibly, by two CAIR hacks at a mosque. It's another thing to be available to infomation that we All have available to us and still not show that he's learned anything since. It's his job to know. If he can't defend us as he's supposed to, if he doesn't care to know who the hell the enemy behind the 9/11 atrocity is and then respond with full knowledge and power against them, what good is he as a president, as commander in chief?

Mike Thompson said...

Sorry it took so long to post a comment, Bosch. This is a VERY well-written and cogent essay, my friend. It's too bad the people that really need to read it (Bush, etc.)probably won't.

phuckie slum said...

It's been literally 10 years since I coined that term "pelvic thrust" in the online sphere (I just recently ended a post against Memories of the willow tree's suck up) and what do you know, the fucktard himself came back spamming using it.



Bosch,

I don't know if he specifically fears Islamists. He really believes every group is the same. He is utterly delusional and completely blind, like many of the libs. Although I never heard him say "Bushhitler", he's definitely thinking that - he just won't say it in general and especially not near me.

He told me once he "clearly sees the point" of Ward Churchill's remarks of the 9/11 victims being little Eichmans.

Another time I told him I am in favor of profiling in airports - just as car insurance agencies get a complete moral and legal back profiling drivers by numerous factors, including sex - he called me "racist". I asked if he thinks car insurance agencies are racist for having me pay more than a woman with an identical profile. He replied "No" and explained that statistically it's a fact men drive more dangerously than women. I then asked him why is he then calling me a racist when the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the terrorists and atrocities are conducted and operated by muslims? He resorted to convoluted crap that ended up with Timothy McVeigh.

So, I don't think he's not the sharpest tool in the shed out of fear. He is just a tool.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, Mike, glad you like it. Bush just read it, called me up, and after I heard a few words from him that proved he is no longer the non-presidential resident of the white house, I suggested that he invite Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan as his Islam 101 crash course teachers before he makes his big move against jihad. And Islam means peace.


Seriously, though, I was honored to get this essay sent out as an Op/Ed press release via SOLO [Sense of Life Objectivists] after Lindsay Perigo thought it was worthy of it. Nice.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Phuckie Slum,

I wonder if your lib friend would clearly see Ward Churchill’s ‘point’ if a loved one of his were one of the slaughtered on 9/11.
With libs, in general, it’s either directly personal, fully emotional, or it doesn’t matter. To the point where libs agree with something as vile as what Ward churchill said.

Mike Thompson said...

Bosch Fawstin wrote:

"Seriously, though, I was honored to get this essay sent out as an Op/Ed press release via SOLO [Sense of Life Objectivists] after Lindsay Perigo thought it was worthy of it. Nice."

Nice indeed. Congratulations.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, my friend, I've been seeing myself quoted more and more across the web and it definitely is gratifying.

George guy said...

Here's what I think might be a workable idea for the domestic front -- rather than target Islam directly and get politically hosed, instead target certain doctrines, through the application of some form of charitable security service.

Doctrine set 1: Domestic violence and honor killing
Provide shelters for people escaping domestic violence, connect them with a network of people to call on for help, and provide them with self-defense courses and materials.

Doctrine set 2: Intolerance of criticism
For people who have participated in publishing material regarding any ideological group with a history of violent suppression of criticism, especially those who have received credible threats, connect them with the same resources as described in #1.

Doctrine set 3: Imperialism
Identify the territory of criminal organizations and cults, and provide security to law-abiding people residing or working within the threat range of those areas, with the same resources as #1.

These doctrines, each taken individually, are not particularly Islamic, but the common denominator is obvious enough.

The real problem then is finding the money and people to make it go.

Damien said...

George guy,

You have some good ideas. I wonder what Bosch thinks.

Bosch Fawstin said...

George Guy,

Our government has this attitude that they think they have the right to NOT know our enemy and what this war against us is all about. Their job is to protect us and that entails that they Know The Enemy. They need not necessarily speak openly about what they learn about Islam and its Jihad, though I'd love to hear it, but they sure as hell need to know all about it to better defend us.
If we were to give our leaders, from Bush on down, pop quizzes about Islam, what do you think they'd score?

Islam is as political as it is religious, and this must be known to all as it will make us more able to reclassify it as such in order to shut down its organizations and mosques across this country that have been proven to be more than mere religious gatherings. Mosques that call for the overthrow of America should be shut down without question, no matter what the America hating/religion hating/Islam sympatizing ACLU think. They're not America, they're not our defenders and they can be put in their place rather easy when it comes to the defense of this country.

Bottom line is that our government's Single greatest purpose is to defend We the People, no matter what they entails, no matter who it pisses off. Our safety should come before ANY other consideration.

Bosch Fawstin said...

George Guy,

Your ideas are good ones, I was on a roll there, didn't mention it. I just think, again, that regardless if our leaders speak openly about the Islamic threat against us, they had BETTER know it, intimately, or their jobs are unjustified. They have no Right NOT to know. The reclassification of Islam as a political as well as religious belief system will go a long way to our getting on a solid track against Jihad.

Robert Jones said...

Excellent article, and I know you love puns, but "Mohammed GOD away with murder"?

Bosch, please, "Allah" is not God! I know you're an atheist, but cut the real and true God of us Christians and Jews some slack over here!

Allah can't even shine Yahweh's shoes, and it's high time Yahweh exposed his soul -- and soles -- to that false deity who doesn't bathe.

Robert Jones said...

P.S.: Catholics only believe in "turning the other cheek" ONCE. Turn it twice, shame on me.

Keep an eye on this new Pope, Benedict. He's a lot smarter than weakling Geo. Bush, and it was no coincidence that Benedict baptized Magdi Allam into the Christian faith.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Robert,

Good to have you here. 'Mo Allah away with murder' doesn't work, ha. This new Pope is interesting, he is indirectly challenging the enemy in his own way, no doubt about it. His openly quoting that Byzantinian's condemnation of Islam, and then not apologizing for it is telling, and no doubt his Baptizing of the former Muslim, in a big public display is some of the same. In his own way, he's fighting. He actually was friendly with the 'Christian/Atheist' Orianna Fallaci, [as she reffered to herself] and no doubt she had his ear as she tore up Islam in her inimitable way.

Damien said...

The Islamists have no idea how bad they are making themselves look. Threatening the Pope is not a good idea. You don't even have to like Catholicism to see how bad he is making them look. Benedict is receiving death threats, just for calling for a peaceful dialog between faiths. That is not something you should do, if you don't want to look like uncivilized, lunatic barbarians. This could do a lot to get the rest of the world to see them for who they really are.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SIREN said...

My only question here is why pin the whole thing down in Bush?
I mean, tell me one single thing Clinton did? I can tell you a trillion things he did to enable these scumbags...
Also, we have a soft exectuve, which means that Congress is full of assholes who are even taking our right to even name the enemy for what it is. So, my only question is why pin it only on Bush and not on Murtha, Moran, etc. etc. etc. The SC judges, Mr. Burns, Condi, Albright, Perry (Perry armed many muslims in Kosovo used Syrian decent president of Argentina to bypass the embargo), etc. etc. etc.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Siren,

I don't pin the whole thing on him, but his being the most powerful man on earth, leading an allegedly hawkish party into a post 9/11 world, I expect far more from him than I do from those whose weakness has put us in this precarious position to begin with. The democrats have proven themselves to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the anti-American party, look no further than who their presidential nominee is. All we have leading the other viable political party in America is a liberal Republican who has chosen to not crush this enemy and instead has chosen to bring democracy to those who vote in Islamic dictatorships. Bush has done just enough against this enemy in order for us to say, 'Well, he's doing something!' At least he's better than the democrats!' Not good enough in a post 9/11 America. Nowhere near not good enough. And keep in mind that his administration is talking to the greatest state sponsor or terrorism in the world, affectively negotiationg with terrorists. And he's helping our enemies the Saudis build nukes, check out that WSJ link I have on that in my Bucked Over post. I heard Rush Limbaugh say the other day on his radio show that when Bush leaves office, we'll likely say, 'He wasn't so bad.' Is that the standard Republicans have for their leaders?
I don't pin the whole thing on him, but do you blame any of it on him?

SIREN said...

I am not trying to exonerate Bush whatsoever. I just feel that it is very easy to blame someone AFTER 9/1... However to blame our own government is also part of the enemy’s strategy. To crumble a nation from within it’s at the top of the agenda of these strong wahhabi sleepers and while I don’t agree with many things Bush did not do or did/does, I look at what is at stake and balance it. They love the Ron Pauls for a reason.

Well, I agree with you that we need someone that can mandate pass this corrupt congress and this very fragile balance in our supreme court. That’s one thing Bush did good. He appointed one of the best justices in decades since Reagan appointed Scalia, Alito.

My point is also that by only concentrating in this administration and Bush, Bush, Bush and not pinning blame on past administrations and current congressmen, one is only giving power to the liberal enemies, (i.e.Obama /Biden/Pelosi/Murtha/ETC -– We are in an election year and even though McCain is not maverick, he will not halt many programs we have going on right b now, whereas Obama will), and contributing to the demise of a pillar of our system of government, the executive branch. I’m not saying anyone can blame anything on Bush, it is obvious that he is not doing enough, however your assertion of he is the most powerful man is not longer 100% valid and this is the setting he inherited.

STRONG Wahhabi influential organizations materialized and solidified during the Clinton administration. This gave Saudi a semi-permanent foot here.
-CAIR
-NAIT
-ISNA
-IDB (Islamic Development Bank)
-The IDB started to manage funds for Al-Quds, Al-Aqsa, etc. (you know... the Shi’a strand) during the Clinton Administration
-ITTF (International Institution of Islamic Thought) also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. ETC
-IRO (International Islamic Relief Organization)
-WAMY (World Assembly of Muslim Youth)

These are just a few of the big ones who then formed branches and smaller organizations and even aided the creation of homegrown ones, Muslims of America to name one. However the list is in the thousands. We have a web that it is slowly entangling us. But it didn’t start after 9/11. In fact, when they demonstrate with such an attack as the one of 9/11, it means that they are strong enough in that country already. Don’t expect to see uniformed jihadists. They don’t even wear uniforms in a warzone and we have them all over our institutions. And what many blame Bush for is the Patriot Act and how we "over reacted" after 9/11. Not so. However, this I blame on him, but also on our democratic congress mainly, the fact that they are now granted civil liberties. A veto can always be overridden by 3/4 or fight it in a way where the private sector will have no immunity therefore the government can’t count on their help to conduct internal surveillance, searches, phone pattern monitoring, etc. to counter the active Wahhabis we have within. The private sector is crucial. The government can't do it alone.

But like I said, all of the above orgs. and many more materialized during the Clinton Admin. It is no coincidence that by 1999 all of these major organization or channels to aid an establishment within of a strong Saudi Wahhabi presence received billions before the election year of 2000. This info can be found anywhere. One just needs to put the pieces together. But funding is something that the administration is doing something against as well. Yes, we are heavily dependent on Saudi, but at the same time, because of the Executive and not the other branches, we have been given Exec order to halt transactions. Yes, we are reduced to do that, but what can you do when you have thugs and so-called environmentalists, and the civil liberties crowd, who claim that the President/Executive should not mandate such “drastic” measures. What I’m trying to say is that nothing can be done because the check and balances has been tipped to an ever more illegal and corrupt congress allied with the enemy.

Internally, Clinton also turned almost all 17 intel agencies/division against one another and this weakened our defenses tremendously, especially after the dynamics of the cold-war geo-politik chessboard game drastically shifted, and resulted in many good operatives leaving. And this resulted in virtually poor or no intel gathering. Forget about covert ops. That’s one thing the CIA picked up during the first years of Bush. However, the liberal and their cronies have been attacking those too. But where do you think the killing of Iranian Hezbollah leaders or Al-qaeda leaders originate? Usually from our bases in Nevada or some other locations. We have also managed to destroy a lot of the Tehran’s infrastructure via covert bombings and isolated it where their only partners are, of course, Russia and China. We have actually managed to infiltrate Iran (the OSW), something that the Clinton’s didn’t see necessary, and block the tunnels between the Iranian/Iraqi border, that’s why the firefight is picking up in Afghan now.

Also, defense budget was cut by 37% and this doesn’t mean that it was just a 37% cut, but far more as defense programs need to be constantly updating and evolving. So in essence this was a HUGE cut. He also re-structured DOD under Perry so that the executive would end up having more power than it already did. Most presidents who want power more than anything will do exactly what he did. Not to mention that he, Bill Clinton, directly under Clark, Lake, etc. armed the enemy. He secretly bypassed the embargo in the Balkans via third parties Syria/Argentina and armed muslims to end the cleansing. These muslims were heavily tied with Bin Laden’s machinery. He also used NATO to bomb civilian targets in that region. One thing I strongly disagree with Bush is the Kosovo independence deal. But, muslims are the majority there now and the State Dept. (Burns especially) are thugs who do not want to see the West prevail. Now the result is an independent muslim state in Europe. The door is wide open, (not that Europe didn’t have them already), however this will give the OIC grounds proliferation. The struggle is now between either the Shi’a or Sunnis. Many won’t believe you that Al-qaida is more of an ideology that transcends both strands. After all, it would be a good assertion that Bin Laden is in Iran with the ayatollahs. They do have his son, the one who is politically active.

The articles you gave me are a typical newspaper desperate cry to say that they are in the know and that printed media is more than just obsolete. There are no secrets that Saudi can’t get from A.Q. Khan and others alike regarding nuclear tech. For that matter, Israel also sold China nuclear secrets. It is no longer about secrets, but who gets the technology first and who knows more about what the other is doing (i.e. North Korea, Libya, Iran, Russia, China, etc.) and what tests have they done and who they are dealing with to obtain and deliver. Here is one point that you might want to give Bush. North Korea for the first time gave complete access to their Yongbyon nuclear complex which houses the three core facilities of their plutonium program, the 5-MW(e) reactor, the reprocessing facility (radiochemical labs), and the fuel rod fabrication plant. For the moment, we are managing to separate DPRK and Iran. Well, and since we are talking about Iran, we did bomb a lot of the infrastructure of Iran and have managed to kill many leaders of Hezbollah/Al-Qaida/and others. We also managed to paralyze Iran’s trade with anyone in the world for oil. And they do have a huge reserve that they can’t sell. They have the second largest in natural gas and the sixth largest crude oil reserves in the world, but nobody to sell it other than Russia, but Russia has its own. However, there are reports that Iran has been paying off Russia’s tech help with crude oil. That way Russia could subjugate Europe even more.

I have in mind the negotiations you are talking about. But we know it is oxymoron to try and negotiate with someone who has declared war and is determined at getting the a-bomb to kill both "the great satan, the US, and the little satan, Israel." It is the belief of the ayatollahs that Mahmoud Ahmadinejab has been tasked by bringing their hidden imam back, the Mahdi, and in order to do this they must bring chaos and destruction. Otherwise their "savior", the Mahdi, will not come back. So we are dealing with someone who does not get deterred as they believe that their own destruction is irrelevant if their savior will come back with that 7 year peace treaty BS. It’s a shi’a prophecy and they FIRMLY believe that that time has come. Iran is a suicidal nation.

In this case, sending Burns to Switzerland to talk to Iran was by no means a negotiation or a failure. In fact, we have talked to them via intermediaries since 1979 and this one was made public on purpose. You have a boy called Obama, who is nothing but a blank slate for anyone to use and manipulate, saying Iran is not a threat. You have Saudi Arabia on your neck and playing with our own infrastructure as they please. You have a group of reformists in Iran. You have an EU, which has been talking to Iran all this time. What do you think by making such an appearance at the typical EU/IAEA and Iran meetings could have done? We knew that they will not take the package and if they did, then that would have caused a huge rebellion within Iran. The package included a group of experts led by the United States under IAEA, but our own experts (some Israeli too if you know what I mean) at their three most important plants around Tehran, especially AKOR and the one in the gulf that has actually been re-designed the old soviet style, Bushehr nuclear plant. We also knew that the EU will see how they would not take the incentive package and therefore form yet another set of “party talks” phase, which is seen also as a weakness because the prior ones failed. We knew that, by proving that Iran will not stop its nuclear ambitions despite the fact they say they have 18 nuclear reactors/plants active but don’t need nuclear energy. The "talk" with Iran did also alleviate us from Saudi to increase yet again their ongoing funding, (BTW, treasury and many other agencies work 24/7 to track/halt/prevent daily transactions from them based on Exec Orders, which the 2006 congress strongly opposes – for that I ask where are the Clinton Exec Orders that not even someone with a TS clearance has access to?), and also not for them to increase the barrel as they were going to. By going to these "talks" which is nothing new, we will at least have proven that Obama was wrong, so there you have a domestic political gain. Some of the above have yet to come into effect and I surely hope they do. But nothing was lost. The EU completely embarrassed, Obama an oxymoron (I hope the liberal media would show how the Iranians never even responded by their deadlines and the package was the most generous one they could have ever gotten). So also blame the media.

Clinton also completely stopped our strategic missile defense and hence lessening our and Israel’s defenses more to EMP and long-range missile attacks. It is no coincidence that Iran tested high-altitude missiles in the Caspian as well as long-range ones (Shihab-3) later. Thank G-d we have signed the agreement with Poland now, but we need the radars back and the Czech Rep. is still hesitant. We have been trying these missile defense negotiations with Eastern Europe for almost two years now. Clinton didn’t think after the cold war we needed a strategic and comprehensive missile defense system and remember the 37% DOD cut. This whole Russian/Georgian thing has a lot to do with it. Russia and Iran have been allies for over a decade and we have managed to halt many deals and isolate Iran, but not so much the Russian side. Remember Iran is suicidal. This also affected our relations with the Saudis. The Saudis needed to keep the barrel down if Iran was going to be completely isolated. It is a high cost, but the mess was started not by Bush. It was in exploding before Bush and we only saw a mere glimpse. The worst is yet to come. But please there are so many to blame and by pinning everything on just Bush and the executive branch, is like saying here you go Obama have the throne the Saudis made for you with Petro dollars. And please remember we were one judge away of losing our 2nd amendment rights. That at least won’t change during the McCain administration.

Well, I probably went in circles and repeated a bunch of things and have a zillion spelling/grammar mistakes, but I’m just trying to reply really fast. I had no idea you had replied to my comment. I didn't click on the email me if I get a response box. I did for the other comments I made on other postings of yours, but... j/k

I guess my main point is that: Well I’m just going to copy and paste… one of my own paragraphs…

My point is also that by only concentrating in this administration and Bush, Bush, Bush and not pinning blame on past administrations and current congressmen, one is only giving power to the liberal enemies, (i.e. Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Murtha/ETC. – We are in an election year and even though McCain is not maverick, he will not halt many programs we have going on right b now, whereas Obama will), and contributing to the demise of a pillar of our system of government, the executive branch.

PS. You should make a youtube with your art. It's excellent and promote your site and book with a youtube vid. I'll put it up on a blog that I have appoximately 2,000 visitors daily and it is often posted on myspace too and it gets to be one of the top 10 in the entire myspace network worldwide. Just a suggestion. I really like your art and the way you think about islam. I only wish more people from California thought like you.
PS2. Rush/Savage and others alike are very good radio hosts and I love listening to them, however the do not know .0001% of what is going on inside. It's not as eassy as it looks. We are fighting not only outsiders who are inside, but also Americans with such determination (also funded by the same enemy), trying to prevent a nuclear middle-east, trying to fight Al-Qaeda and Iran so we pospone their ultimate goal of an a-bomb, and trying to re-build our own nuclear defenses.

luke9.54_56 said...

Though many would deny it, good and evil both exist. Religious people explain it as the tree of knowledge of good and evil: man brought evil into the world by his own choices.

The root of our divide is that there are two world views that do not "intersect" or "collide;" they repel.

These two world views cause those who hold them to either accept responsibility or avoid accepting it.

One of these repellent world views causes man to act cowardly, resenting and blaming others for his enslavement; the other world view challenges man to rise up, and defeat those who would enslave him...