Radical Distinction?

Submitted by Shlomo (United States), Oct 14, 2005 at 01:16

It appears the President is in the process of altering names given to known enemies of a civilized society over the course of his presidency. To continue this facade of making a distinction between radical Islam and moderate Islam is one of the elements detering him from succeeding or becoming victorious in his alledged war on terrorism ( the world seems to have the same nonsensical posture as the president ), which by the way when put in its proper perspect is not a war at all, but a political action without substance, a political correct war. War is not based on "warm and fuzzy" action nor is it a "performanced based" action required of the enemy as determining proof of peaceful, societal, political adherence. There are three very important, yet simple, evidentiary questions that are being over looked and may cost civilized countries dearly;

1. Is the Koran, Quran, a religious book? No, it is a "book of war" on the world society.

2. Moderate Islam exist? No, there is no middle ground ( moderate ) approach in adhering
to the book, either you are a Muslim or you are not. Some may profess they are moderate,
but they know there is no moderation. Are these people really hiding their true adherent
Muslim faith to protect themselves from exposure or are they hiding their true covert actions
of converting infidels in a more political correct moderate posture in western countries?

3. Islam a religion? No, classifying Islam as a religion is a severe danger. History is
repleat and saturated with historical records of its foundation based on savagery, murder,
robbery, slavery and rape before they added biblical verses ( plagerized / altered verses )
after Mohammad died. The true image of their reputation needed damage control and the
succeeding leader of Mohammad did just that by catorgarizing Islam as a religion. They
needed the legitimacy of religion to continue their ruthless activities on the world unabated.


Is there really a distinction between radical and moderate when they both have the same goals in mind? Just because one uses physical action and the other uses subversive acts, their ends are the same as their means. Which is more dangerous, the physical or subversive? Most would say the physical, understandable human nature, but the subversive one is like the arrow you never hear until it is passes through your body.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".