[mojo2]

US Muslims bristle at Bush term "Islamic fascists"
Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:07pm ET

By Amanda Beck

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions.

U.S. officials have said the plot, thwarted by Britain, to blow up several aircraft over the Atlantic bore many of the hallmarks of al Qaeda.

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington.

"We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves."

Awad said U.S. officials should take the lead from their British counterparts who had steered clear of using what he considered inflammatory terms when they announced the arrest of more than 20 suspects in the reported plot.

Hours after the news broke, Bush said it was "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

Bush and other administration officials have used variations of the term "Islamo-fascism" on several occasions in the past to describe militant groups including al Qaeda, its allies in Iraq and Hizbollah in Lebanon. Continued...

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ml&src=rss

Sorry, but which is worse in their opinion? The term or the actions and the people the term describes?

I think the American public is slowly beginning to get wise.

[Millennium]

If they bristle at the term "Islamic fascists", then are they ready to present a unified front, from the highest clerics down through the laity, that the terrorists are not at all Islamic, but instead false Muslims on a false jihad?

I, and the world, would welcome such a declaration. Every religion has faced this sort of problem in his history, and eventually, every one of them has made this same decision: denounce and disown the militants. I eagerly await the day that Islam, too, comes to this realization.

[Cody Dawg]

They bristle at the idea only because they don't want prejudice against them in their everyday lives when outside of their communities. They represent a group that does not in any way, shape, or form want to assimilate unless they are forced to for the most part. It's like that woman who is a Muslim who refused to remove the veil for her Florida's driver's license. She took the state to court alleging that her "rights" are violated if she has to show her face. Instead they do not want to assimilate and instead live in areas where they congregate and they de-Americanize America in those areas. They seem to want special treatment - like not having to conform to a picture for a driver's license. I've been in those areas and let me tell you, there is blatant hostility towards the average white American, especially if you are a woman and don't cover up from head to toe. Why is that? Why should the average American have to conform to another country's standard while in an American neighborhood?

Until they truly want to assimilate, in actions and in words, then they will continue to be ostracized outside of their little communities - especially when the rhetoric in their neighborhoods against Bush and Jews and this country is so negative. Why move here if they don't want to assimilate? They should just stay where they are. Oh, and I feel that way about all groups of people from other countries who move here, not just Muslims. I think it's a farce, for example, that the state of Florida had to vote on whether or not English should remain the primary language instead of Spanish.

I heard last night that it's the Muslims that are asking that any representation of the cross be removed from public monuments (via the ACLU) because it "offends" them. So we're supposed to change our entire history and country because they won't conform? I call bullsh*t on that.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If they bristle at the term "Islamic fascists", then are they ready to present a unified front, from the highest clerics down through the laity, that the terrorists are not at all Islamic, but instead false Muslims on a false jihad?

I, and the world, would welcome such a declaration. Every religion has faced this sort of problem in his history, and eventually, every one of them has made this same decision: denounce and disown the militants. I eagerly await the day that Islam, too, comes to this realization.

How are the terrorists not Islamic? They may not be "nice" peaceful Islamists, but they're still nominally members of the same religion. Which you even seem to be conceding in your second paragraph.

So let me get this straight. You want a unified front of non-militant Muslims to lie? What good is that going to do?

Either way, I can see why they're offended by the term. People tend to get upset when their BS is being associated with fascism.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If they bristle at the term "Islamic fascists", then are they ready to present a unified front, from the highest clerics down through the laity, that the terrorists are not at all Islamic, but instead false Muslims on a false jihad?

I, and the world, would welcome such a declaration. Every religion has faced this sort of problem in his history, and eventually, every one of them has made this same decision: denounce and disown the militants. I eagerly await the day that Islam, too, comes to this realization.

Obviously, it's impossible to present a united front for all people everywhere when there are so many factions. However, I will say that organizations that represent muslims in Canada have already denounced terrorists on multiple occasions.

eg. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ...ror/index.html

"We are committed to the safety and security of Canada and Canadians," said Mohammad Alam, president of the Islamic Foundation of Toronto. "We of all Canadians are shocked at the recent arrests of young Muslim men and teenagers and the very serious allegation against them."

But while Canadian Muslims may be angry about issues like the war in Iraq or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "That should not be an excuse for any hateful extreme or violent behavior by any person or group," Alam said.

And Sheik Husain Patel, a spokesman for the Canadian Council of Muslim Theologians, said the allegations against the young men represented "anti-Islamic behavior" if true.

[ghporter]

I think there's going to be no simple way to identify militant, fanatic, fascistic Islamists as such without ticking off a bunch of people who will simply see the word "Islamists" and figure it paints ALL Islamists with the same brush. That's a dumb way to look at it. How about "fascists in Islamists' clothing?" "Fake Islamists with fascist agendas?" "Usurpers of Islam?" Whatever, someone is going to gripe.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If they bristle at the term "Islamic fascists", then are they ready to present a unified front, from the highest clerics down through the laity, that the terrorists are not at all Islamic, but instead false Muslims on a false jihad?

I, and the world, would welcome such a declaration. Every religion has faced this sort of problem in his history, and eventually, every one of them has made this same decision: denounce and disown the militants. I eagerly await the day that Islam, too, comes to this realization.

After thinking about this for many months I've come to two conclusions:

1. The moderate Muslims are afraid to speak out because they KNOW these guys are crazy. What can stop the jihadists from killing you or your loved ones if they want to shut you up and keep the whole community in line?

2. Even though the majority of moderate Muslims may not want anything to do with violence they still recognize that what the jihadists are doing IS proscribed by Allah in the Koran.

In their hearts I believe they look at the jihadists as we might look at a Priest or a Marine. I don't have it in me to live such an exemplary life as a man of God, the burden is too great. But I respect the people who are committed to following God's word so devoutly.

I may be too old to don the uniform again but I respect those who are able to do so and who are committed to such high ideals. Ideals I share.

There are varying degrees of jihad and even though a peace-loving Muslims might never dream of blowing himself up as a martyr, that person CAN perform jihad of the mind or jihad of the heart.

To come out against the Koran is something they would never do.

They recognize that the jihadists are obeying the Koran.

To come out against their jihadist brothers who are obeying the Koran just as they obey it, but in their own non-violent way, is something they would never do.

They respect the sacrifice of the jihadists. They recognize the jihadists are doing their religious duty and it's a difficult duty which warrants respect from the moderates. It establishes a pecking order. It would be like a "pot smoking peacenik" telling Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore to sit down and shut up.

They are in agreement so it would never happen and because Sheehan and Moore are esteemed figures who are doing things the average pot smoking peacenik never would or never could.

So, for those reasons I believe I will give up on waiting for moderate Muslims to rise up en masse in opposition to the actions of the jihadists, terrorists, Hizb Allah or al Qaeda or the PLO or Islamic Jihad.

By the way. I hope no one here falls for the ploy of there being no danger from terrorism unless the group or individual is linked to al Qaeda or any of the identified Islamic terrorist groups.

It doesn't matter what group they are with or if they aren't with ANY group.

As long as they have committed to follow the Koranic orders to conquer and use any means necessary, they are on the same team and they have the same enemy.

Islam’s goal is to conquer the entire world, all of humankind, by force if necessary, to set up Koranic law, convert as many people to Islam as possible, and to destroy polytheism and disbelief.

[Cody Dawg]

ghporter

I think there's going to be no simple way to identify militant, fanatic, fascistic Islamists as such without ticking off a bunch of people who will simply see the word "Islamists" and figure it paints ALL Islamists with the same brush. That's a dumb way to look at it. How about "fascists in Islamists' clothing?" "Fake Islamists with fascist agendas?" "Usurpers of Islam?" Whatever, someone is going to gripe.

Well, here's the problem:

We don't have organized groups of Christians trying to take down jet aircraft.

We don't have organized groups of Jews trying to blow up buildings in the United States or London or India.

We don't have organized groups of Buddhists trying to capture and cut off the heads of innocent people in honor of their "god."

It's the Muslims doing it, or the majority of it, period. (And please do not dredge up the Crusades from several hundred years ago - we're talking about now.)

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by red rocket

How are the terrorists not Islamic? They may not be "nice" peaceful Islamists, but they're still nominally members of the same religion.

The word islam literally means "submission." In the case of the faith called Islam, it speaks of submission to the will of God.

The terrorists, by deliberately targeting and killing innocents, are not doing the will of the god they claim to follow: that god abhors such things. Therefore, they are not submitting to the will of God. That makes them anything but Islamic.

So let me get this straight. You want a unified front of non-militant Muslims to lie?

No. I want them to open their eyes and recognize the liars in their midst: the murderers who claim to be their brothers .

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I think there's going to be no simple way to identify militant, fanatic, fascistic Islamists as such without ticking off a bunch of people who will simply see the word "Islamists" and figure it paints ALL Islamists with the same brush. That's a dumb way to look at it. How about "fascists in Islamists' clothing?" "Fake Islamists with fascist agendas?" "Usurpers of Islam?" Whatever, someone is going to gripe.

Most people are dumb. If I started describing US foreign policy as "Christian imperialism" and Israeli policy as "Jewish fascism," don't you think the majority of Christians and Jews would bristle at that?

Politicians would be well advised to leave the religious terminology out of the issue, this Good vs Evil bullsh1t will achieve nothing.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Most people are dumb. If I started describing US foreign policy as "Christian imperialism" and Israeli policy as "Jewish fascism," don't you think the majority of Christians and Jews would bristle at that?

Politicians would be well advised to leave the religious terminology out of the issue, this Good vs Evil bullsh1t will achieve nothing.

The thing is that most of what the President is talking about is (at least putatively) NON governmental in origin. That means that it's about smaller groups that have their own, non-national agendas. And as pointed out above, the last thing you can say about the Islamic world is that it's unified, so why should an intelligent person take "Islamic fascist" to mean ALL Islamists?

[red rocket]

Millennium.

As with every religion, there is internal (and external, apparently) debate as to what the will of the deity is. There'll never be consensus.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I think there's going to be no simple way to identify militant, fanatic, fascistic Islamists as such without ticking off a bunch of people who will simply see the word "Islamists" and figure it paints ALL Islamists with the same brush. That's a dumb way to look at it. How about "fascists in Islamists' clothing?" "Fake Islamists with fascist agendas?" "Usurpers of Islam?" Whatever, someone is going to gripe.

I think we might be smart to try to popularize the idea that the jihadists are fake usurpers, but who would we be fooling even if a million US Muslims bought into the idea?

The rest of the Muslims in the world, all 1.5 billion of them would say, "meh."

Or worse.

If Sunni and Shia are going at it as they are can you imagine the targets that any moderates would have on their backs?

Like I said though, we SHOULD try to get everyone to embrace the idea that ONLY the first part of the Koran is the part to obey.

That's the peaceful part. Written before Muhammad gained enough converts and resources to conquer using the sword. The way of the sword is what the last part of the Koran is about and because that part often conflicts with the peaceful portions in the first part, scholars have decided that the latter portions take priority and overrule any conflicting teachings between the first and the last.

(It isn't separated as I might have described it here. But if you have any questions google the "principle of Naskh.")

Jihad really IS a genuine Muslim teaching. We're lucky that not ALL Muslims subscribe to it.

But if ONLY 5% do, that means 80 million jihadists.

Comforting thought.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The word islam literally means "submission." In the case of the faith called Islam, it speaks of submission to the will of God.

The terrorists, by deliberately targeting and killing innocents, are not doing the will of the god they claim to follow: that god abhors such things. Therefore, they are not submitting to the will of God. That makes them anything but Islamic.

No. I want them to open their eyes and recognize the liars in their midst: the murderers who claim to be their brothers .

Would you like evidence which suggests otherwise?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Most people are dumb. If I started describing US foreign policy as "Christian imperialism" and Israeli policy as "Jewish fascism," don't you think the majority of Christians and Jews would bristle at that?

Politicians would be well advised to leave the religious terminology out of the issue, this Good vs Evil bullsh1t will achieve nothing.

I think it's necessary for Bush to give the American people SOME kind of warning that sh!t is about to fly.

Aug 22.

He's been careful til now to shield the Muslims from this kind of terminology but now the war is being prepared and the people need to start getting mentally ready.

He's calling a spade by it's name.

All of us should take heed.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The thing is that most of what the President is talking about is (at least putatively) NON governmental in origin. That means that it's about smaller groups that have their own, non-national agendas. And as pointed out above, the last thing you can say about the Islamic world is that it's unified, so why should an intelligent person take "Islamic fascist" to mean ALL Islamists?

Please define your terms for me.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Millennium.

As with every religion, there is internal (and external, apparently) debate as to what the will of the deity is. There'll never be consensus.

And even if 99% of all Muslims take a vow of peace and love (unlikely), we've seen how few it takes to cause havoc.

So, while the debate goes on in the Islamic world and the confusion continues in our world, a handful of committed jihadists, following the word of Allah as written in the Koran, are doing their duty to carry out their goal.

Islam’s goal is to conquer the entire world, all of humankind, by force if necessary, to set up Koranic law, convert as many people to Islam as possible, and to destroy polytheism and disbelief.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The thing is that most of what the President is talking about is (at least putatively) NON governmental in origin. That means that it's about smaller groups that have their own, non-national agendas. And as pointed out above, the last thing you can say about the Islamic world is that it's unified, so why should an intelligent person take "Islamic fascist" to mean ALL Islamists?

An intelligent person shouldn't. However, it does seem to me that a majority of Muslims will be offended by the term, anyway, partly because the entire Middle East operation and the "War" on "Terror" is already widely perceived as an attack on Muslims, and also because humans (Islamic, anti-Islamic, or otherwise) have an unfortunate tendency to jump from "Islamic fascism" to "Islamofascism" to "Islamism=fascism." Sad but true, simplistic identification is popular.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Like I said though, we SHOULD try to get everyone to embrace the idea that ONLY the first part of the Koran is the part to obey.

That's the peaceful part. Written before Muhammad gained enough converts and resources to conquer using the sword. The way of the sword is what the last part of the Koran is about and because that part often conflicts with the peaceful portions in the first part, scholars have decided that the latter portions take priority and overrule any conflicting teachings between the first and the last.

For anyone wanting to go and check this out, note that the koran is written backwards - the "first" part (chronologically) which Mojo mentions is at the back, the "last" part being at the front.

The way I understand this change of attitude isn't so much due to the numbers of converts moh was getting, but more to do with the numbers he wasn't getting.

mohammed: "Hey, Jews and Christians, look at this great new religion".
Jews and Christians: "Go away you weirdo".
mohammed: "allah akbar! Aiiiieeeeee!!!"

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

For anyone wanting to go and check this out, note that the koran is written backwards - the "first" part (chronologically) which Mojo mentions is at the back, the "last" part being at the front.

The way I understand this change of attitude isn't so much due to the numbers of converts moh was getting, but more to do with the numbers he wasn't getting.

mohammed: "Hey, Jews and Christians, look at this great new religion".
Jews and Christians: "Go away you weirdo".
mohammed: "allah akbar! Aiiiieeeeee!!!"

Thanks Doofy!

http://www.contenderministries.org/islam/naskh.php

[davesimondotcom]

All (at least the vast majority) religions have evangelicals that get so into their faith that they forget its ideals and push it on other people.

Heck, there are even terms for it in each of them - crusade, jihad, etc.

[Kerrigan]

These Muslims aren't "fascists". They are typical Muslims: moms, students, boy-next-door types. It doesn't take a whole lot to go from being a normal Muslims to being a suicidal terrorist.

Which begs the question, should Muslims be allowed onto planes without extensive background checks?

[dcmacdaddy]

...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

All (at least the vast majority) religions have evangelicals that get so into their faith that they forget its ideals and push it on other people.

Heck, there are even terms for it in each of them - crusade, jihad, etc.

davesimondotcom, would you be interested in seeing evidence which suggests (proves) the jihadists are truly mainstream and fully in compliance with the Koran's ideals?

While at least 114 verses speak of love or peace, sixty percent of the Qur’an deals in some fashion with jihad!

[...]

So the question arises, how does one reconcile the verses that command Muslims to wage jihad against infidels with the verses that speak of love, peace, and forgiveness? 

[...]

The answer to those questions is the principle of naskh.  In his book Islam and Terrorism, Dr. Mark Gabriel described naskh in this way, “Naskh is based on the fact that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad at different times over a period of about twenty-two years.  Some parts of the Quran came later, and some parts came earlier.  To solve a contradiction, they [Islamic scholars] decided that new revelations would override (nasikh) previous revelations.”[1] The disparity between the earlier writings of Muhammad and the later writings which took precedence can be understood by a brief examination of Muhammad’s life at that time.   

[...]

Does the Qur’an speak of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness?  It certainly does.  Does the Qur’an also speak of jihad and conquest against non-Muslims?  Yes, this is also true.  The mujahadeen (those who wage jihad) are those who correctly understand the principle of naskh, and practice the doctrine of jihad against the infidels.  They have not hijacked Islam.  They practice the fundamental teachings of their prophet.

http://www.contenderministries.org/islam/naskh.php

They have not hijacked Islam.  They practice the fundamental teachings of their prophet.

And everyone in the Muslim world recognizes this and respects them for their dedication and/or fears them.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Please define your terms for me.

Fascism: authoritarian regimes (national or not) that pursue their agendas violently
Islamist: serious Moslems who would like to see Islam spread, though not necessarily through the virtues of the faith.

Put them together, particularly the more fanatic Islamists with particularly violent fascist agendas, and you wind up with "nobody but my small group is worthy, and I will make them all bend to my leader's will" sorts of violent activists. Typically their mode is acts of terror.

Need a definiton for "terrorism?" Wiki says:

Terrorism is a strategy of using the threat of violence to generate fear and cause disruption for the purpose of bringing about political, religious and ideological change.

Any doubt that the radical acts of violence that we've seen, committed by fanatics who believe only their own tiny group is actually bound for heaven are acts of terror?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

These Muslims aren't "fascists". They are typical Muslims: moms, students, boy-next-door types. It doesn't take a whole lot to go from being a normal Muslims to being a suicidal terrorist.

Which begs the question, should Muslims be allowed onto planes without extensive background checks?

If I say I am not a Muslim how do you prove otherwise?

There is a principle well established by tradition and scripture where believers are allowed to disavow their religion when necessary to avoid or evade.

In Shi'a Islamic as well as Druze tradition, Taqiyya (التقية - 'fear, guard against')[1] is the dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. It is based on Qur'an 3:28 and 16:106 as well as hadith, tafsir literature, and juridical commentaries.[2] Some Sunnis assert that Taqiyya is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth. According to them, Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in God because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from danger is fearful of humans, when he should be fearful of God only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

So that allows a believer to dress and act and speak and eat and drink and behave as an infidel and deny he is a Muslim.

What then?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The thing is that most of what the President is talking about is (at least putatively) NON governmental in origin. That means that it's about smaller groups that have their own, non-national agendas. And as pointed out above, the last thing you can say about the Islamic world is that it's unified, so why should an intelligent person take "Islamic fascist" to mean ALL Islamists?

Originally Posted by mojo2

Please define your terms for me.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Fascism: authoritarian regimes (national or not) that pursue their agendas violently
Islamist: serious Moslems who would like to see Islam spread, though not necessarily through the virtues of the faith.

Put them together, particularly the more fanatic Islamists with particularly violent fascist agendas, and you wind up with "nobody but my small group is worthy, and I will make them all bend to my leader's will" sorts of violent activists. Typically their mode is acts of terror.

Well, it's not like I was asking what the definition of "is" is.

Actually, I was puzzled by your making a distinction between Islamofascists and Islamists.

I have thought of the two as synonymous.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

So we're supposed to change our entire history and country because they won't conform? I call bullsh*t on that.

Me too.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Did German and Italian Americans bristle when Germany was identified as the enemy, or the term"Italian fascists" was used to identify what we were fighting? If so, then tough. That's who the enemy was. Oh, and they were white people. Did anyone claim it was just racially motivated, or "insensitive" to correctly identify groups of white people as nazis and fascists?

It's just too damn bad if some people think thier race or religion prevents other members of their race or religion who ARE fascists from being identified as such.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If they bristle at the term "Islamic fascists", then are they ready to present a unified front, from the highest clerics down through the laity, that the terrorists are not at all Islamic, but instead false Muslims on a false jihad?

I, and the world, would welcome such a declaration.

"I and the world".

What a truly egotistical statement. "I and the world". "Me and the world" are the same, are of the same mind, and want the same thing. "I and the world", except Islamist, although they are part of the world, yet not the "world and I" thing.

"I and the world" who agree on the one thing that makes "I and the world" unique, yet, different than the other, which is non-"I and the world".

"I and the world", like there is one one side, Millenium, who teams up with "the world", against the unnamed entity not-"I and the world".

So this universe has 3 bodies: Millenium, the world, and the unamed part that is not-"I and the world".

Do you have any idea what that statement of yours carry in significance? How can we not think of a speech with, for main topic, "hegemony"?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Relax, he meant the SANE world.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

They bristle at the idea only because they don't want prejudice against them in their everyday lives when outside of their communities. They represent a group that does not in any way, shape, or form want to assimilate unless they are forced to for the most part. It's like that woman who is a Muslim who refused to remove the veil for her Florida's driver's license. She took the state to court alleging that her "rights" are violated if she has to show her face. Instead they do not want to assimilate and instead live in areas where they congregate and they de-Americanize America in those areas. They seem to want special treatment - like not having to conform to a picture for a driver's license. I've been in those areas and let me tell you, there is blatant hostility towards the average white American, especially if you are a woman and don't cover up from head to toe. Why is that? Why should the average American have to conform to another country's standard while in an American neighborhood?

Until they truly want to assimilate, in actions and in words, then they will continue to be ostracized outside of their little communities - especially when the rhetoric in their neighborhoods against Bush and Jews and this country is so negative. Why move here if they don't want to assimilate? They should just stay where they are. Oh, and I feel that way about all groups of people from other countries who move here, not just Muslims. I think it's a farce, for example, that the state of Florida had to vote on whether or not English should remain the primary language instead of Spanish.

I heard last night that it's the Muslims that are asking that any representation of the cross be removed from public monuments (via the ACLU) because it "offends" them. So we're supposed to change our entire history and country because they won't conform? I call bullsh*t on that.

Sometimes it seems that America might be in danger of breaking up into ethnic factions someday--though I don't think Islamic fundamentalists are here in great numbers. It seems that some immigrants, particulary from Spanish speaking countries, do not want to assimilate even a little bit, but would rather the government and everyone else assimilate to them--and demand it. Maybe that's because we don't have enough programs in place to help new immigrants learn English etc.

No one should be expected to give up their culture to live in the US, but at the same time in order to maintain a strong social "fabric" I think we do need to continue to support the "melting pot" idea. I would be unfortunate if we had a situation like Canada does with a breakaway Quebec.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

"I and the world".

What a truly egotistical statement. "I and the world". "Me and the world" are the same, are of the same mind, and want the same thing. "I and the world", except Islamist, although they are part of the world, yet not the "world and I" thing.

"I and the world" who agree on the one thing that makes "I and the world" unique, yet, different than the other, which is non-"I and the world".

"I and the world", like there is one one side, Millenium, who teams up with "the world", against the unnamed entity not-"I and the world".

So this universe has 3 bodies: Millenium, the world, and the unamed part that is not-"I and the world".

Do you have any idea what that statement of yours carry in significance? How can we not think of a speech with, for main topic, "hegemony"?

Textbook example of obfuscation, IMHO.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Sometimes it seems that America might be in danger of breaking up into ethnic factions someday--though I don't think Islamic fundamentalists are here in great numbers. It seems that some immigrants, particulary from Spanish speaking countries, do not want to assimilate even a little bit, but would rather the government and everyone else assimilate to them--and demand it. Maybe that's because we don't have enough programs in place to help new immigrants learn English etc.

No one should be expected to give up their culture to live in the US, but at the same time in order to maintain a strong social "fabric" I think we do need to continue to support the "melting pot" idea. I would be unfortunate if we had a situation like Canada does with a breakaway Quebec.

The sectarian strife going on in Iraq might serve as a clue to what could be possible here.

If an enemy deepened the divisions between Americans the chaos that could erupt would allow that enemy to gain a toehold in America and then, who knows?

There exists a DEEP distrust, even hatred, in the black hip hop/rap world for Israel and the jews. I see this as being where they will focus any new efforts at disrupting America.

Strangely silent during all of the recent fighting in Lebanon has been the Nation of Islam, the Black Muslims in America. The fact that they are quiet can be construed by some to mean they are doing nothing during this time. I don't know, either way. But it is an area of opportunity for the jihadists.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Textbook example of obfuscation, IMHO.

My apologies: Mojo2, Millenium, the world, and the not-"I and mojo2 and the world".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Which begs the question, should Muslims be allowed onto planes without extensive background checks?

How does one identify a Muslim in order to not allow them to board a plane?

[mojo2]

"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington.

That is what he's done ever since 9/11. That's why he called it a war on TERROR (a term he's been criticized for by the opposition)...not a war on Islam or Muslims. Now that the American people have had a chance to wrap our brains around the difference, that not ALL Muslims are terrorists, this term is warranted.

Awad said U.S. officials should take the lead from their British counterparts who had steered clear of using what he considered inflammatory terms when they announced the arrest of more than 20 suspects in the reported plot.

If most Americans knew the state of affairs in the UK they would be glad the US non-Muslims don't have the same relationship with with our Muslim population as the Brits have.

"The problem with the phrase is it attaches the religion of Islam to tyranny and fascism, rather than isolating the threat to a specific group of individuals," said Edina Lekovic, spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles.

Intentionally perpetuating a false view of Islam.

She said the terms cast suspicions on all Muslims, even the vast majority who want to live in safety like other Americans.

That's the price they pay for silence.

Originally Posted by mojo2

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Originally Posted by mojo2

Originally Posted by mojo2

Originally Posted by mojo2"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

That's the price they pay for silence.

How humble of you: quoting yourself quoting someone else.

I have one for you:

"The spoken word is silver: silence is golden."

Quotes without any reference to reality makes words useless.


But quoting is like mouthwashing for Mojo2.

Gargle man!

[tie]

There's obviously a fine line here. And face it, American muslims are in more danger of losing their basic freedoms because of terrorism than the rest of us. I think Bush is doing a good job on this, but then I'm not facing discrimination in the airport and my daily life because of terrorism fears.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

How humble of you: quoting yourself quoting someone else.

I have one for you:

"The spoken word is silver: silence is golden."

Quotes without any reference to reality makes words useless.


But quoting is like mouthwashing for Mojo2.

Gargle man!

*spit*

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by tie

There's obviously a fine line here. And face it, American muslims are in more danger of losing their basic freedoms because of terrorism than the rest of us. I think Bush is doing a good job on this, but then I'm not facing discrimination in the airport and my daily life because of terrorism fears.

You make a good point.

If global jihad and terrorism is likened to cancer and the war on terror is likened to radiation therapy, there is the unfortunate reality that some healthy tissue or innocent Muslims which might suffer in the treatment.

But in the Koran it is taught that jihad doesn't all have to be violent or the terrorist variety. There is also jihad in the heart or mind.

These complaints might be considered the form of jihad these folks are comfortable with. And as you might be able to understand, it, too, helps their cause.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You make a good point.

If global jihad and terrorism is likened to cancer and the war on terror is likened to radiation therapy, there is the unfortunate reality that some healthy tissue or innocent Muslims which might suffer in the treatment.

Woaw. The famous "there will be innocent victims" rationale rides again. Such comparaisons are ludicrous to say the least. You can "liken" as much as you want, yet, people are not a "mass of living tissue" treatable with a blanket-type of treatment.

As far as I am concerned, you do not care much and are ready to accept the necessary Muslim victims. But then, aren't you the one following Pachead as the one who has always been right, and promotes segregation of Muslims as a solution to all terrorisms?

[Cody Dawg]

The fact is that it was a Muslim "informant" that turned these guys in.

The fact is that it was a Muslim government (Pakistan's) that aided and abetted in capturing these freaks.

I think that another fact is that in every religion you will find radicals who are so heavily involved with their "religion" that they are no longer rational.

And another thing is that these people are not so much Muslim as they are anti-Western and simply want to terrorize - and use their religion as a shield from which to hide from - and they twist the teachings of their religion to justify that they will go to heaven as a result.

It's all just twisted stuff.

That's why I think the Antichrist is actually religion.

[awcopus]

I've spent time with Lebanese Christians (family friends) who lived in Lebanon for decades before leaving in the seventies. They talk about exceptions to the rule but for the most part describe the vast majority of Muslims as internally oppressed people, human beings filled with tension between their living conditions and the rules they're supposed to live by. They felt an overwhelming sadness about leaving Lebanon because it was beautiful, Beirut was once like Paris. Sophisticated, a great place to start a business, to attend liberal arts universities. To hear them tell it, what happened to their country, its being infiltrated and ultimately undermined by Islamic ideology, is what they fear may happen in the West.

When they moved to the U.S. I was much younger and I used to love eating with them at their house. Jovial people and amazing cuisine from Lebanon! But I remember that they would reprimand their children (older than me) for speaking anything other than English. "English!" they would say sternly. Now I live in NYC near a community of M.E. immigrants many of whom don't seem to be even interested in assimilating. No English signs. Traditional dress. Mosques built like fortresses. Why come to America, then? Why come here if only to perpetuate the same nonsense they were ostensibly fleeing?

I was talking to these family friends recently, trying to wrap my mind around what is happening in the world and figured their perspective would be helpful. They were very upset over the Israeli incursion but unequivocal about its necessity. They also said something I find terrifying, specifically that things will have to get significantly worse for people living in the U.S. or England or other countries in the West *in order for the war against Islamic extremists to be won*. Because they believe that only after more events like 9/11 actually happen will the political will exist to do what will be necessary in order to win. They cited as the main reason for this the fact that many Americans (leftists?) simply can't believe that there is a lethal Islamic agenda. The consider this to be one of America's great virtues, its people's optimism and desire to believe the best about most people, but obviously they view this as a liability in the current situation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by awcopus

...

PL Post Of The Week.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Woaw. The famous "there will be innocent victims" rationale rides again. Such comparaisons are ludicrous to say the least. You can "liken" as much as you want, yet, people are not a "mass of living tissue" treatable with a blanket-type of treatment.

As far as I am concerned, you do not care much and are ready to accept the necessary Muslim victims. But then, aren't you the one following Pachead as the one who has always been right, and promotes segregation of Muslims as a solution to all terrorisms?

How silly do you think we all are, hmm?

Lest anyone forget what is at the heart of your emotional appeal here's a reminder of what radical Islam has done to moderate Muslims and infidels (including thousands of Americans) as part of the jihad against the West.



http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

It's all about Iraq, isn't it?

Yep, it's all about Iraq and...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and...

...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5

Date Country City Killed Injured Description
8/12/06 Iraq Mosul 12 4 Jihadis murder a dozen Iraqi civilians in a series of bombing and shooting attacks.
8/11/06 Iraq Baghdad 6 0 Religious radicals kidnap, torture and murder six members of a rival sect.
8/11/06 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 1 0 A suicide bomber kills a Canadian soldier in a transport convoy.
8/11/06 India Arra 3 0 A Hindu mother and her two young children are brutally slain in their home by Muslim fanatics.
8/11/06 Philippines Pikit 2 0 Two policemen are ambushed and executed by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
8/10/06 Israel Dir el-Asad 2 11 A young mother and her 4-year-old son are blown apart in their home by a Katyusha rocket.
8/10/06 Iraq Najaf 35 122 At least 35 innocent people at a market are blown to bits by an Islamic fanatic wrapped in explosives.
8/10/06 Israel Karmiel 1 0 A baby girl is killed by Hezbollah rockets fired on her family's home.
8/10/06 Israel Jerusalem 1 0 An Italian tourist is stabbed to death by a Palestinian youth.
8/10/06 Philippines North Cotabato 1 5 A bombing attack by Islamic militants leaves one dead and five injured.
8/10/06 India Pattan 1 2 The Mujahideen gun down a civilian and injure his wife and neighbor.
8/9/06 Pakistan Angoor Adda 1 0 An elderly man is shot to death by Islamic militants.
8/9/06 Iraq Baghdad 18 2 Terrorists open fire on a street vendor grilling fish, killing five civilians. Thirteen other bodies are found elsewhere.
8/9/06 Ingushetia Nazran 1 13 Radicals bomb a prosecutor's house, killing his brother.
8/8/06 Iraq Baqubah 5 20 At least five people were killed when Muslim radicals blow up an apartment building in the middle of the night.
8/8/06 Iraq Baghdad 15 0 Fifteen bodies are found by police from sectarian violence.
8/8/06 Iraq Muqdadiya 3 0 Three people are shot to death by Jihad militants, including a teacher.
8/8/06 Dagestan Makhachkala 3 0 Islamic separatists bomb a government official's convoy, killing three people.
8/8/06 Iraq Baghdad 10 69 Muslim terrorists set off two bombs at a bustling market, killing at least ten people.
8/7/06 Russia Karachaevsk 1 0 A local Imam is gunned down by Islamists for performing healing.
8/7/06 Iraq Fallujah 6 2 Six civilians are killed when Sunni terrorists set off a bomb by the side of a road.
8/7/06 Iraq Baqubah 6 15 A senseless attack on a checkpoint by Sunni terrorists leaves at least six Iraqi soldiers dead.
8/7/06 Iraq Khalis 4 7 Terrorists blow up a minibus, killing four civilians..
8/7/06 India Donipawa 1 0 A civilian is abducted and murdered by the Mujahideen.
8/7/06 Afghanistan Daigh 2 0 A 70-year-old woman and her 13-year-old grandson are pulled from their home and hanged by the Taliban.
8/7/06 Pakistan Garhiyoum 1 0 A tribal leader is abducted and beheaded by Muslim extremists.
8/6/06 Iraq Baghdad 16 0 Police discover sixteen victims of sectarian violence in two location in the country. Women were among the dead.
8/6/06 Israel Kfar Giladi 12 14 Hezbollah successfully hits a gathering of people in a community, killing twelve Israelis.
8/6/06 India Sopore 1 17 A woman is killed when Islamic terrorists lob a grenade into the street.
8/6/06 Israel Haifa 3 189 A crowded residential area is the target of Hezbollah rockets. An Israeli woman is among three dead.
8/6/06 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 52-year-old Buddhist civilian is gunned down by Muslims.
8/6/06 Thailand Tala 1 0 A rubber plantation worker is machine-gunned to death by Islamic radicals.
8/6/06 Iraq Tikrit 15 22 Fifteen mourners at a funeral are slaughtered by a suicide bomber.
8/5/06 Iraq Baghdad 9 0 Radicals kidnap and torture to death nine members of a rival Muslim sect.
8/5/06 India Poonch 1 0 The Mujahideen capture a village head, beat him up and then shoot him in the head.
8/5/06 Israel al-Aramshe 3 4 A 60-year-old Arab-Israeli woman and her two daughters are killed when a Hezbollah rocket lands in their home.
8/4/06 Iraq Ubaydi 3 9 Three civilians are killed when Jihadis lob mortars into their neighborhood.
8/4/06 Israel Mughar 1 2 The mother of two young children is killed in her living room by a Hezbollah rocket.
8/4/06 Israel Karmiel 2 82 Two people are killed and dozens injured by more 'Party of Allah' rockets.
8/4/06 Afghanistan Kandahar 2 2 Two children are killed when religious extremists lob an explosive into a house.
8/4/06 Iraq Kut 7 0 Seven people are kidnapped and beheaded by Islamic radicals.
8/4/06 Iraq Hadhar 10 12 A Fedayeen suicide bomber plows his car into a crowd of specators at a soccer game, killing at least ten.
8/4/06 Iraq Dujail 4 8 Muslim terrorists barge into a home and kill four family members.
8/3/06 Iraq Bahgdad 10 32 Allah's butchers detonate a bomb in a rubbish pile, killing at least ten bystanders.
8/3/06 Afghanistan Kandahar 21 13 A Shaheed martyr murders twenty-one innocents at a market by detonating explosives strapped to his body.
8/3/06 Israel Acre 5 92 Five Israeli civilians, including a father and daughter, are killed during a 90-minute rocket barrage on their town from Hezbollah.
8/3/06 Iraq Mussayab 3 22 Jihad gunmen attack a wedding party, killing three members.
8/3/06 Israel Ma'a lot 3 0 Three Arab Israelis are killed by a Hezbollah rocket attack.
8/3/06 Iraq Wajihiya 4 0 Muslim radicals invade a home, killing three women and a man.
8/3/06 Tajikistan Dushanbe 1 0 An Islamist kills himself and a police officer with a grenade.
8/3/06 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 Islamic militants shoot a mechanic to death and seriously injure a 5-year-old girl.
8/2/06 Iraq Suwayra 11 0 Eleven bound and tortured bodies, victims of sectarian violence, are pulled from a river.
8/2/06 Iraq Diwaniya 1 0 Radical Muslims murder an employee of a human rights group outside his home.
8/2/06 Iraq Baghdad 3 9 Three day laborers looking for work are blown to bits by Islamic bombers.
8/2/06 Thailand Songkhla 3 1 Thai Islamists kill three policeman with a bomb planted along a railroad track.
8/2/06 Iraq Baghdad 12 14 Children as young as 11 are blown apart when Sunnis deliberately target a soccer match with a bomb hidden in a gym bag.
8/2/06 Iraq Beiji 24 0 Two-dozen people aboard a bus are slaughtered by a remote-controlled bomb operated by radical Sunnis.
8/2/06 Iraq Baghdad 14 37 Islamic terrorists target a bank with bombs, killing more than a dozen innocents.
8/2/06 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Islamists kill a guard at a construction site with a bomb.
8/2/06 Israel Nahariya 1 0 An Israeli man is killed by a Hezbollah rocket while riding his bike.
8/1/06 Iraq Baghdad 56 91 At least fifty-six people are killed in five Jihad attacks by sectarian militants. Most are burned or blasted to death in bombings.
8/1/06 Afghanistan Helmand 3 1 A Taliban ambush on a NATO patrol leaves three British soldiers dead.
8/1/06 India Srinagar 4 2 Four Indian soldiers are shot to death by Islamic militants in two separate attacks. One was outside a hospital, and the other a shopping area.

An Unappeasable Global Jihad

by David Limbaugh
Posted Aug 04, 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?

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.
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16349

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

The fact is that it was a Muslim "informant" that turned these guys in.

The fact is that it was a Muslim government (Pakistan's) that aided and abetted in capturing these freaks.

I think that another fact is that in every religion you will find radicals who are so heavily involved with their "religion" that they are no longer rational.

And another thing is that these people are not so much Muslim as they are anti-Western and simply want to terrorize - and use their religion as a shield from which to hide from - and they twist the teachings of their religion to justify that they will go to heaven as a result.

It's all just twisted stuff.

That's why I think the Antichrist is actually religion.

Would you like evidence which suggests a different and more accurate way of looking at the situation?

I'd be glad to show you some writings by this fellow.

Dr. Mark Gabriel, former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, the most prestigious Islamic Univeristy in the world, was able to quote the entire Quran by the time he was twelve years old. Raised in Egypt, in the midst of a breeding ground of Islamic terrorists, he spent his formative years deep inside the confines of Muslim influence. His own family disowned him after he converted to Christianity, and angry Muslims tried to kill him several times. He escaped his homeland and now resides in the United States. As a reflection of his new life in Christ, he chose a Christian name to replace his Muslim name.

[...]


Westerners have a hard time understanding terrorists, especially since a deceptively sanitized version is presented to the West. But Gabriel says these people are not crazy but are following a philosophy. Islam means "submission" and the world Muslim means "one who submits to Allah." The Quran was started in A.D. 610 when Muhammad said the angel Gabriel spoke to him while he was meditating in a cave near Mecca.

Muhammad wrote down these words as they were received - they were supposed to be the direct words of Allah. It is significant that the revelations came over a period of 22 years. The books of 'Hadith' are another set of holy writings that record a verified account of what Muhammad did and said during his life.

Muhammad's life and teachings have served to establish principles of warfare and coersion that are practiced today. The revelations he received are dictated by periods in his life. When there is a contradiction in Quranic verses (which Gabriel questions), Islamic scholars had to determine which verses to follow. "This was accomplished by the principle of naskh," which means that the new revelations would override previous revelations.

There are at least 114 verses in the Quran that speak of love, peace, and forgiveness ("The Heifer" Surah 2:62, 109). "But when Surah 9:5 was revealed later, it canceled out those previous verses," Gabriel says. "This Surah is known as the 'verse of the sword," and it explains that Muslims must fight anyone who chooses not to convert to Islam, whether they are inside or outside of Arabia. It is considered to be the final development of jihad in Islam."

JIHAD...

Jihad (holy war) is a command to all Muslims enforced by the Quran. The focus is to overcome people who do not accept Islam. Islam is a religion of works. Dying in jihad is a great honor, and it is the only way a Muslim is assured of entering Paradise at all. This is why you see Muslims leaving their own nations to fight jihad in other countries. "Their motivation is religious, which is much more dangerous than a political motivation," Gabriel says. Jihad is the motivation behind almost every act of terrorism
done in the name of Islam. After the death of Muhammad, different factions rose up to carry on the faith - which became the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Gabriel cites many reasons why Islam became such a dominant force so quickly, one being that violence was a ubiquitous part of the culture at the time and this type of religious conquest fit easily into the regional character.

http://www.internationalwallofprayer...k-Gabriel.html

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

PL Post Of The Week.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If global jihad and terrorism is likened to cancer and the war on terror is likened to radiation therapy, there is the unfortunate reality that some healthy tissue or innocent Muslims which might suffer in the treatment.

In the case of radiation therapy, doesn't the patient usually volunteer for the procedure?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

In the case of radiation therapy, doesn't the patient usually volunteer for the procedure?

The patient, in this case, is the WORLD. And they are slowly arriving at a decision on the subject. And if you look at what happened in Lebanon you'll see that the WORLD is starting to recognize the danger and wants to be free of the cancer.