Rudyard Kipling"
“When you're left wounded on Afganistan's plains and
the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier”
General Douglas MacArthur"
“We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
“It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.” “Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
“The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and be the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't .” “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
“Nobody ever defended, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
The Soldier stood and faced God
Which must always come to pass
He hoped his shoes were shining
Just as bright as his brass
"Step forward you Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns
Can't always be a saint."
I've had to work on Sundays
And at times my talk was tough,
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep,
The Soldier squared his shoulders and said
And I never passed a cry for help
Though at times I shook with fear,
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here,
Lord, It needn't be so grand,
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."
There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burden well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
Islamist Censorship Charges On - Now sharia advocates are trying to stop the use of the word “Islamist.” By Karen Lugo
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
In just the latest episode of censorship in the prophet’s name, Muslim activist groups now want reporters to stop using the word “Islamist.”
“Islamist” is an important and useful word — it identifies the
politically motivated Muslims who are intent on injecting sharia into
Western law and culture, and distinguishes them from other followers of
Islam.
There is no question that sharia is anathema to the American sense of
individual liberty and civil rights, so actual Islamists must hide
behind Muslims who have no interest in bringing Muslim Brotherhood–style
regulations to America. Uninhibited discussions of the conditions in
Western Europe’s sharia enclaves evoke instant rejection of similar
arrangements here in the U.S. Thus, the conversation must be stripped of
frank terms such as “Islamist.” Those who seek to promote sharia are
anxious to bypass debate on the matter on the way to cultural
domination.
If it can happen in London — as it has — it can happen anywhere in the
civilized world. Caving to Islamist demands and criminalizing public
debate as hate speech set the stage in Britain for Islamist vigilantes
to accost Londoners who violate sharia’s rules on modesty, alcohol
consumption, and homosexuality. Days ago, CNN’s OutFront covered
the most recent manifestations of Muslim gang tyranny in Britain,
Denmark, and Spain. The feature also showed Islamist bands demanding
that Britain’s sharia courts, now merely endowed with civil authority,
expand to prosecute criminal actions, including “un-Islamic behavior in
Muslim areas.”
Two recent videorecordings
– removed by YouTube, then reposted at alternate sites — show Islamist
“patrols” staking out turf in areas of London while declaring, “This is
not-so-Great Britain, this is a Muslim area. We are vigilantes
implementing Islam upon your own necks.” A collective Western “Brava!”
goes out to the women who responded, instead of meekly complying, “I
cannot believe it!” and “I am so appalled, this is Great Britain.”
Islamists certainly do not want the American public to consider the
current international campaign to make inspection of Islamism a crime.
In January, journalists and journalism students were invited to a conference
in Istanbul where Turkish deputy undersecretary Ibrahim Kalin announced
that the Turkish government “has been working on projects to have
Islamophobia recognized as a crime against humanity.” Prime Minister
Erdogan committed
the Turkish government to “immediately start working on legislation
against blasphemous and offensive remarks” and bragged that “Turkey
could be a leading example for the rest of the world on this.”
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s secretary general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu, is pushing
for new “legal instruments” to deal with Islamophobia and plans
“efforts to mobilize international support to deal with the issue.” In
apparent coordination with efforts in the U.S. to suppress speech he
“wants to mobilize the highest possible political support not only from
OIC countries but also from the West.” At last week’s Twelfth Session of
the Islamic Summit Conference, in Cairo, Ihsanoğlu commended “the adoption of Resolution 16/18 [the Istanbul Process]
which condemns discriminatory practices against Muslims,” and he
claimed that “the OIC has come to a crossroads in its search for radical solutions to hatred based on religion and belief” (emphasis added).
After the recent “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube controversy and the
resultant Muslim riots, I visited a Southern California mosque and had a
conversation with the chairman of its board. When I inquired as to his
position on free speech he replied that the criminal punishment for
offending Muslims should be equal to that for burning a mosque. So far, America’s institutions have chosen to defer the moment that
the culture must be defined and defended. Islamists have stepped into
the void. For instance, at Islamists’ behest, the DOJ, FBI, and
Department of Homeland Security have purged
from counterterrorism manuals references to the connection between
Islamic radicalism and jihadist terror. Many city- and county-level
agencies have followed suit. If our law-enforcement agencies cannot
stand up to the threat, how can we expect the media to?
Those who doubt the need to identify and engage this activist element
should consider the words of Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim
civil-rights leader whose family emigrated from Syria in pursuit of
American liberty. In his autobiographical book, A Battle for the Soul of Islam: A Muslim Patriot’s Battle to Save His Faith, Jasser writes:
For the Islamists, total power is the ultimate goal. They will feign
respect for “democracy” (e.g., elections), but ultimately their path is
one that seeks to change the rules of the game to an Islamocentric
system rather than one centered in reason, under God, with unalienable
rights for all.
Caving to demands for speech codes dangerously skews political
arguments and makes the voices of the censors only louder. When one side
of the argument is censored or restrained, conspirators are allowed to
perpetrate a fraud on the majority. This is exactly how Islamists have
been selling Americans on the idea that sharia is soft, socially just,
and not a threat to the American way. By maligning the use of the word
“Islamist” and thereby suppressing inspection of Islamism, sharia
advocates hope to dismiss as racist any who would challenge them.
It is not too late to frame the debate and press American Muslim
leaders for honesty. Unapologetic and public conversations are key to
defending American constitutional standards, and they demand clarity of
terminology. National Review — Karen Lugo is co-president of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
