Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Christian or Muslim?

Expand Messages
  • Beowulf
    http://gulf1.typepad.com/gulf1cpappas/ July 31, 2010 Christian or Muslim? by Col. Bob
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 1, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      http://gulf1.typepad.com/gulf1cpappas/




      July 31, 2010


      Christian
      <http://gulf1.typepad.com/gulf1cpappas/2010/07/christian-or-muslim.html> or
      Muslim?


      by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

      This is to those who blindly accept Islam/Muslims as a healthy contributing
      part of American society, including Barack Hussein Obama, who some argue
      convincingly, is a Muslim. The media, mainly CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and to a
      lesser extent FOX, are willing dupes in the hoax that Islam/Muslims are
      peaceful; perhaps within a very narrow context may be minutely, partially
      true.

      However, in the aggregate, there is nothing peaceful about Islam, that is,
      except in the context of PAX Islam. Yet, even where Islam is the dominant
      religion there are divisions within Islam i.e. Sunni vs. Shiite that are
      sufficient to sustain eight years of conflict between Iraq and Iran not to
      mention the ongoing Sunni/Shiite conflict in Iraq which is far from over
      notwithstanding claims to the contrary by the Obama Administration.

      What liberal westerners, in particular those whose life experience is as
      deep as a plate do not desire to understand is that historical as well as
      contemporary Islam, unlike contemporary Christianity has not distanced
      itself from violence and conquest as a religious body. Further, those same
      liberals do not want to comprehend or accept that Islam is a system of
      governance and lifestyle that emphasizes total mind, soul and body control
      (and yet, the claim is that 4 out of 5 new converts to Islam are women.
      Imagine that.)

      Islam in the macro context is a: religious/moral, political, educational,
      economic, and legal system. Everything is focused on submission to Allah
      with the ultimate reward of 72 virgins who await martyrs (although evidently
      there is not counterpart for those females who blow themselves up). There
      are no doubt humanitarian aspects of Islam, most if not all of which pertain
      and apply to fellow Muslims somewhat like Mormons who take care of their
      own; or, who are afflicted with gang loyalties that are irresistibly
      attractive to some in this country.

      In the U.S., Islam is protected by the U.S. Constitution, and for those with
      a chip on their shoulders for whatever the reason, Islam legitimizes the
      hatred they harbor toward their fellow Americans who may not be of the same
      cultural mindset, ethnicity or faith. Consider the racist, hate filled
      remarks of Louis Farrakhan and other hate purveyors/ Islam-o-files towards
      Jews and Christians. Travel to any nation that is dominated by Islam such
      as Saudi Arabia and try to openly practice a different faith or recruit
      anyone to join in one's different faith system and see what happens. Allow
      a bit of edification: one would as a minimum be arrested and expelled if not
      arrested, imprisoned and/or beheaded.

      Obama's words while he visited Turkey where he stated that we Americans

      "do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation, but
      rather, a nation of citizens who are, uh, bound by a set of values."

      Yet in an interview with a French news agency on the same trip he stated
      notwithstanding his error in fact:

      "And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the
      number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in
      the world."

      So, while diminishing America's Christian heritage Obama dismisses and
      replaces it with Muslim heritage/achievement.

      Obama's personal direction to NASA Chief, Charles Bolden, in Bolden's words:


      "When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA
      administrator -- he (ed., Obama) charged me with three things. One was he
      wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math,
      he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and
      perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim
      world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel
      good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and
      engineering."

      Americans are constantly bombarded with the notion that Christians are
      hypocrites, and if one observes many who claim that title, the charge is on
      point. That is because most who claim it do so out of ignorance of its
      substance which is the love, forgiveness, mercy and grace of God as manifest
      through the life, teachings, death and resurrection of His only begotten
      Son, Jesus Christ.

      Note: To become a Christian is both simple and free, in fact it cannot be
      purchased at any price: for those who do not know, repent of one's evil
      ways, ask God for forgiveness, and live according to the teachings of Jesus
      Christ as contained in the New Testament of the Holy Bible. Christianity
      frees from evil and guilt and promises (and unlike Obama, God keeps His
      promises) personal contentment and peace, and eternal life; it is a freely
      exercised lifestyle without forcible imposition by or upon others and stands
      in stark contrast to the intimidation, weight and legalism of Islam.

      "Choose you this day whom you will serve, as for me and my house, we will
      serve the Lord."

      Semper Fidclis

      Copyright C July 28th, 2010, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution,
      this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in
      conjunction with any advertisement without the author's expressed written
      permission.

      Comments
      <http://gulf1.typepad.com/gulf1cpappas/2010/07/christian-or-muslim.html#comm
      ents> (0) | TrackBack
      <http://gulf1.typepad.com/gulf1cpappas/2010/07/christian-or-muslim.html#trac
      kback> (0)


      July 08, 2010


      Attempting
      <http://gulf1.typepad.com/gulf1cpappas/2010/07/attempting-a-reset-in-afghani
      stan.html> a "Reset" in Afghanistan


      by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired.

      Now that the General McChrystal media frenzy has subsided and there has been
      time for talking heads, politicians and others to evaluate, pontificate,
      eviscerate or praise him, from everything I can tell, McChrystal was a dupe.
      A dupe, witting or otherwise driven by his dedication, ambition, love for
      the Army, the troops and the country to the height of Army combat power as
      Commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
      Other than the profile in Rolling Stone, pieces on the internet, news and
      opinions on television, one knows little else about McChyrstal but perhaps
      that will change.

      Noted in an earlier essay misgivings were aired about Army Chief of Staff,
      General George Casey's flawed judgment at it pertained to the Muslim
      jihadist terrorist's attack at Fort Hood.

      Casey said,

      "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And
      as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I
      think that's worse."

      The air virtually reeks with the p.c. of that statement. One marvels that
      Casey is still Chief of Staff after such an idiotic remark which in plain
      English meant "we'd rather have the diversity of America hating Muslim
      jihadists than the lives of thirteen dead soldiers and grief imposed on
      their families." One wonders if heroin from the fields of Afghanistan are
      reaching the highest levels of the Pentagon and White House.

      On the heels of Casey's imbecilic judgment, one is forced to question
      McChrystal's for a number of reasons:

      1. He voted for Obama; then
      2. He admitted voting for Obama;
      3. If McChrystal didn't know what he was getting into; or, worse
      4. If he knew what he was getting into;
      5. He allowed his attitude to permeate subordinates and evidently did not
      counsel or restrain them (a leadership failure in addition to a judgment
      failure) unless of course it was "exit strategy" for McChrystal;" and,
      6. He struck out when his judgment allowed the "enemy" to follow him around
      essentially unfettered for over a month; but, again it may have been part of
      his personal exit strategy;

      Some have suggested as above, that he knew what he was doing and was
      actually using it as a way out of the morass and impossible situation
      created by the "Uncertain Trumpeter-in-Chief" and his band of leftwing loony
      tunes. One writer even suggested that McChrystal's was a ploy to draw
      Americans' attention to the situation. Both are possibilities, we'll find
      out if and when McChrystal writes his memoirs. It could be that he is more
      cunning that Obama.

      No professional military commander would willingly allow his men to be put
      into a losing situation except to win a vital engagement that was worth it.
      In the present situation, unless the U.S. is willing to spend the next
      twenty, some assert thirty years developing the Afghani infrastructure and
      that Nation's resources, there is zero or near zero chance of success unless
      we define our way out. Yet it is precisely that position in which
      McChrystal allowed himself to be placed by Obama with orders to implement
      the counter insurgency strategy, complete combat operations and train the
      Afghan Army to be ready to take over Afghanistan's security in under 18
      months while significantly increasing the risk to his men by a set of White
      House dictated Rules of Engagement that were heavily weighted in favor of
      the enemy. Whose side is Obama on anyway? Never mind, we know, and it isn't
      the U.S. side.

      The extant insurgency strategy for Afghanistan is from all indications
      noble, but the ability to carry it out successfully on a 2011 timetable is
      impossible absent a miracle; miracles happen, but Afghanistan is not a good
      candidate for one.

      In agreeing to replace McChrystal one suspects that General Petraeus likely
      told Obama that he would agree only if it included complete command of the
      war effort or otherwise, he would decline the assignment. Hopefully Petraeus
      will succeed in turning it around with brilliant skill and most likely, much
      prayer and divine intervention. But given what we know, it is more likely
      that he will come up with a politically correct solution that will allow the
      U.S. to extricate itself with "honor" while defining that as a "win;" and
      which upon departure would probably not last.

      As "eye wash" as such a departure would be, it would allow Obama to "wax
      eloquent" about his victory and about giving the Afghan people a "chance;"
      and, the political left would swoon at his every word.

      And that would be a pile of international relations "reset" hocus pocus,
      bovine scatology that would stink to high heaven!

      Semper Fidelis





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.