Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Democrats' Unrelenting Assistance To Jihadists


In wartime, two types of battles are waged: one that uses physical weaponry, and one that relies on ideological warfare.

Opposing forces use both types of warfare to try to weaken and ultimately defeat their enemies. The latter, however, is used to subvert, and ultimately collapse an enemy's will to fight.

And as has been shown time after time throughout history, the ideological war often strongly influences (if not dictates) how the military war is fought, and its ultimate outcome. A strong, proud nation is capable of withstanding and repelling its enemy's ideological warfare.

But what happens when the enemy's ideological warfare campaign strategies and tactics are mirrored by those in high political office in one's own nation? The answer is: subversion from within, by acting to echo, justify and propagandize the enemy's message and strategy.

Let me be clear: One need not agree with or endorse everything that America's Commander-In-Chief does. In our free society, there can be --- and ought to be --- principled, calm, reasoned debates everywhere from the kitchen table to the highest legislative bodies, so long as they are focused on one common goal: the security of one's own nation.

Today, however, the enemy that America is engaged in a generational struggle against --- militant Islamism (Muslim supremacism & totalitarianism) is getting invaluable, enduring and powerful assistance from one of America's two dominant political parties. And I am convinced that future historians will look back upon today's Democratic Party (and their enablers in the MSM and beyond) as a phemenon that has no parallel.

First there was Sen. John Kerry's claim that U.S. soldiers are "terrorists." Then there was Rep. John Murtha's claim that the U.S. "cannot win" in Iraq. Then there was Speaker Nancy Pelosi playing diplomatic tonsil-hockey with Syrian tyrant Basher Assad (mere hours after she refused to allow the House to vote on a resolution condemning Iran's taking of 15 British soldiers and holding them hostage). Then Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed the U.S. has "lost the war" in Iraq.

Then, the Democrats in the House and Senate tried to upend our Constitution at its roots, by declaring that it is they --- not the President and the generals under his command --- who are vested with the lawful authority to dictate how lawfully-authorized military engagements are fought, and when, where, and how troops are deployed and when they are to be withdrawn. And thanks to the insufferable dumbing-down that our (Democrat-enabled) teachers unions have perpetrated on generation after generation of our kids, most Americans don't even know the most basic provisions of the Constitution, so they are unable to tell the difference; right now, it's an "anything-goes" in regards to Constitutional matters.

And stretching back to 2003, Democrats and militant leftist organizations have --- just like jihadists --- been calling President Bush a "war criminal," and America an "imperialist aggressor" for daring to finally go on the offense against jihadists and their enablers after the 9/11 attacks.

Then, as documented here at JQWorld, in
The (Literal) "Daily Call For Surrender," turns out the Democrats are holding daily phone conferences with the most rabid leftist anti-war groups, to plot and plan strategies and tactics to force America to surrender to al Quada in Iraq (and by default, in Afghanistan and elsewhere). And as usual, the MSM just let out one big collective *yawn.* (Of course, if it were discovered during the Clinton administration that the Congressional Republican leadership was holding daily conference calls with their supporters, to plot strategy to subvert his military deployments [Kosovo, Haiti, etc.], the Democrats, their MSM lapdogs and leftist activist groups would be going apeshit bananas, screaming for hearings, campaign-finance investigations, etc.)

And through it all, the jihadists and their enablers have been laughing their collective asses off, because the Democrats and their seething leftist base has been largely doing their work for them, regarding their ideological warfare campaign against America.

Most recently, on Sunday, June 10, Sen. Joe Lieberman told CBS's Bob Sheiffer that the U.S. Senate has conclusive evidence that Iran has been training, arming, deploying and supporting jihadists that have murdered upwards of 200 of our soldiers, across its border in Iraq. Lieberman went on to say that this cannot be allowed to continue --- and that if Iran doesn't stop this activity post haste, the U.S. may have to take military action against Iran, primarily in the form of air strikes against the bases and facilities where these activities are occurring.

And what was the response from the top eschelon of the Democratic Party?

Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed that the U.S. should not even consider striking Iran --- a de facto enemy that has been and is provoking a military battle with America --- because it would "destabilize the region." Unironically, this is almost precisely what the Iranian madman, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his minions are saying: that if America launches any kind of military attack against any of its facilities, up to and including those devoted to its nuclear-weapons development, that it would not only (a) destabilize the region, but that it would (b) trigger a severe response, up to and including the deployment of 50,000 suicide bombers (many of whom are now living among us, or could be rapidly redeployed from bases in Central and South America), to strike on U.S. soil.

Further, Sen. Reid went on to deliberately mischaracterize what Sen. Lieberman said, by referring to his statements as indicative of supporting an "invasion" of Iran, which Lieberman clearly did not say.

But today, facts and context no longer matter to leading Democrats (or their enablers in the MSM). Nor, apparently, does the very-real and very-obvious encouragement that Iran --- one of the world's leading sponsors of jihadist murder and intimidation --- derive from the current Democratic strategy to subvert America's efforts to combat this deadly enemy.

To draw an analogy, imagine if there were a gang of murderers that was terrorizing a town. The people would rightfully look to their law enforcement agencies to hunt down this gang and bring them to justice --- and if they refused to be taken alive, to physically strike back so hard that the gang was rendered unable to commit any more of its murderous acts. But what would happen if a significant (if not dominant) portion of the town's law enforcement leadership proclaimed that it would not pursue the gang, because it would only make things worse, by "destabilizing" the town? More importantly, what would such a message send to the gang of murderers? It would tell them that despite all the bluster and justified rage of the townspeople, the gang has won the tacit approval to continue its murderous reign, because the townspeople have been rendered impotent by the policies adopted by their leaders --- policies which could well have been written by the gang itself, to ensure not only its survival, but the lawful impossibility of an armed response.

Let history be our guide as to what happens when such a phenomena occurs not in a town, but on the world stage, when murderous regimes are not only tolerated, but are given a tacit moral sanction by the one organization that is (supposedly) chartered to prevent international conflicts: the United Nations.

Iran and its proxies in Hezbollah, etc., have murdered more Americans than any other Islamist group prior to the 3,000 that al Quada did, on 9/11. It declared war on America in 1979, and has been at war with us ever since. And we have done essentially nothing, except to withdraw from every fight they have provoked with us. Surprise: this has only served to embolden Iran's political leaders and its mullah-ocracy (especially being that we are so dependent on their oil, and our leftist legislators have prevented us from weaning ourselves from foreign oil, by prohibiting the expansion of our ability to find and access our own oil supplies, on our own soil).

Today, if Lieberman is correct, Iran is facilitating the murder of our soldiers. And Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel (and by default, any nation that stands up to it) off the map" via the nuclear weaponry it is developing. And the supposed body of international moral governance and diplomacy --- the U.N. --- cannot even muster the votes necessary to condemn this clear violation of its charter.

But while the U.N. is a passive enabler of Iran's murderous acts and aspirations, the Democratic Party is actively enabling it, by using the power of our laws (that they are now largely in command of) to subvert America's ability to finally respond to Iran's acts against us. Put simply, if Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi were actually being paid by Iran, it's hard to imagine how much more they could be doing to subvert American security than they already are, today.

And yet one presumes they aren't doing this for money --- they are doing it out of a combination of sheer political expediency, to hold onto their power at any price, which means placating the seething, America-hating, jihadist-appeasing leftist organizations that constitute their "new base," led by MoveOn.org, which proudly claims it has "bought, paid for, and now owns" the Democratic Party, en masse.

Let a principled debate begin on how to deal with the very-real, very-potent threat that Iran represents to not only American security, but to global stability. But by their actions, such Democrats have rendered themselves not only unworthy of engaging in such a debate, but actually detrimental to one --- because American security, and a rational view of justice, is clearly not what they are aiming for.

Perhaps once the MSM's fixation with Paris Hilton, the latest celebrity dust-ups, and up-to-the-minute poll standings of presidential candidates abates, we can actually engage in such a debate.

Though I'm an optimist, I won't be holding my breath.

It will be up to ordinary Americans, and especially bloggers and those precious few news outlets that refuse to act as sockpuppets and enablers of the Democratic Party, to let Republicans (and security-minded Democrats) know that if they will not finally lay down the law with Iran, then we will find public servants who will.


UPDATE: File this under "Wisdom from the most unlikely sources..."

After the recent pet-food scare, I contacted the manufacturer of the one I use. Upon learning that the food I buy was not included in the recall, and in response to my concern, the firm opted to send me a coupon for a substantial discount off my next purchase.

The coupon arrived today, along with instructions for those who wish to transition their pets from wet to dry food. After Step 1, which discusses how to portion the old vs. new types of food during the transition period, along comes:

"Step 2: Don't give in to demands. During the initial two-day period, don't give your dog treats or table scraps. Giving in to his demands only reinforces refusal behavior."

Wow, eh? Maybe I should make a photocopy of this instruction sheet and send it to the Democratic leadership (and the State Department, etc.). It's painfully evident that they've never been exposed to this principle.

Iran, Syria and North Korea have learned this principle quite well: rattle your physical and ideological sabres against a better-armed but internally-corrupted opponent, and they'll give in every time. The U.N. has been in the business for 50 years of giving in to demands of the most bloodthirsty and brutal regimes (including jihadist ones), all in the name of "getting along."

And as has been warned, the ultimate showdown between America and the bastards behind those nations will, in all likelihood, be far bloodier than it would have been, had we dealt with them when the mountains of problems we face today were mere molehills.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to jonquix@hotmail.com


President Ahmedinajad said...

READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).


Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.

Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version se below link


Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.

And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.

Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!

NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.

100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING


Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?

GENESIS: 21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.” And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.

The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 than the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.

This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??

Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?

I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.

For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites:















HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122

101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

104. We called out to him "O Abraham!

105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

106. For this was obviously a trial-

107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"

110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

111. For he was one of our believing Servants.

112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.

113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,

115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;

116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);

117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;

118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.

119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:

120. "Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!"

121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

122. For they were two of our believing Servants.

Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka'ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael's mother followed him saying, "O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?" She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, "Has Allah ordered you to do so?" He said, "Yes." She said, "Then He will not neglect us," and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka'ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
'O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.' (14.37) Ishmael's mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times."
The Prophet said, "This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it."
The Prophet added, "May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael's mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth." The Prophet further added, "Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, 'Don't be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.' The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada'. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, 'This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.' They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water)." The Prophet added, "Ishmael's mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, 'Do you allow us to stay with you?" She replied, 'Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.' They agreed to that." The Prophet further said, "Ishmael's mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.

USpace said...

Great one, right on, and as the PW's saying goes: "Say NO to War! Unless a Democrat is President!" Or rather, a DhimmicRAT...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
taking hostages is good

you will get away with it
America do nothing

JonQuixote said...

Re President Ahmadinejad... wow, that guy's got some lungs, eh?

Of course, none of it addresses the central fact that neither Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus nor atheists are beheading unbelievers for entertainment, or flying airliners into buildings, or are on a quest for world domination. No, that is all exclusively the jihadist domain.

And if the jihadists want our incursions into their lands to stop, then all they have to do is to stop attacking us and Israel, and other free/semi-free nations.

Normally I wouldn't put up such drivel, but hey, being that he's such a... charismatic fellow (nutjob), figured what the hell - it's a conversation piece, right?

- JQ

JonQuixote said...

USpace -

Yep. And assuming (shudder) a Democrat actually is elected in 2008, and he/she takes military action against any nation, of course it will all be A-OK with his/her swooning leftist automatons... and the MSM, because, well, it wasn't Bush doing it, therefore it must be justified.

And of course the MSM will play defense on his/her behalf against all those who would question such military action. Kind of like a Haiti redeux under Bubba.

- JQ

JonQuixote said...


Oh, and Mr. President...


Not as you wrote it, "President Ahm*e*dinajad"

Now what would the 12th mahdi think if you can't even spell your name correctly, yet you claim justification to instigate a final global genocide in order to bring him forth!?


- JQ