An unappeasable global jihad

[Snowden]

An unappeasable global jihad
By David Limbaugh
Friday, August 4, 2006


We are fighting a global war against international terrorists because the terrorists are engaged in a global jihad against infidels. The scariest thing about it is that a good many people in this country believe we actually have the luxury of opting out.

Isn't the operative assumption that we are dealing with a reasonable enemy that doesn't want war any more than we do?

Onlookers are prevented from appoaching the wreckage of a car belonging to Islamic Jihad militant Emad Yassin as others inspect it, after it was hit in an Israeli missile strike in Gaza City, Friday, June 16, 2006. Hospital officials said two Islamic Jihad militants including Emad Yassin were killed during the Israeli air strike. (AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)

Why else would Democratic Congressman Martin Frost tell Fox News -- approvingly -- that "a majority of the American people has now decided that it was a mistake for us to go into Iraq "? Why else would certain media elites treat the ranting, spooky 18-page letter of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush as a thoughtful, serious piece warranting the president's good faith consideration? Ahmadinejad, by the way, said on Aug. 3 that the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.

Why else would the Left be so quick to declare moral equivalence between the actions of the Hezbollah terrorist aggressors and those of Israeli defenders? Why else would the liberal media downplay Hezbollah's raining of over 200 rockets on potentially civilian targets in one day while ignoring the possibility that the report of civilian deaths in Qana from Israeli airstrikes was part of a terrorist-staged propaganda event? Doesn't the fact that terrorists traffic in lies as well as murder warrant skepticism at least?

Why else would "more than a third of the American public suspect that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East" (according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll)?
Why else would former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ed Peck (and others) refuse to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization? "A terrorist organization," said the diplomat, "is in the eye of the beholder." When asked, point blank, whether Hezbollah was a terrorist organization, Peck said, "No, I think it has objectives to which we object very strongly, and some of them are bloody. But other people are doing things quite similar to that and they're not called terrorists because they're on our side."

Yes, many in this country stubbornly believe the United States, let alone Israel, is not an entirely innocent party in this war. They believe, variously, that terrorists have legitimate grievances that can be mollified through negotiation, that we can rectify those grievances by altering our "imperialistic" policies and that Muslim terrorists have a right to be outraged that we attacked Iraq and had the audacity to help the Iraqis establish a political system whereby they could choose their own leaders instead of submitting to an unelected dictator.

They believe the terrorists have a right to be outraged at our consistent support of the Israelis, which are no different from the terrorists and allegedly have no greater claim to the Holy Land than the Palestinians. They believe the Palestinians are victims who are willing to live in peace with Israel if it will just cede a little more land, and a little more land, and a little more land, and that the United States has no moral authority in demanding the cessation of Iran's nuclear weapons program since we have the world's most formidable nuclear arsenal ourselves. They believe that if we hadn't attacked Iraq, the terrorists wouldn't be so mad at us and might not be at war against us.

So what if they finally badger our policy makers into withdrawing from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of assuming the job themselves? Will this withdrawal make us less of a target for the terrorists? Or will we have to withdraw our support for Israel as well? Perhaps join the terrorists in attacking Israel? How about our presence in Saudi Arabia?

The uncomplicated answer is that no matter what we do, policy-wise, we will remain infidels with gigantic bull's-eyes on our backs unless we renounce our capitalistic ways, destroy our churches and synagogues, outlaw our pluralistic religious society, convert to a radical Islamic theocracy and join the global jihad en route to a worldwide caliphate.

We are in this war for the long haul whether we like it or not. The only question is whether we intend to fight it or roll over in shameful appeasement until we are in a much weaker position to fight at such time as even the appeasers realize we have no other choice.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/D...e_global_jihad

[AndJusticeForAll]

The answer lies in my sig line.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by AndJusticeForAll

The answer lies in my sig line.

Well, if the Israelis figure they're losing this war with Hezbollah, they seem to have a nuke aimed that way, AJFA. Aimed, armed and ready to go.

This article is timely - we cannot affort to postpone this battle any longer. They started it, thinking they can win. We have to finish it, proving they cannot win.

[Caldric]

Umm guys don't you think a nuclear war is a little drastic? There will never be an end if that happens.