You are here: Home / Security At Home And Abroad / Foreign Policy/National Defense / Opposites Attract Muslims
Opposites Attract Muslims
Sep 30, 2012

Opposites Attract Muslims

By · 1 Comment

With two major Arab leaders addressing the United Nations General Assembly this week in New York, an Egyptian-born former Muslim claims Americans now more than ever need to understand the true agenda of Islam.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for a “new world order,” and Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi rejected free speech rights this week at the U.N. General Assembly.

Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel and author of The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East, says anti-American comments at the U.N. give rise for further concern of the growing Islamic influence around the world.

“Wherever Islam goes and … becomes a strong minority, there’s going to be a demand for sharia law,” she asserts. “If they don’t get it, they’re going to have a separatist movement, and I’m predicting England will have a Chechnya maybe in 10, 20 years. France will have a Chechnya. I hope this will never happen to America.”

Darwish, who is the daughter of an Egyptian Army lieutenant general, explains that Muslims are trained to believe two opposite ideas at the same time.

Check out the original article in full here.

Filed Under: Foreign Policy/National Defense ·
  • tncdel

    Islam is ORGANIZED CRIME operating under the guise of religion, and the Quran itself is AN INSTRUMENT OF CRIME. For it commands ALL Muslims [not some or a few of them] to kill, oppress and annihilate all who don’t believe as they do.

    See this educational video here:

    Additionally, each and every right under the Constitution is subject to restraint or forfeiture, if it conflicts with the constitutional rights of others. For example, we all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution. But if you kill your neighbor because his dog crapped on your lawn, you can lose all those rights.

    So too things like the “Jim Jones kool-aid party” and what the Quran commands are NOT protected under the Constitution. Courts are required to apply the “balancing of the scales” analysis, when opposing sides in a case maintain that they have a right under the Constitution. And the judge must determine WHICH side has the greater claim to “right” under the Constitution and which side would suffer the greatest harm by allowing the opposing side to exercise the right that they claim.

    To put things in perspective, YOU play the judge in the following case, then tell us your verdict:

    Side A alleges it has a right to kill, oppress and annihilate anyone who refuses to believe as they do.

    Side B alleges that they have a right to NOT be killed, oppressed or annihilated.

    So please tell us, WHICH side, side A or side B, would you rule in favor of.

    If you say side A, then you have violated the Constitution. If you say side B, then you have ruled that Islam is NOT a “religion” for 1st Amendment purposes.