Snow Job

White House press secretary Tony Snow has been injecting himself quite a bit into the information he dispenses, reportedly (no pun intended), on behalf of the White House.
Recently he stated, “There's an assumption that people have been given marching orders, and at this point, the president is asking folks to take a look at a number of things."
What exactly did Snow say?
He used to be a newscaster at Fox News. That is – he read the news stories and tried to make them sound interesting. A newscaster is paid to do that. So one night they report about a lost puppy, the next day about 9/11 and the day after that about Donald Trump’s Miss USA out all night partying. That’s the way it goes.
Back to the phrase above – Snow mentions an assumption about ‘marching orders’.
Who had the assumption? I didn’t, did you?
What people is he talking about?
What orders were they given?
Then he moves on to the President. I assume he means President Bush (well, there’s that assumption). Snow then mentions some ‘folks’ being asked to look at a number of ‘things’.
First, I’d like to confirm that is President Bush he is talking about, but, all kidding aside, which ‘folks’ is he indicating and what things are they being asked to look at?
This one sentence of Snow’s is the perfect snow job, don’t you think? Lot’s of words and nothing conveyed.
It gets worse.
Snow went on to say (at the same Press Conference) : “I think people are trying to create a fight between the president and the Joint Chiefs when one does not exist.”
I don’t really care what Tony Snow thinks – do you?
In any case – again, which ‘people’ is he talking about? Is he talking about you and I?
He comes off sounding like a bad sports reporter who showed up at a game late. He doesn’t really know who is playing or what they are doing but he is paid to talk so he talks.
I think that Tony Snow must be one of the bright parts of President Bush’s day. I can see him as he pushes Snow out on stage to give ‘em all one more Snow job.
I just want the facts. What we have now is a bad reporter reading bad copy to other reporters.
What do you think?

Rosie O'Donnell

The other day Rosie O’Donnell made a joke on ‘The View’ about what a newscaster in China might say about Danny Devito’s appearance on the show.
She caricatured a Chinese newscaster and New York City Councilman John Liu, who is apparently more attached to his Chinese race than his American citizenship was offended by it.
First of all I wonder if John Liu watches ‘The View’ regularly. If he does I have to comment that most of us are at work when the show is on. Additionally if a middle aged man is recording ‘The View’ and watching it in the evening (it is primarily targeted for women) then there are some other questions I would ask – but they are not pertinent to this issue.
At issue is John Liu’s response. It seems out of proportion to the comic antics of the comedian on television. Is there more behind his frustration than he is revealing?
I was offended more by his remarks than by Rosie O’Donnell’s comedic routine.
Because I was offended I wrote an email to John Liu and do you know what he did? His official New York City Council web site added me, without prompts or asking me, to his online group. Here is what he sent me :
"LiuNewYork@gmail.com has added you to the JohnLiuNYCCouncil group with this message:
Welcome to the Office of Council Member John C. Liu.
Thank you for contacting us and joining our network of
friends and citizen activists. This email list is designed
to help you stay updated on the latest news and activities
at City Hall. Together we can create a better New York!"
It would seem that John Liu has used remarks by a television comedian to further his own political career.
I am a New Yorker. I was born and raised there. I lived in Elmhurst, New York, which, at the time I was growing up there, was the most ethnically diverse neighborhood in the United States of America. At one point I believe it was boasted that at least one citizen from every nation on earth lived there.
So when I tell you that I think that John Liu’s position and remarks are offensive to me you are getting a broad view and not some racist attitude, as I feel, John Liu has displayed openly and brazenly.
Humor is a powerful tool. John Liu would like to take it away from us. It is my opinion that you are either American or you are not. A hyphen does not an American make, no matter how many people vote for you.
At this time Communist China is ravaging the American economy. Men like John Liu are apparently not comfortable with the truth. Many Americans have lost their jobs, been forced out of their homes and have lost forever there hopes of achieving the American dream. But in New York thousands of illegal immigrants from China continue to arrive and continue to take jobs there. Jobs that should attract out-of-work rural Americans from North Carolina to California are being turned over to illegal immigrants who accept slave wages.
Here in Michigan illegal Chinese immigrants on their way to Chicago and New York sweatshops cross the Detroit River by boat regularly.
John Liu hasn’t said anything meaningful about that horrible practice as far as I can tell.
To continue, however, as I know that New York City cannot stop this national tragedy (even though it should stop encouraging it) I have to say that John Liu’s remarks offend me on several other levels as well.
Right after the World Trade Center was destroyed (by legal immigrants from Saudi Arabia) the national attitude toward New York softened. Prior to that it was hardening into a hatred that is hard to explain to a New Yorker, let alone someone like John Liu.
It is best summed up by the Pace Picante sauce commercial – where cowboys denigrate and attack another cowboy for using sauce made in New York City.
It may seem a minor point but it demonstrates the attitude that New Yorkers receive when they leave the city. I know. I have seen it from Seattle to Texas to New England to the South. As I mentioned, after 9/11, it softened as America pulled together, but lately it has been reverting. Remarks like those made by John Liu invite ridicule of New York.
The negative attitude towards New York includes viewing it as weak and whiny. Certainly John Liu’s comments can be seen in that light.
It also presents to the rest of America a united front against them – for example – here is John Liu – a member of one of the most populous races on earth taking umbrage at a joke that was language and not race oriented. The overtones and undertones of his remarks and behavior are onerous. Describing his remarks to American citizens not living in New York brings a scowl of derision not for Rosie O’Donnell but against John Liu and ultimately the city itself which is viewed as being out of touch with America and reality in general.
I have to ask – doesn’t John Liu have any important work to do or is the New York City Council a bunch of do-nothing hecklers?
The crime rate is still spectacular – is it not?
The problem of waste disposal is still looming – is it not?
Illegal immigration remains a major industry – does it not?
Lack of opportunity for native youth still nags – does it not?
The Hudson River is still an ecological mess – is it not?
Air quality remains foul – does it not?
Unemployment remains a problem – does it not?
Drug dealers and drug use still gouge the city – do they not?
Competition from West Coast cities continue to drag the economy – does it not?
I have to say that I find the inclusion of Chinese characters on street signs and at subway stops to be offensive and I request that the New York City Council immediately remove the symbols from public signs. It is offensive that immigrants from China, many illegal, do not have the courage and tenacity to learn English in the nation that they forced themselves into.
I also believe that referring to an area in downtown Manhattan as ‘China Town’ in travel brochures and city literature is offensive and outdated. I believe it should stop immediately. Chinese restaurants and stores in the City of New York should compete equally with their American counterparts without exploiting their racist bigotry.
John Liu has embarrassed the New York City Council, New York City itself and the millions of citizens who live there without inciting racial hatred or bitterness towards other through jealousy and ignorance.

As for offensive behavior of Chinese customs I need only bring to your attention to the official office opening ceremony of Cotton Incorporated’s office in Communist China when Americans were forced to witness and participate in a ceremony that involved a one-eyed dragon which remains on guard at the office entrance to this day.
Additionally take note of the ‘Chinese Naming Ceremony’ used for panda births in Atlanta, Georgia and San Diego, California. Steeped in superstition and Communist propaganda the zoos had to comply with the official Chinese Communist ceremonies in order to register the birth of the pandas with the repressive and murderous government in Peking.
In the face of these bizarre activities, the fact that Communist Chinese troops recently arrived in Pakistan I take issue with Mr. Liu’s racist comments.
John Liu’s behavior and the manner in which such a low-level government official could gain national attention is just another reason for New York City to be broken up.
It is too large to govern properly. It is flooded with corruption, crime and politicians eager for attention rather than able to perform their simple duties.
As for the New York City Council - their focus appears diffuse to say the least. To give an example of their wandering interests take a look at suggested ‘General Issues’ that you can contact Christine Quinn about at her website :
http://www.nyccouncil.info/rightnow/contactspkr.cfm
1. Animal Care
2. Child Care
3. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender
4. Nightlife Safety
5. Waterfront
I wonder if 4 and 5 don’t rightly belong with number 3.
Do you think that Mr. Liu’s behavior should be allowed to continue without his being reigned in - or does his Chinese-ness provide some magical protection to him from the rule of law, common sense and common courtesy?

Had Enough?

I was coming back down from walking around a quiet town in Canada.
I had sunshine, rain and snow. I had it all for a day.
I drove down to the Canadian border and paid my toll to pass through the tunnel. The border agent was wearing a light jacket and his shirt was open.
Then I went across the border back to my homeland.
The United States of America.
There was a guard wearing heavy body armor. Across from me I saw another guard wearing a helmet and so much body armor that I had pushed him over in a snow pile he wouldn’t have been able to get up, let alone handle a weapon with ease and skill.
I produced my driver’s license but something went wrong.
The guard got on the phone and said, ‘I’ve got a bad number.’
The camera they used to take a picture of my license plate number malfunctioned.
It missed the zero at the end of my plate.
The guard immediately became animated and asked for the keys to my car.
He then asked me to pop my trunk and he searched it. Then he opened the rear door of my car and searched my car. Then he opened the canvas sack I had my clothes and toothpaste in and he searched that.
I had my birth certificate with me but these guys didn’t want to make sure I was an American - they just wanted to violate just about every freedom I have been guaranteed.
What if their equipment had malfunctioned and they tagged me, an American whose settler family ancestry in this nation dates back to 1621 and whose Native American ancestry dates back much farther than that, as a terrorist?
What if they had shot and killed me instead of searching my vehicle?
My wife would have gotten a phone call and they would tell you they did the right thing.
Would you question the motives of man dressed in combat gear and carrying heavy weapons at the border? If you don’t question it now they will end up on your street corners taunting your children and searching your wife.
I’ve had just about enough.
Well, how about you?

Dole Remarks

Senator Dole, who has been nearly silent during her career as Senator for North Carolina has recently been quoted as saying, "It's like they're content with losing. To pull out and withdraw is losing. The Democrats appear to be content with losing.”
She was talking about the United States in Iraq.
The Circus of Sadaam Hussein finished its first act by condemning Sadaam to death just in time for American mid-term elections. Senator Dole, who got her seat apparently due to backroom machinations by her aging husband, an ex-Senator from Kansas, now seems intent on stirring up domestic trouble in the United States.
She is showing a weakness in the Republican party that I don’t care for. As an American who happens to be a Republican her personal attacks against my fellow Americans leave me with a sick feeling in my stomach. I believe I am seeing Senator Dole relying on the same, sorry political tricks her husband used to play in Kansas.
Anyone that thinks so little of the Great State of North Carolina that they can snap their fingers to get their way must be in denial about many other things as well.
Senator Dole’s behavior, coming as it does from a woman who has enjoyed a life of ease and whose brushes with adversity seem to be limited to not finding the right color for her limousine or having her veal overcooked should have her attention drawn to one very pertinent fact.
You’re not in Kansas anymore.

Huck the Traitor

After learning that Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck of Camp LeJeune, then the commander of the Second Marine Division, reduced the sentence of Corporal Pimienta (who had murdered a fellow Marine by mishandling his weapon and then fled to Europe to escape prosecution) to six years and the dishonorable discharge to a bad-conduct discharge I realized the depths to which the United States Marine Corps has fallen.
Major General Huck, in my opinion, is not fit for command.
I don’t think he is the type of man that should be in the Marine Corps.
The lack of judgment he used trying to hide this crime seemed a misguided attempt to maintain the reputation of the Marine Corps. Instead he tarnished it.
It shows to the world gang style operations which present the Marine Corps not as an honorable group fighting for freedom but a gang led by out of touch officers who allow the enlisted men to kill one another instead of the enemy.
This then, makes Major General Richard Huck, in my opinion, a danger not only the Marine Corps but to the United States of America.
I understand that the military during peacetime allows men like Huck to move forward because other citizens are doing other things - but that is no excuse to allow him to continue in his office.
The honorable thing that Major General Huck should do, if he is capable of honorable action (which I thoroughly doubt) would be to resign and decline his retirement pay immediately.

Same Sex Unions

Following the twin scandals of Representative Foley, Republican from Florida and Rev Ted Haggard the New Life Church pastor it seems that the outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage might have its roots in a more sinister place than hometown churches.
Representative Foley, Republican from Florida resigned over his sexual predatory activity with young boys in Washington, D.C.
Reverend Ted Haggard was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals from which it seemed he had unfettered access to the White House. He had to resign because of charges about him meeting with a homosexual prostitute on a monthly basis and buying methamphetamine.
These two men and many like them have been loudly opposed to same-sex marriage.
Who would benefit most from homosexuals pairing and ceasing promiscuous and dangerous sexual behavior?
The men and women that prey on them, that’s who.
Denying homosexuals like Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter to marry other homosexuals men and women like Representative Foley and Reverend Haggard can keep their playing field open.
Simply put - it seems that the real opposition to gay marriage is coming from the very sexual predatory and child molesting minority that many people claim to be against.
Insisting that it is against the best interests of the United States to deny anyone the right to pair off if they want to in marriage is ridiculous and in itself a perverted and dangerous position.
It is time now for these filthy people to get out of the private business of others.
`

Modern Media

Have you seen any American television lately?
It seems that they are choosing story lines simply by price.
The same goes for the director, actors and support personnel.
The bottom line sells and the bottom line in American television is getting lower every day.
The three major networks used to be respected names in radio and television. In this year of 2006 I suggest a reality check for those same names :
ABC - A Bunch of Claptrap
NBC - ‘Nother Bunch of Claptrap
CBS - Claptrap Baloney Snowjob
The corporations themselves have been absorbed by entertainment and manufacturing corporations. We no longer get information critical of the other companies that own these companies.
Here is an example of the type of ‘entertainment’ being peddled by NBC :
“The Waist Deep DVD brings you into the violent streets of South Central Los Angeles. The violence in the Waist Deep DVD starts as ex-con/security guard O2 (Tyrese Gibson) gets car-jacked while his son is sleeping in the backseat. As the car jacker and now kidnapper holds the child for ransom, O2 has only 48 hours to come up with one hundred thousand dollars. With the help of his new found love Coco (Meagan Good), they hatch a plan to rob banks and take down gang leader, Meat (The Game). In the Waist Deep movie, the action never stops as it rolls through the gritty streets of South Central.”
I think a better title would be ‘Waste Deep’ - how about you?

Palaeologus Present

I cannot tell you how deeply I am sickened each time I look at or am exposed to a picture of President George Bush holding hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
The Saudis have been the ones who have benefited the most not only from the events of 9/11 which was carried out primarily by Saudi Arabians but by the following invasion and present occupation of Iraq.
Iraq’s government had been the only Arab government opposing the vain policies of Saudi Arabia.
But I am not speaking in defense of Iraq – I just want to point out that it would be well within the character of the Saudi Arabians to convince President Bush, publicly through supporting statements while making private threats against our economy.
After all – if Saudi Arabia could cause such unrest with just two airliners imagine what they could do if they started to manipulate the world oil market even more than they do so now. Their financial reach is tremendous and men like George Bush who desire things to remain undisturbed then keeping the Saudi Arabians happy is a natural response.
It is, to me, still an ugly picture to see our American President prancing around with a Saudi Prince.
The Saudi behavior, as I mentioned, is within character and indeed, is a matter of history. The Arabs and Muslims have behaved like this before.
Only then people spoke against them.
They did not hold hands with them and walk through flower gardens crooning their love for them and promising to lay down American lives to keep Saudi bellies full.
Think also of those representatives and senators who welcome into our midst with open arms the bald-faced lies and economic thievery of Communist China.
It’s up to you what happens to your nation.
Today’s crisis is nothing new and should not be allowed to continue without a reasonable response.
Else – give up your homes and your lives. You have nothing to defend merely because you will not defend it.
Here is an example from Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus’ ‘Funeral Oration’ for his brother Theodore.
“What can one say about those who had deserted to the enemy, joining the wolves, as one might say, desirous of devouring their kinsmen’s flesh, though in fact they were only devouring their own? It would take too long to detail their actions and it is better to omit what would only plunge into gloom those who are already suffering.”
Here is some more :
“I wish to speak of things in general rather than of particular individuals. I say that the Christians who deserted to our enemies, the infidels, are clearly mad, rather they behave worse than those who are diseased in mind. For even if such madmen were to thrust a sword into their bodies they would not harm their souls nor would they arouse hatred in others, but on the contrary the would call forth compassion from onlookers. But any rational man ought to feel great hatred towards these men because they willingly defile their souls with the aid of their full senses. They seek for that which originally spurred them on to a join the enemies of our faith; I speak of wealth and glory and whatever are considered to be the pleasures of life. It would have been hard for them to achieve this had they not appeared acceptable to our enemies to whom they have deserted. And it would certainly have been impossible for them to appear acceptable to them unless they first took part in those things in which our enemies delight. This means that they have to live according to barbarian customs and must willingly defile their souls by unlawful deeds. A worse fate will befall these people than that of madmen, for they will be judged deserving not of compassion but of great hatred, for they have deliberately given themselves up to wickedness, damaging their souls rather than their bodies. But the most abominable thing of all is the fact that they considered it necessary to betray their souls, insult their honour and indeed that of the whole nation against which they have been persuaded to act, otherwise from the outset their actions would have profited them nothing nor would their reward have lasted long. Thus like a bubble which is quickly inflated to bursting point those who thought that they would succeed in getting a well defended city from our enemies had their vain aspirations very rapidly pricked without having achieved anything.”
Still more :
“For how is it possible for a man to observe strictly what he has adopted on the spur of the moment when he so easily tramples down his life-long customs. Moreover to harm one’s nation is to harm oneself, since the whole contains the part. And how can the man who harms himself do good to others? Moreover, if we were to consider this more carefully, such a man becomes loathsome even to his own conscience and how much more to everyone else? But why do I say this when I can make a more telling point? It was impossible for them to preserve their confession and faith in Christ inviolate. Why? Because in their union with Christ they promised absolute loyalty to him and enmity against the demons and yet afterwards they did the opposite. Rather, we should speak out more clearly and point out the enormity of the sin, for those who wish to live with the followers of Muhammad and side with the enemies of the faith against us are fighting against Christ, the source of our faith, and openly waging war against Him.”
Finally :
“Something else also follows which is to be deplored, or rather, is exceedingly wicked. As a result of their intrigues they proclaim Muhammad a prophet. For that abominable man had promised victory against us to the peoples he deceived and enslaved.”

Walmart and China

When Americans go shopping in Walmart they might want to recall the words of Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. He threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the United States interfered with a Chinese attempt to invade the American ally of Taiwan. (July 2005 – Cheghu is still in office).
When Americans go driving they might want to recall the fact that 15 of the World Trade Center murderers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian and that country continues to avoid its international responsibilities.
When Americans go golfing they might want to recall the fact that the grass is so neat and short because of the millions of illegal aliens that have been forced into this country by their corrupt and drug dealing governments in Mexico, Columbia and other places.
When Americans decide to invest in the ‘international’ economy they might want to reflect on the fact that most of the foreign companies worth investing in are working out of the United States – like Toyota, Siemens and others. They take American jobs, land and opportunity and drive American companies out of business.
That’s the thing, however, Americans don’t think. They don’t think that renting to someone is better than selling to them. They don’t think that going into business with another company or competing against them successfully is better than just rolling over and giving up.
Americans don’t think its bad, either, to send children to occupy foreign nations while their place of birth is destroyed.

Guns on the Great Lakes

I am writing to provide public comments concerning the plan by the United States Coast Guard to arm vessels with light automatic weapons and to establish ‘safety zones’ around selected structures throughout the Great Lakes area.
Docket number 25767
If they are going to do it they should do it right. They look like a bunch of amateurs.
Much of their lifesaving and monitoring equipment is ageing and become unsafe and decrepit. The answer is not to buy them guns.
Why not provide guns to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to protect us from the North Koreans with their nuclear warheads, rockets and missiles? Why are our soldiers and marines sitting around in Iraq while our guys get pounded in Afghanistan?
So much for being the World’s Cop. We are turning into the World’s Baby Sitter.
Item 1
The New York Times on October 16, 2006 noted that the United States Coast Guard told them that there was going to be nine (9) meetings.
The United States Coast Guard web site at : http://uscgd9safetyzones.com/go/privacy/1295/ states that there are seven (7) meetings.
I see where there were originally only 4 meetings scheduled and then 3 were added. I do not see any mention of the other two meetings.
Considering that the Coast Guard was slow and sloppy in the manner in which they divulged and arranged for the original public meetings I have to consider the fact that they were not well prepared in their conception of this plan and I expect that the execution of the plan will be no less flawed.
Item 2
The Coast Guard is preparing to fire at ‘foam’ targets rather than the standard targets used by the United States Navy. In this regard the Coast Guard is both negligent towards the environment and does not appear to be committed to actually using target impact results as the targets will be utterly destroyed by the weapons fired at them.
To detail the first point. Using foam targets that will be shredded into minute particles by the weapon is environmentally unfriendly and makes the Coast Guard, normally a friend and protector of the marine environment, just another polluter who doesn’t care that this water in the Great Lakes is taken up by pipes and drank by millions of Americans including pregnant American women and American boys and girls.
The satisfaction the young Coast Guardsmen and Coast Guardswomen get from seeing the foam spray up into the air along with the water droplets does not balance out against the impact the foam will have in the water. I do not expect the Coast Guard will be picking up all the pieces.
To detail the second point. The target proposed by the Coast Guard to provide training for the Coast Guard personnel on the operation of the 7.62 mm weapons, which can blast as many as 650 rounds a minute and send fire more than 4,000 yards is inadequate to the task at hand and should be reconsidered. It is too light and does not reflect the type or behavior of target that the Coast Guard personnel will be expected to fire upon.
Item 3
The 7.62 mm weapons, which can blast as many as 650 rounds a minute and send fire more than 4,000 yards are also known as ‘mini-cannons’.
The locations of the training exercises in deep water and in many instances smack dab in the center of prime diving and fishing locations does not adequately reflect the actual situations under which the Coast Guard personnel may need to operate (fire) their weapons.
Coast Guard personnel are not trained in artillery. These guns, if fired incorrectly at the targets, can cause much more damage to local areas than would be deemed prudent. These guns, if operated in the Port Huron strait off Sarnia could impact the petroleum refinery there. The likelihood that the Coast Guard ship would on hand during the few minutes it would take water borne attackers to assault the refinery in Canada is a stretch of the imagination I am not willing to take.
I am taking into consideration the fact that the guns will not deter a light airplane attack, which is a possibility here in Michigan considering we have the largest number of small airports and plan owners in the United States.
The guns will not deter a land based attack from the Canadian side nor a land based attack using rockets or light missiles from the American side.
The guns will not deter an air, land or water attack either, on the Fermi Nuclear facility in Monroe, Michigan, which short sighted planners built directly on the shore of the Detroit River.
If this plan to mount guns on the Coast Guard boats and ships is designed to take our attention away from the fact that the nuclear plants remain woefully unprepared for attack then it has failed.
The guns might make Rear Admiral John E. Crowley, Junior feel better but they aren’t doing the trick for the real problems we are experiencing in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and New York.
Item 4
The 7.62 mm weapons, which can blast as many as 650 rounds a minute and send fire more than 4,000 yards are also known as ‘mini-cannons’ will be introducing lead and other heavy metals into a marine environment used for drinking water and fished for food stuffs bound for American and Canadian tables.
The water and the fish are already polluted and we are working hard to reduce and eventually eliminate the pollution.
We are not going to be able to do that if the Coast Guard decides to save pocket money by using our fishing grounds, drinking water and shipping lanes as their private shooting gallery.
The United States Marine Corps maintains shooting ranges around the world.
The United States Army maintains shooting ranges around the world.
The United States Navy maintains shooting ranges around the world.
The United States Air Force maintains shooting ranges around the world.
None of them are spread out over sixteen hundred miles. They are contained within certain areas and used for certain operations.
The other branches of the military use real world reenactments in order to test, prove and hone their weapons’ skills. The Coast Guard, new to this sort of operation, is failing miserably at its first go.
The question comes to mind that if we need a military presence on the Great Lakes why not let the Navy and the Marine Corps handle it as they did in the War of 1812?
The treaties negotiated following that war needed to renegotiated, apparently in secret, with Canada, before this hair brained scheme was even mentioned to the people of the United States whom it is supposed to be protecting.
Before this process goes any further I believe that someone with combat experience should sit down with Rear Admiral John E. Crowley, Junior and give him a few pointers on how military exercises are carried out.
Little foam floats and a big pile of ammunition don’t cut it.
Item 5
The impact on tourism is going to be great. The rest of the United States would like to think that somewhere is safe, especially considering the fact that the World Trade Center in New York City was attacked in broad daylight while the Coast Guard patrolled the waters below.
The northwestern United States is plagued with nuclear waste and loss of jobs.
The southwest continues to be incorporated into Mexico.
The southeast has been ravaged by flood and flame for the past two years.
The Midwest remained a place where the rest of the nation could look to for stability and more importantly a destination for vacation.
Now those tourist dollars are being put in jeopardy so that the Coast Guard, after being prompted by the Department of Homeland Security could launch into a hysterical response to a problem that does not exist.
Item 6
The problems that do exist, like Communist Chinese and Taiwanese illegal aliens slipping across the border by van and light boat has not been addressed by the Coast Guard at all.
I understand that frequently the Coast Guard has been called to locations where these illegal immigrants are loading up. These calls have been apparently mostly been made from the Canadian side. When the Coast Guard gets there the illegal aliens are already away in a van on the American side and we all know how responsive to that problem local police are.
The result is that they get away.
The Coast Guard does a good job at keeping our coasts safe in storm and flood.
Considering they have had nearly 200 years hone these skills I think it would be best if they stuck to them and left the defense of the nation to the Navy and the Marines.
If our National Guard units were not sitting in Iraq getting shot they would be here with us protecting us as they were hired to do.
As it is the few hundred boats the Coast Guard can get together will never meet the threat they have been given to imagine exists.
Item 7
The Quality of Life of the people of the Great Lakes States and the United States in general will be further impacted negatively as yet another aspect of our society becomes militarized.
Life cannot be at all points brutalized but Mr. Chertoff seems intent on trying to make it that way.
The real problems we are facing cannot be hidden behind automatic ‘mini-cannons’ fired by boys at foam targets.
Item 8
The guns will do little more than become conversation pieces at dockside.
The men and women attacking the United States are not going to quiver at a 7.62 millimeter mini-cannon.
The USS Cole was attacked by a small boat pulled up next to it and detonated by madmen.
The USS Cole had enough fire power to destroy the boat but it did not.
Will these few Coast Guard boats find the terrorists?
What are they going to do about the millions of people that cross the border with legal papers? The terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center were all carrying ‘legal’ papers given to them like men like Mr. Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security and Rear Admiral John E. Crowley, Junior of the United States Coast Guard.
There are millions of illegal immigrants in the United States today whose legal status still has not been decided.
There are millions more here who entered with H1-B Visas or under student visas (like the Egyptians that absconded from the University of Montana) or visitor visas.
These guns and these public hearings are a distraction from the real problems we are facing.
Item 9
The overall training of Coast Guard personnel does not include these guns. These guns are an introduced novelty.
During training, accidents and possibly in action, there will be a great waste of time, energy and ability in setting them up, maintaining them and supplying them with ammunition.
Who makes these guns?
Who makes the ammunition?
Who will mount the weapons?
Who will provide the training?
Who will inspect the weapons?
Who is overseeing the contracts?
None of these questions have been answered in any of the literature churned out in support of these expensive and useless toys.

Apex, North Carolina

Fiery explosions overnight at a hazardous materials plant owned and run by Environmental Quality Industrial Services forced 16,000 residents in the middle of the night from their homes.
EQ Industrial Services is based in Wayne, Michigan. Michael Ferrantino, CEO has given Michigan politicians quite a bit of money.
Scores of people were hospitalized by the disaster caused by EQ Industrial Services in Apex, North Carolina.
Roiling smoke and flames boiled 150 feet into the night air. A toxic plume of smoke drifted through the streets sickening everyone it came in contact with.
Chemicals including cadmium, chromium, mercury and hazardous organic materials were burned at high temperature and cast into the air in minute droplets easily absorbed into the skin and through the mucous membrane in the nose and through the mouth and even ears of residents.
EQ Industrial Services is associated with a company called Wayne Disposal. The EPA has Super Fund sites in Michigan. Those are locations so polluted that they are an immediate and present danger to the local population not to mention the environment. At one time the EPA declared that the company that owned one of the Super Fund sites in Wayne County, Michigan, must immediately clean it up. They allowed that company truck material from that landfill to another one that they owned. Nice arrangement for the company and the EPA but the problem is still here.
In Apex, North Carolina, I understand that the chemicals that burned ignited some aviation fuel tanks nearby which made the situation worse.
I don’t know who owns the aviation fuel tanks but apparently EQ provides aviation services at other locations in the United States. I would thoroughly investigate what happened in Apex and keep an eye on what happens next. I am not making any allegations, I am just suggesting that be aware of what is going on.
I am disappointed that so many politicians have taken money from this company. The damage that imported waste and spills and fires and other accidents have caused is indeterminate. There are major problems with PCB’s in Ann Arbor but no one can tell if the chemicals came from a high pressure toxic waste injection well or the facilities of EQ. The impact on our children and our future cannot be underestimated.
To have one company control so much of this dangerous business is hazardous enough. When that company starts making mistakes that rush sixteen thousand people out of their houses in the middle of the night then something has to be done.
I do not believe that people who handle items that can make you sick should be making decisions about healthcare. Do you?
I do not believe that people who handle items that can poison your water should be making decisions about water quality. Do you?
I do not believe that people who handle items that can destroy the ability of your children to have normal children themselves should be making decisions about the environment and they certainly should not be sticking their nose into education. Do you?
I do not believe that people whose activities lower real estate values should be influencing state laws about property. Do you?
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the people and companies that are involved.
The folks in Michigan that are taking money from this company are :
Representative McCotter
1632 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
202.225.8171 tel
202.225.2667 fax

Senator Bruce Patterson
PO Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
By Phone: (517) 373-7350
Representative Phil LaJoy
N0785 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Fax: 517-373-5939
Phone: 517-373-2575
Commitee to Elect Mark J. Abbo
PO Box 822
Northville, Michigan 48167
734-927-1987
United States Senator John Thune
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-2321
Representative Mike Rogers
133 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4872
Fax: (202) 225-5820
Representative Candice Miller
228 Cannon House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
202.225.2106
(F) 202.226.1169
Locations that EQ works in :
Corporate Office
36255 Michigan Ave.
Wayne, Michigan 48184
(734) 329-8000
Michigan Disposal Waste Treatment Plant
49350 North I-94 Service Drive
Belleville, Michigan 48111
(800) 592-5489
Wayne Disposal, Inc.
49350 North I-94 Service Drive
Belleville, Michigan 48111
(800) 592-5489
EQ Resource Recovery, Inc.
36345 Van Born Road
Romulus, Michigan 48174
(734) 727-5500
EQ Industrial Services, Inc.
2701 North I-94 Service Drive
Ypsilanti, MI 48198
(734) 547-2500
EQ Detroit, Inc.
1923 Frederick
Detroit, MI 48211
(313) 923-0080
EQRR Distribution Center
14000 Stansbury Ave.
Detroit, Michigan 48227
(313) 273-7504
EQIS Indianapolis Transfer and Processing
4000 West 10th Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46222
(317) 247-7160
EQIS Emergency Response
2701 North I-94 Service Drive
Ypsilanti, MI 48198
(734) 547-2500
Northeast Facilities and OfficesEQ Northeast, Inc.
185 Industrial Road
Wrentham, MA 02093
(508) 384-6151
Southeast Facilities and OfficesEQIS Atlanta Transfer and Processing
5600 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30336
(404) 494-3520
EQ Augusta, Inc.
3920 Goshen Industrial Blvd.
Augusta, GA 30906
(706) 771-9100
EQ Florida, Inc.
7202 East Eighth Ave.
Tampa, FL 33619
(800) 624-5302
EQIS North Carolina
1005 Investment Blvd.
Apex, NC 27502
(919) 363-4700
EQ Mobile Recycling, Inc.
W. Independence Blvd.
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
(336) 719-0058
EQ Airport Services - Pittsburgh
P.O. Box 12286
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15231
(412) 472-1007
(412) 472-1044
EQ Airport Services - Salt Lake City
P.O. Box 16109
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
(801) 531-4679
(801) 531-4677

Girl Children in America

How many prayers can I say to correct what has gone wrong?
How many prayers would it take to change this vicious course of events?
What actions can I take to fix these horrible things?
A grown man walks into a school and assaults the girl children there. He then kills one and then himself with a high powered gun.
Another grown man a thousand miles away goes into a schoolhouse and attacks a room full of girl children with a high powered gun. Five are dead today. Several others are in the hospital mortally wounded.
The doctors call it being in ‘critical condition’. They say the children who have been attacked by these adults are in ‘critical condition’. That’s the medical term.
What is the human term?
If you watch professional sports why take one minute of just one game to consider how you can change things. You can’t stop what happened already.
It’s worse than a fumble or a missed pitch.
If you own a gun - why not take one minute to think about what could do to change the course of this blood-red rage for senseless violence?
If you are in business why not take one minute of one coffee break to think of a way to stop this baggage from following and permeating our society?
Girl children.
Slaughtered by men.
] For all the noise and dust kicked up about terrorists and the enemy ‘out there’ look at what happened here in the United States. Spawned from home grown hatred and misguided choices and lives that exclude hope.
A Baptist clergyman from Kansas had this to say about the slaughter of the innocents in Pennsylvania, "Those Amish people, everyone is sitting around talking about those poor little girls — blah, blah, blah — they brought the wrath upon themselves.“ He said the Amish "don't serve God, they serve themselves."
Charles Carl Roberts IV killed these girls — Naomi Rose Ebersole, 7; Marian Fisher, 13; Mary Liz Miller, 8; and her sister Lena Miller, 7, Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12.
Another 6 year old girl was taken off life support so that she could be taken home to die.
Dr. D. Holmes Morton who was working with the 6 year old said, "I just think at this point mostly these families want to be left alone in their grief and we ought to respect that."
Here is a man who worked with the Amish for years and still doesn’t see what is right in front of him.
The Amish don’t want to be left alone. They want you to join them in a life of peace and harmony.
The world is a harsh place as it is but the modern world is filled with things that do not need to be that cause needless sorrow and waste a lot of time.
The handguns that killed these children wasted a lot of time and have caused much sorrow.
An Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness to them.
What courage before Christ have you shown today that could even come close to matching the compassion and love that was shown here?
It went almost without notice.
Hidden in the howling mob-like news coverage.
The common human experience was nearly quenched in the riot of sound and images just as the lives of these girl children were snuffed out.
But the light shone out.
Do you see it?
What action will you take to make the world a better place? What will YOU do to make this country and God’s world a place where girl children are safe?
It’s up to you.
This happened to your neighbors. People you are bound to protect as an American and a person.

Freaky Foley

Representative of Mark Foley from Florida has caused quite a stir, hasn’t he? The 6 year veteran of the United States House of Representatives had maneuvered himself into the position of chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.
Not long ago he sponsored legislation to “protect” children from exploitation by adults over the Internet.
Shortly after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez put the weight of protecting our children from exploitation back on parents when he said on April 20, 2006, “…if parents, community, business, civic, industry, and political leaders do not work better together, then we will lose this fight on behalf of our children.”
He added, ‘It may sound trite, but parents have to be the first line of defense.”
I have to agree with Alberto there, because when a US Representative starts dating little boys then a larger problem presents itself.
He is quoted as saying, “I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent.”
Representative Foley of Florida reportedly is reported to have had these exchanges with little boys that parents send to Washington, DC to work as pages and messengers :
Representative Foley : “What ya wearing?”
Little Boy : “Tshirt and shorts.”
Representative Foley : “Love to slip them off of you.”
He was made one of the Republican party’s deputy whips by the now disgraced Tom DeLay, a one time pesticide salesman from Texas who was the Republican Leader in the House.
Mr. Foley was single and reportedly called his sister, Donna his “surrogate wife.”
According to news sources the sexually charged electronic messages and other contacts began in August 2005.
On September 29, 2006 Representative John Shimkus, Republican of Illinois and chairman of the House Page Board, admitted knowing about the first e-mail messages way back in “in late 2005.” Shimkus took the bold move of telling Foley not to contact that specific page any further. It seems John Shimkus is either naïve or worse. It seems clear to me the entire episode did not seem to upset him much.
Rep. Rodney Alexander, Republican from Louisiana who was apparently responsible for the page recently accosted electronically by Foley claimed he was directed by the little boy’s parents not to pursue the issue and that is why he did not seem to act in any responsible manner in regards to this serious issue.
For his part Representative Alexander passed the buck and said that, apparently even after promising the parents to drop the issue, he gave all the information he had about the issue to Representative Thomas Reynolds, Republican of New York who apparently did nothing himself apparently even though no one requested him to do nothing.
Hastert, also from Illinois, just as is Representative Shimkus (Chairman of the House Page Board) said "We want to make sure that all our pages are safe and the page system is safe."
Among other quotes attributed to Foley :
"Do I make you a little horny?"
"You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get relaxed."
Healso asked the boy to send a photo of himself.
"…he's such a nice guy…acts much older than his age...and he’s in really great shape...i am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym ... What’s school like for you this year?"
"I am back in Florida now...its nice here ... been raining today ... it sounds like you will have some fun over the next few weeks ... how old are you now?"
"…how are you weathering the hurricane ... are you safe ... send me an email pic of you as well."
Seemingly following in Florida Foley’s Freaky Footsteps Speaker Dennis Hastert sent out a press release on August 29, 2006 entitled, “Hastert Drives Effort To 'Keep Kids Safe In Cyberspace' Congressman leads community meeting addressing Internet safety”
Parents take note : Another Representative is stepping up to the plate in an open bid to ‘protect’ their children.

Angel

The Purposeful Porpoise

Piano

Open Letter to Rice

9.23.2006
Dear Ms. Rice,
I read recently how you defined the situation in the Darfur section of Sudan as ‘getting worse’.
I have been trying to follow your career during the time you have served as Secretary of State and I have to say I am not seeing anything that I expected.
You have achieved the position of Secretary of State and are the first, black female Secretary of State of the United States of America but that is just a title.
Your work in Iraq and the Middle East does not stand out. Iraq is an occupied nation and even thought the security situation in Occupied Iraq is terrible because of mismanagement its not really any of your responsibility just as Occupied Okinawa did not and still does not require much attention from your office.
I can understand that if you stood up and spoke out evenly and with the force that God obviously gave you that you would be attacked by some or all of the hyenas that you serve with. At the same time those good people that you serve our nation with might find the courage to back you up though I have to tell you I doubt that would be the case.
As for Darfur in Sudan. I have been following that more closely than I have been following your career. In a related matter, I think it was within the past year and a half, some French citizens were murdered in a West African nation. I don’t think the number was more than ten French citizens. In response France destroyed the entire air force of that nation.
I suspect that what you will do about the situation in Darfur in Sudan will be nothing more than what you have done already. Your actions as Secretary of State and your simple remark about the horror and destruction taking place in that North African nation caused me to believe that you may be filling the position of Secretary of State acting as a highly paid, dandified secretary.
You have an opportunity to save lives and make a difference.
I am not concerned with your history or how you rose up to prominence by going from university to university or that your grandfather or great-grandfather was a slave who was sent to become a minister because of his fine mind. I am concerned about the women and children and men and society of the people who have lived in that part of Africa for a very long time and who are now being savaged by a bunch of ignorant, perverted madmen in and around the government of Sudan.
I won’t waste your time or my time urging you to take action. I will, however, finally get to the point. If I were Secretary of State I would pitch a fit about what is going on in Sudan, hold press conferences and use the wonders of the internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines and my own pen to save those people in Darfur from the savage, greedy and ignorant men that are killing, raping and terrorizing them.
If I could not get the hyenas you work with to assist I would ply my trade as Secretary of State with every nation on earth until I could find one that would send the heroes to put an end to the bloodletting and set the people of Southern Sudan free.
Sudan was drawn from the dying fires of the European Empires. The fact that the northern cities are on the Mediterranean and filled with friends of Osama Bin Laden and the Saudi King should not stop all of us as humans from doing what is right.
Your decision is to decide who you are. Are you making the mistake of believing that you are what you do and as Secretary of State you cannot act with human kindness and compassion and help to bring the power of the United States of America to the aid and assistance of the weak and afflicted?
If it were in my power I know what I would do.
I would do it even if I were dismissed by the President or attacked by some of the hyenas you work with.
I have no idea what you would do. During your entire term since you took over from Colin Powell I have not been able to discern a human being directing the activities of the office of Secretary of State of the United States of America.
Your observation that it is getting worse in Darfur is a message God sent to you.
The world is not waiting to see what you will do about it because it is painfully apparent that you probably won’t do anything at all. Your job should be hard and you have been making it look easy, Ms. Rice, I fear, because you have been taking it easy.

Pope Remarks Muslim Response

In the middle of September, 2006 Pope Benedict of the Catholic Church made a speech at the University in Regensburg, Germany.
The core of the speech has been characterized as a criticism of modern western civilization for committing itself too much to reason and cutting God out of science and philosophy.
Ian Fisher of the New York Times said that Pope Benedict started out ‘by recounting a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam that took place between a 14th- century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar.’
Even the New York Times seems to have gotten the message wrong that Pope Benedict was sending.
Pope Benedict did not start by recounting the conversation. The quotation that caused the stir was far into the speech but that is only a minor point.
He was speaking about how reason has polluted faith to such an extent that the message of peace that Jesus brought was being lost in modern society. In fact the speech contained elements of his inaugural lecture at the University in Bonn from 1959.
It is a speech of love, the message of Jesus, the word of God and of and for humanity.
The media reported on a reference to a statement made by Emperor Manuel II Paleologus hundreds of years ago and sparked off a bitter response from the Muslim community around the world.
I am going to begin this evening with a short history so that we have a background for Emperor Paleologus.
The Fall of the Roman Empire took place over a long period of time. During one period the Empire broke into two pieces. There was the western empire which fragmented further into several countries like France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal - et cetera with a central church whose head of state was in Rome.
The Eastern Empire retained its government and shape but was slowly over run by barbarians from the north and the Muslims from the east who were considered savages at the time.
Eventually the capital of the Eastern Empire at Byzantium was conquered and the Eastern Emperor, of which Manuel II was one of the last, ceased to be a governing power. The Eastern Churches are called Orthodox and range from the Greek Orthodox to the Russian Orthodox with other churches formed from what were formerly mainly Roman provinces.
Each of these orthodox churches has a different internal governing system and until Pope John Paul II made overtures they did not even speak to the Catholic Church in Rome.
During the Fall of the Western Empire a pantheon of gods was replaced by belief in the One True God. Much of the material from that time was preserved and passed down through the ages to the present day. Much of it was also destroyed.
Some of the most holy places in Rome to Catholics were once the same places used to worship Apollo, Diana, Zeus and Hera. Those are the ancient gods of Rome. Their statues were moved it of the buildings and the interiors redesigned to reflect the Catholic faith. A lot of this art is still in existence.
To the east of the Roman Empire - to the east of the Eastern Empire in fact, was in ancient times a nation called the Parthian Empire. After much fighting the Parthian Empire eventually ended up as the Persian Empire.
What happened when Mohammad came along was more bitter, divisive and destructive than the slow and thorough absorption of the old Roman religions by the Catholic religion.
Mohammad declared a campaign of destruction. When the Muslims entered Riyadh they attacked the pantheon of the Parthian or Persian Empire. They destroyed every statue and image they found. The priests were killed along with faithful trying to make a defense. Families were destroyed, the city burned and all the wealth and weapons taken for the continued fury of the spread of the Muslim faith.
The result is that the Muslim faith seemingly has no memory. There was a complete and willful break from the past which, rather than supplanting what was before it replaced it with another more insecure and fragile arrangement. Where local Parthian or Persian tax payers used to collect money now armed priests called Imams collected what is referred to as the ‘poor-tax’ which finds its way these days rarely to the tables of the poor and more often to the makers of guns, rockets and mortars. Osama Bin Laden for example had access to billions of dollars and rather than using it for constructive projects he used it to attack the World Trade Center in order to disrupt trade.
Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and other governments controlled in this way whine to the west about helping the poor while they sit on oil, gold, silver, tin and other natural resources controlled by a few religious leaders as in Iran or by Kings and princes as in Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
It was a terrible time and unlike the slow change that took place in Rome it has never seemed to end. In fact the same behavior that the early Muslims showed to the art and culture of their own people was repeated when the Muslim Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed the 18 story tall statues of Buddha with dynamite.
This sort of destructive, irresponsible behavior was echoed again when a Danish cartoonist drew a caricature of Mohammed wearing a bomb for a hat.
These are two well known incidents in modern times but the destructive behavior has been repeated time and time again through history. Muslims sometimes say it is to defend their faith but lately it has started to seem a little like the fanaticism of men like Billy Sunday and Billy Graham who pull an enemy out of the hat so the donations of the faithful will keep pouring in.
The problem is that the violence that is unleashed through the old interpretation of the Koran is extreme.
Now to return to modern times. What exactly did Pope Benedict say?
Here it is. The Pope is referencing an edited text of Emperor Paleologus’s remarks :
"But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. ""
The sentence that drove the Muslim world into a blood frenzy is : "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The press did not dwell on the next sentence which reads, "The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."
The response of the Muslim community was almost instant. As if they had been sitting in wait for anything to set them off. If their reaction had not been so violent, apparently unthinking and illogical it might have been humorous.
But several people died apparently as a result of their reaction.
The onus was put back on Pope Benedict and it was intimated that his remarks caused the violence. I heard one radio talk show host on a local religious radio station in Detroit talk about the ‘behavior’ of the Pope and yet she admitted that she had not seen the text of the speech. She was acting just like the Muslim fanatics that opposed him. The text was available online at that time but this Christian fanatic decided to remark on items she did not take the time to investigate.
The problem for the Muslim world is that even though he did not intend to paint the modern Muslim religion as bloodthirsty and violent the response and reaction from Muslim leaders around the world can only lead a responsible, logical adult to conclude that this may be so.
In the meantime the response from the Muslim world began to deteriorate.
Here is what the Pope said in response, ""These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. The true meaning of my address in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect."
Following are some of the things that were said and done by the Muslim community in response to Pope Benedict‘s speech in Regensburg. You can make your own decision about whether they responded correctly or not. I do not feel that they did and that, rather than proving what Pope Benedict had to say, they underscored the words of Emperor Manuel II Paleologus himself.
Iraqis burned an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI during a protest in Basra. Basra is a city that has seen thousands of political and religious assassinations since the occupation of Iraq began. The Shiites and Sunnis are slaughtering each other but took a break to join together and burn a paper puppet of Pope Benedict.
The New York Times tells us that "an Iraqi group linked to Al Qaeda posted a warning on a Web site threatening war against "worshippers of the cross.""
Ayatollah Ali Khameni, the top Muslim in Iran, is reported to have called Pope Benedict’s remarks "the latest link" in the "chain of conspiracy to set off a crusade."
A Turkish man with a fake gun attacked a Protestant church in the Turkish capital of Ankara.
In Somalia, gunmen shot an Italian nun and her bodyguard to death outside a children's hospital in the capital. It is not clear whether the shooting of Leonella Sgorbati, 64, was related to the papal controversy, but Somalian Islamic extremists had threatened to attack Catholics.
Reuters news agency reported, "She was shot three times in the back."
Reuters goes on to say, "There is a very high possibility the people who killed her were angered by the Catholic Pope's recent comments…"
Somalia was recently taken over by a Muslim government whose first actions were to disarm or kill anyone that opposed them. They have maintained order with violence.
In Sudan the attacks on the Christians in Darfur by armed agents of the Sudan government continue. In a weakly worded statement Condoleeza Rice said that the violence in Darfur is "getting worse".
The concept of spreading Islam by the sword is alive and well in the 21st century.
The Islamic government in Sudan’s north is pushing south with guns and bombs. They are clearing out the Africans who have lived there for thousands of years in order to sell oil contracts to Communist Chinese and even European and American companies.
In Somalia the Muslims are killing anyone that opposes them and replacing local governments with a government based on Muslim law called Sharia.
In Afghanistan the Islamists continue to spread their influence by killing anyone who opposes them.
Active cells of terrorists and Islamic preachers in Pakistan continue to incite violence in western India, Afghanistan and central Asia.
The western parts of Communist China are also feeling the sting of this renewed military expansion.
All through north Africa, the shores of East Africa and even eastern Europe Muslim extremists seemingly resort to violence first.
These are real expansions and they are not being addressed by international diplomacy.
Indonesia, a major trading partner with the United States, continues to be ruled by a military style government heavily steeped in Muslim influence. Three apparently innocent Christians were recently executed for anti-government activities just before the Muslim holy days of Ramadan in what appears to be an insult to the West in that the Muslim cleric and men who killed so many in a bombing in Bali have still not been sentenced.
The executions were scheduled for early August, but were postponed following an appeal by Pope Benedict. Then the scheduled executions of the Bali bombers, who murdered 202 people, was also postponed. They may have a new date set in October but there is no telling with the Indonesian government.
Din Syamsuddin, chairman of Muhammadiyah, the second largest Islamic organization in Indonesia said, "It is obvious from the statements that the Pope doesn't have a correct understanding of Islam. Whether the Pope apologizes or not, the Islamic community should show that Islam is a religion of compassion."
Fauzan Al-Anshori, spokesman for the Indonesian Mujahideen Council, said "Muslims can't eliminate jihad from the Islamic discourse, the same way Christians can't do away with the doctrine of Trinity,"
The Associate Press stated that "Al Qaeda in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world…"
Protests broke out in South Asia and Indonesia
The Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq released a statement addressing the pope as "a cross-worshipper" and saying, "You and the West are doomed, as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations."
Another Iraqi group said on the internet, "If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."
In Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, "Those who benefit from the pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests."
Islamic Defenders' Front said in Jakarta, India said, "His comments really hurt Muslims all over the world. We should remind him not to say such things which can only fuel a holy war."
Malaysia's foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, said Benedict's apology was "inadequate to calm the anger."
President Bush weight in and said that Pope Benedict was sincere in his apology for comments on Islam that have sparked outrage in the Muslim world. I can’t figure out which side he is on because according to the Catholic Church Pope Benedict did not apologize. Bush was with the Malaysian Prime Minister at the time so politics may be taken into account.
Another statement out of Iraq was, "We shall break the cross and spill the wine."
In Palestine a church in Tulkarem was attacked with gasoline bombs followed by an attempted attack on a church in Tubas, near Jenin along with gasoline bomb attacks on three churches in Nablus, as well as an attack on a church in Gaza.
In Turkey, a recipient of much American aid money, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked Pope Benedict to apologize for his "ugly, unfortunate statements."
In Morocco King Mohammed VI sent a written message to the pope denouncing his "offending statements."
Pakistan's National Assembly voted unanimously a resolution condemning the Pope Benedict’s comments.
The Pakistani National Assembly wrote, "This statement has hurt sentiments of the Muslims. This is also against the charter of the United Nations. This house demands the Pope retract his remarks in the interest of harmony among different religions of the world."
In New Delhi, India, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric of Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque said, "No Pope has ever tried to attack the glory of Islam like this Pope. Muslims must respond in a manner which forces the Pope to apologize."
Meanwhile, violence continued in Somalia where the Muslim extremists attempted to assassinate the new President. The President lived by 8 people including his brother were murdered. The attack came as the President of Somalia has been trying to work out an agreement to reign in the Conservative Council of Islamic Courts which wants to run Somalia on Muslim Sharia law.
Protests occurred in South Asia and across Indonesia.
Muslims extremists said the pope's comments proved that the West was in a war against Islam.
The Pakistani government made a big noise about Pope Benedict’s comments but they didn’t say anything about the fact that violence and religion don’t mix. In fact, neither did the Indonesians, Malaysians, Morrocans, Egyptians, Sudanese, Iraqis, Iranians or any of the Muslim dominated governments.
To harken back to the past in Delhi, India in 1398 Chinggis Khan invaded the city. He had Hindu and Muslim prisoners separated. He then ordered all the non-Muslims to be killed. Over 100,000 Hindus were killed that day.
The battle between Buddhism and the Muslim religion which caused the destruction of the statues in Afghanistan dates back to the 1300’s as well.
Koran quotations :













Pope’s Speech from Regensburg :
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves.
We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas: the reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason-- this reality became a lived experience.
The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the whole of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian.
The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point-- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself-- which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.
But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.
As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the logos. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos.
Logos means both reason and word-- a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.
The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: Come over to Macedonia and help us! (cf. Acts 16:6-10)-- this vision can be interpreted as a distillation of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, is already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates's attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: I am.
This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.
Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria-- the Septuagint-- is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.
As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV). God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love transcends knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).
This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history-– it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity-– a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the program of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this program was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favor of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God.
In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter.
This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application.
While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.
Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology.
For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss".
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.


Koran Quotes
Chapter 8:12 "…Verily I am with you; wherefore confirm those who believe. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore strike off their heads, and strike off all the ends of their fingers."
Chapter 8:67 reads, "It hath not been granted unto any prophet, that he should possess captives, until he hath made a great slaughter of the infidels in the earth."
Chapter 9:123 reads, "O true believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are near you; and let them find severity in you: and know that God is with those who fear him."
"Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush" (Sura 9.5).
"Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (Sura 5.33-34)
"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)
"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)
"Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (Sura 8.60)
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)
"When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16-17)
"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)
"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)
IV. Excerpts of Verses
"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers."
"Yea! if you remain patient and are on your guard, and they come upon you in a headlong manner, your Lord will assist you with five thousand of the havoc-making angels."
"Fight then in Allah's way...rouse the believers to ardor maybe Allah will restrain the fighting of those who disbelieve... "
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned"
"...fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah…"
"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand ...if there are a hundred patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand they shall overcome two thousand by Allah's permission... "
"...fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together... "
"...when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom until the war terminates…"
"Be not fainthearted then; and invite not the infidels to peace when ye have the upper hand: for God is with you, and will not defraud you of the recompense of your works... "
" ...surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them"
"So obey not the unbelievers and fight strenuously with them in many a strenuous fight. "