GROUND ZERO (expanded version)

Today marks nine years since 9/11. What I see today is a yet uncompleted rebuild. What I see is a lot of self-doubt. What I see is promotion of Islam. Politicians bend over backwards to say we are not at war with Islam. Bush said it. Obama says it. Almost every talk radio host, conservative or liberal, says it. It that statement true? Is the vast majority of Islam a peaceful religion that is being hijacked by some radicals? If we are not at war with Islam, should we be? It seems to me that Islam has declared war on the west. It's goal is without dispute world domination. So-called moderate after so-called moderate, including the primary funder for the acquisition of the site, Hisham Elzanaty, either funds terrorism or receives funds from terrorists, and differ only in means, not the end goal.

There is no dominantly Muslim country in the world that is fair to Christians. Muslims routinely desecrate Bibles, crosses, and people. They want to build am Islamic political beachhead near Ground Zero as a sign of victory and as a jumping off point to further intimidate the west, and historically illiterate people are bending over trying to equate this with building a church that is apolitical and is simply a place to worship God. Some argue that the structure proposed is not a mosque. Actually, despite the original terminology of GROUND ZERO MOSQUE by the Imam, they are right. It is a rabat, or a "connector". These have been built in Islam starting in the days of Mohammed. They were intrinsically tied to ghazvas, or raids. These raids were DESIGNED, in the words of Amir Taheri, "to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed, and force them to submit to Islamic rule." Taheri also notes that "after each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat - or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiers to eat and rest and failities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid. they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia. It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attacks are referred to as ghazis or shahids(martyrs)." So the apologists for the "mosque" ignore that what happened is in mainstream Islam and part of a pattern going back over 1,300 years. Of course, they also ignore the fact that the only church destroyed at Ground Zero, St. Nicholas, has NEVER been rebuilt due to red tape.

When I was younger people said the only way the US would be defeated would be from within. Europe has been collapsing from within for years. Well, the United States now has a Trojan Horse President in full lockstep with Islamic goals, and conflicted idiots apologizing to their sworn enemies. Achmadinijad is mocking the sanctions, which are useless, and the administration is sitting on its hands because in its heart it WANTS Iran to be strong and America weak. There is NO other credible explanation. Someone proposed a few years ago that Mecca and Medina should have been leveled by bombs. This sounds like lunacy to a world bent on and resigned to the notion that evil will remain and where there is no strong demarcation of right and wrong. However, while political considerations seem to preclude making such an bold move possible, unless the one who did it was willing to forego reelection, it is true that since Islam is place-centric and has no living Savior, it would have sent it into demise. The time to have done that would have been right after 9/11 as direct retaliation for ALL the attacks that had happened for years - the first WTC, the USS Cole, Lebanon, etc. It is because of a religion, not a country. It would have been fully justified though more controversial than HIroshima, but it would have changed history and it was arguably the duty of government to have done that. When you have an enemy, you strike to the heart of it, and building sites are at the heart of Islam. It would have saved countless lives and demoralizaed an arrogant and totalitarian political/religious system that has caused untold agony around the world.

Of course that did not happen, and now Islam has marched more through intimidation of the west more quickly than anyone would have dreamed. Is freedom ever worth defending by ANY means necessary? Regardless of your ideas or politics, can anyone anywhere show me how any nation or any people is BETTER because of Islam having been there? Provoking ideas to be sure. What do you think? What is your strategy for freedom to remain? Or do you believe a one world government under Islam is inevitable?