Why Islam is winning 3

We admired General David Petraeus when he led the “surge” of American military force that subdued the chaos in Iraq.

He was the last man we would have thought of as a coward.

But now it emerges that that’s what he is: a moral coward.

As such, he is typical of Western man faced with the savage onslaught of Islam.

This is from the Daily Caller:

In an op-ed for The Washington Post published Friday, former CIA Director David Petraeus said increasing anti-Muslim rhetoric in the United States threatens to drive more “moderate” Muslims to terrorism.

For Petraeus, the rapid increase of ugly rhetoric against Muslims and Islam threatens to engulf even “moderate” Muslims.

“Ugly rhetoric”? No. Necessary outcry.

We approve of the writer’s putting the word “moderate” in quotation marks. Who are “moderate” Muslims? How do they only moderately obey sharia law – which is inseparable from Islam? Do they only half “kill the infidel”? Only partly throw homosexuals from heights to murder them? Only slightly subjugate women? Do not totally sever limbs?

The summary of Petraeus’s views goes on:

This is exactly what terror groups like al-Qaida and the Islamic State want, as it supports their vision of the world as one divided between the forces of Islam and the forces of the decadent, satanic west. These groups then seize on a sort of “clash of civilizations” rhetoric to drive recruitment and push moderate Muslims into their ranks. Muslims in the West are apparently so at risk of joining up with al-Qaida, that Petraeus thinks we need to police our own speech, so as not to offend them and face the potential consequence of a growing, violent fifth column taking shape in the West.

So we must go silent to our subjugation or our graves, and make not a peep of protest as our civilization is destroyed?

“Rather than making our country safer, they will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens,” Petraeus wrote. “As ideas, they are toxic and, indeed, non-biodegradable — a kind of poison that, once released into our body politic, is not easily expunged.”

Setting aside moral considerations … 

Why? That would hand victory to them! 

… those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State,” Petraeus added. “The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion.”

They are at war with us. That is what jihad is all about. Since its earliest days, Islam’s mission has been world conquest. We should be engaging them in that war. We are mightier in military strength than they are. We could easily defeat them if we just had the will to do so.

Can Petraeus really believe that if we refrained from morally condemning Muslim terrorism and their jihad and their rhetoric against us; if we said nothing; if by our silence we submitted now to their dominance and their law – they would stop the jihad? Stop the terrorism?

Islam is winning because powerful people in the West – politicians, military commanders, churchmen, opinion formers in the media – think like that.

Will a President Trump save us? Will he stop more Muslim immigrants entering America? Will he crush ISIS as he said he will? There’s no one else we can look to.

*

One powerful Muslim shows how much David Petraeus’s advice is appreciated on the Muslim side. His own advice is the same – and he throws it directly at Donald Trump:

The new Muslim mayor of London has issued a warning to Donald Trump: Moderate your stance on Muslims, or they will launch more attacks against America.

Could it be because the sort of advice Petraeus is giving us serves the interests of Islam extremely well?

Posted under Islam, jihad, Muslims, Terrorism, War by Jillian Becker on Monday, May 16, 2016

Tagged with

This post has 3 comments.

Permalink
  • This question has also been on my mind. Liz pointed out to me that Trump even criticized Pamela Geller in the wake of the Garland shootout.

    If Petraeus is right, then really it proves that the moderate Muslims are not very moderate at all. Nobody who can be called moderate could regard joining ISIS as an appropriate reaction to “ugly rhetoric”. An appropriate reaction would be to reply with some ugly rhetoric of their own, not to pick up a blunt knife and hack the head off an aid worker, or to participate in the gang rape and torture of women and children.

    This thinking is also ignoring the fact that Muslims can become non-Muslims at the drop of a hat. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and many more were once Muslims. I try to concentrate on explaining to people exactly what is wrong with the religion, in the hope of persuading more to join these brave people in renouncing the religion. That, to my mind, is the right way to defeat ISIS. If we’re going to draw cartoons, lets make every cartoon count by highlighting a problem with the religion.

  • liz

    This warning to refrain from criticizing Islam or be attacked is like a rapist telling his victim that if they resist, it will only make the rape more brutal. Submitting to rape doesn’t prevent the rape – it guarantees it. So according to Petraeus our defeat is a foregone conclusion. Defeating the attacker doesn’t even enter the picture!

  • Azgael

    Move over Nevil chamberlain, there is someone here to replace you