The Coffeespy

Coffeespy HQ has undergone an intensive study of religious figures, cultural trends, and historical events developing the most scientific and irrefutable assessment you will ever read - bar none.

The left has hit upon the cause behind America’s difficulty with radical Islam - the religious right. Yes, it’s true. The underlying reasons, however, are very different than what you may be thinking. In fact, I would go so far as to say you are about to have the pillars of your faith rocked by four-color awesome.

Background

First, a little history. Way back in biblical times, there were a lot of lepers. Apparently, the population of lepers grew through a lack of culling by the angry, vengeful God of the Old Testament. Indeed, it was this very demographic, diseased misanthropes, that God decided would be his new primary voting bloc. And so, he crafted up Jesus - a peace-loving, miracle-bestowing dude of massive healing and food-creation abilities. He traveled all around the biblescape healing lepers, curing blindness and such. He was the right man for the times.

Or so we are led to believe. You see, we’re only seeing the story as written by those he healed and helped. We’re not seeing the story written by those he vanquished in the cleansing, vengeful fires of God’s wrath. Now THIS is the kind of diety we need to get behind. Coffeespy HQ has uncovered verified simulated information that Christ was vastly different in real life. Rather than traipsing around healing people willy-nilly and preaching about turning the other cheek, Jesus could switch, much like Christopher Walken, from good guy to all-out Old Testament-style nuke thrower quicker than it takes to blurt a psalm.

Current Situation

Islam has Allah, a god that calls upon his people to not only conquer all others, but gives them the latitude to literally explode themselves all over the rest of the population. I mean, that’s a harsh, hard-core kind of divinity. And he’s crafty, too, allowing his disciples to interpret his book as either a slash and burn doctrine for world domination or an apologist public affairs effort to protect the masses until such time as they can be used as living grenades. This is one bad-ass lord of all we’re dealing with here.

Stacking up against Allah we have Jesus. Let’s take a look at the Son of God, shall we?

Note the powers and titles of our hero. The “Prince of Peace.” He uses “love” and “forgiveness.” Also, he’s wearing almost no protective armor. What chance does this kind of holy warrior have against bin Laden and company? None!

Now let’s take a look at the big man himself, the gee-oh-dee: GOD.

Aw yeah, busting through shattered glass, deflecting bullets with his arm, and hair blowing all wild like he’s got his own personal hurricane just for his head! Unfortunately, there’s Jesus pinned up by mere mortals with just about the woosiest look he can have on his face. “Oh yay, Dad’s here to save my bacon one more time.” Come on, how many times did the Spawn of the Almighty have to get help from Dad? Way too many!

In fact, so many times that Coffeespy HQ analysts have scientifically proven, with number so brain-shattering that we cannot show you, that it must not be true. Also, Coffeespy HQ researchers have pieced together an alternate and completely true version of events that prove beyond argumentation that Jesus was neither a pacifict nor a “man of peace.”

Popular history says that Jesus died for the sins of many. This is not so, Jesus actually crucified himself in order to make himself harder for his many cage matches with other pantheons. We know this because nobody worships Zeus anymore, at least not seriously. So where did Zeus and his minions go? Jesus ended them.

Remember that scientific explanation we can’t reveal to you lest your mind explode? It says, basically, that Jesus was on the cross during one of his hard-core training sessions when Zeus and his cronies showed up mistakenly thinking the Romans had gotten to him. They began teasing Jesus. Below is the completely true and authentic artists representation of what followed. Jesus flew off the cross and godsmacked the Greek Pantheon straight out of existence:

KRAKA-BOOM, indeed. With this absolutely accurate version of Jesus restored to history, our analysts believe we can concentrate on increasing the SMITE America doles out by at least 75%. No longer will Christian pundits be content to allow progressives debating the separation of church and state to go un-punched. No longer will military Chaplains be pushed to the sidelines of conflict and can finally act as they should have all along - Weapons of Mass Divinity!

Stay tuned, dear reader. Coffeespy HQ will be releasing the new and, finally, true stories of Jesus of Nazareth in a monumental tome entitled: Ultimate Jesus, Son of Smite. Hopefully, this will give Christians the boost they need to rise up and cleanse the globe of all non-believers.

Tony Blair, whom the Left refers to as the Warlord of the Isles, has a few words for radical Islam. From Tim Blair’s site:

The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we’re not actually fighting it properly. We’re not actually standing up to these people and saying, “It’s not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn’t justified.”

A superheroic salute goes to I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err for this one.

While Blair’s words are great and all, I’d suggest handling these worms the Reagan way:

Josh Marshall of the Talking Points Memo compares the Bush administration’s use of the term “enhanced interrogations” to the Nazi use of the term “sharpened interrogations.”  From Talking Points Memo:

Very uncomfortable. “Enhanced interrogation”, the Bush administration’s preferred newspeak for torture, appears to have been coined by the Nazi Party in 1937.

interrogation”, the Bush administration’s preferred newspeak for torture, appears to have been .There are way too many facile comparisons of whatever group or individual we dislike to Nazis. But when the shoe fits.

I’m a little more concerned that in order for the comparison to be valid, we also have to equate a victimized Jewish population or non-Nazi citizens to Islamo-fascist terrorists captured while trying to murder Americans.  I’m also concerned that the Left seems to think this is ok to do, as long as it helps cast aspersions on U.S. operations.

Commenting on the comparison is the Coffeespy’s Nazi Subject Matter Expert, Steve Rogers:

From an Early Birded op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

CBS’s hit series “Criminal Minds” recently aired an episode entitled “Lessons Learned,” where FBI agents traveled to Guantanamo Bay and coaxed a confession from a known terrorist detainee that led to the prevention of an anthrax attack on a Northern Virginia shopping mall. The point of the story was that the regular interrogation tactics (pictured as brutal assaults on the prisoner) were not working, and that the military should adopt the enlightened methods of the crack interrogators from “Criminal Minds.”

Having served as an Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer in Gitmo, a legal adviser to criminal investigators pursuing leads in the war on terror, and a Military Commissions prosecutor, I have first-hand knowledge and experience about what happens there. And here is the ironic truth: The military has outlawed some of the “Criminal Minds” interrogators’ tactics — in response to pressure by the international community.

On TV, an analyst observed the detainee’s behavior from an adjoining room behind two-way glass for revealing body movements and language. Subtle movements and body language signaled which statements were true and which were false, leading to a breakthrough that saved lives. In reality, when such a tactic was used at Gitmo the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called it “torture.” Gitmo authorities used to employ Behavior Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs, pronounced “biscuits”), trained psychologists/psychiatrists who did exactly what the TV analyst did: used psychology to help interrogators learn the truth. But the ICRC considered their role in planning and assisting with interrogations “a flagrant violation of medical ethics.” The military responded by curtailing the role of BSCTs.

On TV, CIA and FBI interrogators used the detainee’s religion to gain leverage. The CIA interrogators refused to allow the detainee to pray; then the FBI allowed the prayers but adjusted them to manipulate the detainee’s sense of time. Because of the manipulation, the detainee admitted responsibility for an attack that he incorrectly believed had already occurred, allowing the attack to be thwarted. In reality, the U.S. does not manipulate detainee’s religious practices. In Gitmo, everything stops, including interrogations, so detainees can pray. The Islamic call to prayer is broadcast, several times a day, over loudspeakers. Everyone in and around the detention camp is forced to listen.

On TV, the interrogators give the detainee a prayer mat and point out the direction to Mecca to win his gratitude. In reality, the U.S. gives religious items such as prayer mats, prayer caps, prayer oil, prayer beads and Qurans to all detainees. They don’t need anyone to point out the direction of Mecca because the U.S. paints black arrows on the ground pointing toward Mecca in every cell and around the camp.

In fact, at Camp Bucca, a U.S.-run detention camp in Iraq, the U.S. erected a tent as a makeshift mosque and designated it off-limits to prison guards so that detainees could pray in solitude. The detainees used their privacy to turn the “mosque” into a weapons cache, and then attacked the prison guards. This led to a battle for control of the camp that lasted four days.

Despite the debacle at Camp Bucca, the military still designates some items (such as the Quran) as “off-limits” to prison guards, even though detainees misuse the Quran to conceal illegal contraband, including prescription pills. U.S. forces in Gitmo go to these great lengths despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions provide for POWs to practice their religion only “on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by military authorities.”

On “Criminal Minds,” the detainee glanced toward bottles of water lining a table, and said, “They line it up to show what I cannot have.” In reality, detainees at Gitmo receive ample food and water, including Halal meals and imported seasonal fruits and nuts from their native countries for special occasions.

While the crime show’s creators must resort to fiction to depict interrogations, they don’t have to fictionalize the contempt that most detainees show for Americans. Hollywood gets that part right. On TV, the fictional detainee said of killing innocent Americans: “There is no such thing, they were infidels . . . they hurt me by existing! The infidels will fall at the hands of the righteous, and that is when the jihad will end.”

In reality, according to Gitmo’s Web site, one detainee said, “The people who died on 9/11/2001 were not innocent . . . my group will shake up the U.S. and the countries who follow the U.S.” Another told military police officers that he would “come to their homes and cut their throats like sheep.” Yet another detainee threatened, “I will arrange for the kidnapping and execution of U.S. citizens living in Saudi Arabia. Small groups of four of five U.S. citizens will be kidnapped, held and executed. They will have their heads cut off.” These real statements make one thing clear: life in Gitmo has not broken the detainees’ spirits.

Hollywood sets unrealistic expectations for many things. The “Criminal Minds” episode represents one instance where truth is tamer, and many would argue stranger, than fiction.

I realize I’m a few days behind on this, but Powerline has a good summary and quote on the incidents in Minnesota, especially where it pertains to Minneapolis Technical Community College:

Why is it that Minneapolis, of all places in the United States, faces the eruption of controversies over Sharia law? From the Somali taxi drivers who refuse to transport passengers carrying alcohol to the Target cashiers who refuse to ring up pork products and the flying imams testing airport security, something’s happening here.

An update from the Minneapolis Star Tribune shows the fundamental flaw in reasoning where Islam is concerned in the U.S.  In response to the Metropolitan Airport Commission’s crackdown on taxi drivers not picking up fares if they have alcohol:

“We see this as a harsh penalty against fellow Americans only because they are practicing their faith,” the Muslim scholar said. “This does not reflect the American values of tolerance and accommodation.”

American values include tolerance, not accomodation.  This is a common mistake.  Tolerance means you will be allowed to exist, not that every insane whimsy of your deranged belief system will be catered to.

The Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Protestant 10 Commandments state that “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Now imagine people of those faiths refusing to serve those worshipping other gods in whatever their daily job is.

Yeah, it’s that damn stupid.

Instapundit shined the light on Back Talk’s article on the effects of the troop surge.  From Back Talk:

My latest analysis shows that there is good news and bad news from Iraq concerning the troop surge. The good news is that casualties in Baghdad have come down very substantially. The bad news is that casualties elsewhere in Iraq have increased substantially. And, no, it’s not because the civil war spilled over to the rest of the country. It’s because al Qaeda started targeting innocent Shiite civilians where it was easier to do so. And, no, such attackes do not represent “sectarian violence” between Shiites and Sunnis. Only Democratic Senators and Representatives and mainstream media reporters believe that nonsense. The violence expanded beyond Baghdad because Sunni al Qaeda jihadists are doing everything in their power to get Shiites to kill Sunnis. Civil war is al Qaeda’s goal (because it suits their jihadist objectives), and that’s how this differs from the civil war schema that Democrats and reporters simply cannot get out of their heads. (italics mine)

Well, kind of.  Back Talk’s numbers, and adjustments for anomolies, looks very diplomatic to me.  I highly suggest reading the full post.  What I want to point out here, though, lies in the italics above.  If you read here regularly, you’ll already know of this from Acute Politics, the blog by the guy who’s over there now:

There are thirty-one major tribes int the Al-Anbar province. Of those thirty-one, twenty-five support the Anbar Awakening effort of the Anbar Salvation Council- the social and political gathering of sheiks and former insurgents who oppose terroism in Al-Anbar. Of the six remaining tribes, the Iraqi government, Coalition Forces and the Anbar Salvation Council are attempting to split two off from the Al-Qaeda umbrella organization Islamic State of Iraq. Those two tribes are the Al-bu Issa and the Al-Zuba’a. Both have started to fight against Al-Qaeda, and are beginning to pay for it dearly. One chlorine bomb detonated in the Al-bu Issa region of Falluja, as I wrote before, injuring 250 civilians.

That’s Sunni on Sunni, folks.  So much for ’sectarian violence’ in any sense of the phrase.

And as for sectarian violence as a concept at all, where it pertains to Muslims, if you can’t separate your politics and your religion, ALL the violence is sectarian… and political.  And if you think for even a second that the combination of religion and politics is something that only reaches Americans working overseas in Islamic nations - think again.

Burning a terrorist flag has consequences, even in San Francisco, because the word ‘Allah’ is incorporated in their design.  From NRO:

The story begins last October during an “antiterrorism rally” held by a dozen or so students from the school’s chapter of the College Republicans. As group president Leigh Wolf explained over coffee in a Borders bookstore in this city’s Union Square recently, the students wanted to send a gesture which the two Islamist terrorist groups could understand. So they downloaded images of the flags from the Internet and drew handmade copies on butcher paper to stomp on—flag burning being disallowed by the school for safety reasons.

…

What they didn’t know at the time is that the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah bear the name of Allah.

…

It [the school] has placed the College Republicans under scrutiny for “attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment” and “incivility.”

Oh no!  Not an environment of incivility!  Funny how exercising one’s civil rights can be punished under a banner of incivility.  Not surprisingly, the religion of perpetual outrage had representatives on hand to try and start a fight.

I also find it strenge that NRO chose to characterize stomping on the name of Allah as ‘religious intolerance’ vice an expression of religious protest.  Intolerance means not allowing something to exist.  Protesting is exercising your constitutional right to say you don’t approve.  Personally, I don’t approve of the name of Allah being used by terrorist groups to emblazon their flags as thought the Almighty approves of their tactics.  Any of you ‘moderate Muslims’ I hear about agree with me?  Or are you all too busy picking fights in San Fran?

The ‘flying imams’ seek to sue those who warned the flight crew about their suspicious behavior.  Who are the flying imams?  From the Wall Street Journal op-ed that, I think, did a very good job describing the incident:

Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Those are the words that started it all. Six bearded imams are said to have shouted them out while offering evening prayers as they and 141 other passengers waited at the gate for their flight out of Minneapolis International Airport. It was three days before Thanksgiving. Allahu Akbar: God is great.

Initial media reports of the incident did not include the disturbing details about what happened after they boarded US Airways flight 300, but the story quickly went national with provocative headlines: “Six Muslims Ejected from US Air Flight for Praying.” Yes, they were praying–but let’s be clear about this. The very last human sound on the cockpit voice recorder of United flight 93 before it screamed into the ground at 580 miles per hour is the sound of male voices shouting “Allahu Akbar” in a moment of religious ecstasy.

… 

“Allahu Akbar” was just the opening act. After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats but dispersed to seats in the first row of first class, in the midcabin exit rows and in the rear–the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams. The head of the group, seated closest to the cockpit, and two others asked for a seatbelt extension, kept on board for obese people. A heavy metal buckle at the end of a long strap, it can easily be used as a lethal weapon. The three men rolled them up and placed them on the floor under their seats. And lest this entire incident be written off as simple cultural ignorance, a frightened Arabic-speaking passenger pulled aside a crew member and translated the imams’ suspicious conversations, which included angry denunciations of Americans, furious grumblings about U.S. foreign policy, Osama Bin Laden and “killing Saddam.”

There’s your background.  Coincidentally, this occurred in the same city where taxi drivers are refusing to pick up fares possessing alcohol and check out clerks won’t scan pork products due to their adherence to shariah.

Anyway, while the Senate was busy plotting plodding pork, the House voted to deny the imams the ability to sue passengers for alerting the flight crew.  Seems the smart thing to do.  If the Department of Homeland Security tells the citizens to be alert and report any suspicious behavior, you can hardly have those acting suspiciously pursuing litigation.  Ah, but the bill was not without its critics.  From the Washington Times (h/t Donut):

Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and “John Does,” passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a “chilling effect” on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.

…

Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair. 

“Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law,” said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.

Perhaps the representative from Mississippi has forgotten that in the United States a citizen can say what they wish and not be sued.  It’s called Free Speech, Mr. Thompson, and we hold it quite dear in this nation.  So dear, in fact, that we even allow neo-Nazi groups to march in our streets and gangsta rappers to get away with saying, “Kill the white people; we gonna make them hurt; kill the white people; but buy my record first.”

But Mr. Thompson wants to let the imams sue those civilian citizens who may have ‘racially profiled.’  What’s next?

After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats’ Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.

According to GovTrack, the vote was 299-124.  Also according to GovTrack, all 124 votes against were from Democrat(ic)s.  So much for ever appearing “strong on security issues.”

• Tammy Bruce notices where all the no-votes come from.  Hopefully the voters will, too, but then this didn’t get MSM coverage.  No shocker there.
• Protein Wisdom says the imams—like Jurassic Park Raptors systematically attacking an electrified fence—have found no weakness here.  Great imagery.
• Freedom’s Zone wonders why the imams get to decide a person’s intent.  Good point.  Looks like the imams have made assumptions about the assumptions people make.
• Betsy’s Page says it short and sweet: “Heaven knows, the fear of racial profiling should trump any concern about terrorism.”

 

(h/t to the Donut) In the United States we have enclaves of religions that do not mainstream well.  They have, however, adapted and become Americans in the sense that there is an overall live-and-let-live attitudes.  The most obvious example would probably be the Amish in Pennsylvania.  Amish beliefs do not allow them to perform certain functions in society, yet there is no radical Amish group pushing their ’special needs’ upon mainstream America.  In return, America holds them as a cherished part of the diverse landscape.

Why, then, is America tolerating the rise of Shariah?  From the Wall Street Journal op-ed by Katherine Kersten:

Troubling incidents began several years ago, when taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport–about three-quarters of whom are Muslim–started refusing to transport passengers carrying alcohol. One woman, returning from France with wine, was turned away by five cabs in succession. Refusals of service now number about 100 a month, and heated altercations have erupted.

In September 2006, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) proposed a two color top-light pilot project to indicate which drivers would accept passengers with alcohol. The proposal, later dropped, would apparently have marked the first time that a government agency in the U.S. officially recognized Shariah law, and distinguished individuals who follow it from those who don’t.

Bad precedent narrowly avoided.  The United States has gotten in the habit of enacting laws catering to minorities (in this case, not as a racial term, simply any group that is not in the majority).  We started with ‘all men created equal;’ added freedom of religion; somewhere along the way morphed that into ‘gender, race, creed, or national origin;’ and just recently added ’sexual preference.’  Rather than moving ahead in a nation where many cultures blended into one, we’ve moved into a divided lunchtray mentality where the peas don’t touch the meat.

More from the WSJ op-ed:

Earlier this month, the six imams filed suit in U.S. district court in Minneapolis against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, claiming discrimination and defamation. Now some Muslim cashiers at Twin Cities Target stores have begun refusing to scan pork products, like bacon and pepperoni pizza, and insisting that other cashiers or the customers themselves do it.

I think we all know about the flying imams by now.  If you don’t, the op-ed explains it or you can head over to Michelle Malkin’s site, I think she has a shrine dedicated to them by now.

What do you do with taxi drivers who won’t transport people with alcohol, scan pork, or generally object to performing primary functions of their jobs due to religious reasons?  You fire them.  It’s that simple.  Terminate their employment. 

“But wait, that’s making a decision based on their religious beliefs,” you might say.  Nonsense.  They made a choice based on their religious beliefs, firing them is a choice made based on job performance.  And let’s be plain, the choice the taxi drivers and pork protesters made isn’t even based in deeply held beliefs - it’s from a fatwa issued by a local imam and contested by others practicing Islam as an attempt to ‘radicalize’ immigrating Somalis.

I don’t think I have a better way to sum up Ms. Kersten’s point:

The events here suggest a larger strategy: By piggy-backing on our civil rights laws, Islamist activists aim to equate airport security with racial bigotry and to move slowly toward a two-tier legal system. Intimidation is a crucial tool. The “flying imams” lawsuit ups the ante by indicating that passengers who alerted airport authorities will be included as defendants. Activists are also perfecting their skills at manipulating the media. After a “pray-in” at Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C., one credulous MSNBC anchor likened the flying imams to civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

The Army had a clause under which it releases soldiers back to civilian life called ‘failure to adapt.’  Maybe it’s time the nation took a page from the warriors.

It’s the radicals, I keep hearing.  They’re the ones that do crazy stuff.

Well, apparently the ‘radicals’ have not only cornered the ‘beheading of schoolgirls’ market, they also own the Indonesian judiciary.  From the Jakarta Post:

Panel of judges in Central Jakarta District Court Wednesday sentenced Muslim militants between 14 and 20 years in prison for beheading Christian schoolgirls in Central Sulawesi’s town of Poso in 2005.

Hasanuddin was found guilty for masterminding the beheading, buying the machetes and leaving a handwritten note at the scene vowing more killings to avenge the deaths of Muslims in an earlier conflict on Sulawesi island.

Any guesses whether or not the sentences would have been higher had the girls been Muslim?  More on how the ‘radicals’ treat their children comes from an Early Birded story yesterday:

Insurgents detonated a bomb in a car with two children in it after using the children as decoys to get through a military checkpoint in Baghdad, an American general said Tuesday.

Insurgents are radicals.  Terrorist beheaders are radicals.  And now the people who sentence them are radicals.  Who’s left to be moderate?  Even more important, where are the moderates denouncing these acts?

In the U.S. political spectrum, you have so-called “moonbats” on one end and “wingnuts” on the other with the moderates in the middle.  So on the Islam insanity scale, you have terrorists on one end and on the other you have… on the other end you have…  wait, if there’s no other end, where are the moderates?  It’s like a teeter-totter with only one side, and we can see which way this one’s tilting.

In a story I’m sure you’ll be reading quite a bit about over the next few days, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted to coordinating the 9/11 attacks, and several more, in a military hearing.  You’re going to hear how his confession is meaningless because it was devoid of due process (a right guaranteed a US citizen) from some and how it’s a victory and justifies Gitmo from others.

Here’s something I’d like you to think about.  From the CBS story:

Mohammed, who earned an engineering degree at a North Carolina college in the 1980s, remains under federal indictment in New York, accused in connection with a foiled mid-1990s plot with Yousef to detonate bombs on a dozen U.S.-bound airliners over the Pacific.

Add to that:

Mohammed furthermore claims credit for training the nineteen Sept. 11 homicidal hijackers and would-be “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid, who was tackled by passengers on a 2001 Paris to Miami airline flight. He took responsibility for a 2002 attack that killed a pair of U.S. soldiers on a Kuwaiti island and a shoulder-fired missile that missed an Israeli passenger plane taking off from Mombassa, Kenya.

That’s quite a list.

The thing that strikes me is that, in general terms, we gave Mohammed the tools with which to attack us.  We gave him a secure environment to learn, provided him an education, didn’t ask a thing in return, and sent him on his merry way.  Mohammed started at a baptist school, Chowan College.  From there he transferred to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and received a degree in mechanical engineering (I doubt you’ll find him listed under ‘famous alumni’).

After college, to take a break from the academic grind no doubt, Mohammed decided to go to Afghanistan to fight with his brothers against the Soviets.  Then on to Bosnia for more work both as a Muslim insurgent and financier.  Apparently tired of doing the fighting himself, he got a job with the Qatar government in the Ministry of Electricity and Water where he acted as a financier covertly until he was forced to flee to Pakistan after 9/11.

While the United States has a history of welcoming different cultures, only recently has it become vogue to leave those cultures largely intact.  While there’s no question the overwhelming majority of terror attacks in the world are perpetrated by followers of Islam, the ‘learned’ United States goes to great lengths to be sensitive and not offend the so-called moderate Muslim community - even though that community will not condemn their own radical elements.  Why?

I’m guessing it’s because they know the U.S. will back down before their own people will.

It’s evident in Iraq.  It’s evident in Congress.  And it’s evident in the way we’ll teach the very men who’ll strike at us in the name of their religion and then create mandatory Islam sensitivity classes in the wake of our own tragedy.

Tolerance is good.  Tolerance to extinction is foolish.