Swedish Man Who Insulted Muslim For Threat to “Take Over Your Fucking Country” Charged With Hate Crime

I am mostly honest.

Just as Muslims are mostly non violent or peaceful Jihadis.

The ‘peaceful’ Jihad in America

By Andrew C. McCarthy

June 1, 2010 | 4:00am

Most Americans don’t realize that jihad is about much more than terrorism.

Even the terrorists don’t blow up buildings for the sake of blowing up buildings. There is method in their madness.

Jihad is not mindless mass-murder, nor is it a syrupy “internal struggle to become a better person.” No, jihad is the mission to establish and spread sharia.

The installation of Allah’s law, believed by Muslims to be a divine injunction, is the necessary precondition to the creation of Islamic societies. While it can, and often is, waged forcibly, Islamists don’t resort to violence (or, at least, to more violence) where surrenders, appeasements and capitulations are available.

And al Qaeda is merely an offshoot of the central Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Hizb al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin. Founded in 1928, the Ikhwan’s motto to this day remains, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

In 1991, Mohamed Akram, a US-based chieftain of the Brotherhood, penned a memo for the eyes of the central leadership in Egypt. Later seized by the FBI, this self-described “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” outlined the game-plan for what the organization regards as its “civilizational” war against the West:

“The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Nor was there anything new about this “grand jihad.” During a post-9/11 raid, Swiss authorities found a similar smoking gun — a methodical plan for the long-term “cultural invasion” of the West — written by Brotherhood theorists in 1982.

As a matter of fact, this sabotage strategy has been in place for nearly half a century. Its bottom-up elements stress Islamist domination of Muslim education, mosques and community centers. From these bases of operation in every city, the Brotherhood’s method is not terrorize but to slipstream behind Islamist terrorists, assuming the posture of “moderates.”

The goal is to seep sharia — Islam’s totalitarian legal code that governs not just the spiritual realm but all aspects of life — into our politics, law, financial system, educational institutions, labor negotiations, familial relations, and all facets of our domestic and foreign policy, from health care to engagement with Iran.

Yes, 31 years after the Iranian revolution, 17 years after Islamists declared war on the United States by bombing the World Trade Center and nine years after the 9/11 atrocities, the American people are still in the dark about the daunting challenge we face. Under jihadist siege for decades, we still don’t even get what jihad is and why it isn’t just about “violent extremists” — the politically correct term now used by government officials in their desperation to bleach the Islam out of Islamist terror.

Two years ago, I wrote about this ethos of conscious avoidance in “Willful Blindness.” But that was a memoir about trying to confront international terrorism as a federal prosecutor in the 1990s. The forces arrayed against us are much more extensive and insidious than al Qaeda, and they are not just pressing the limitations of our criminal-justice system.

The game-plan being executed against us targets American constitutional democracy itself, taking aim at its core principles of individual liberty.

Lavishly backed by Saudi billions thanks to a decades-old partnership with the kingdom, the Brotherhood is now raising, in our midst, its third generation of operatives and sympathizers. Its tentacles include such high-profile organizations as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim American Society (the Brotherhood’s semi-official American branch).

Our opinion elites are only too happy to take at face value the claims of these groups to be “moderate.” Indeed, our government, media and academies are reluctant to discuss Islam honestly, let alone Islamist ideology.

And effectively allied with the jihadists is the hard left across the West. For all their differences (e.g., on abortion and the rights of women and homosexuals) Islam and the Left are in essential harmony when it comes to their vision of authoritarian government and their perception of the immediate obstacle to their designs: American constitutional democracy.

What the global Islamist project is doing, and how, are the subjects of my new book, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” published last week. It is the story of the ideology that not only fuels anti-American terror but stokes a sedulous jihadist campaign to Islamicize our society — not without firing a shot, but by capitalizing on the shots that have already been fired.

A grand jihad is hell-bent on sabotaging America. We ignore it at our peril.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review

The trick is knowing who to hit with it, Jim, and where they live?

Desperate situations require desperate solutions. Kill em all; let God sort it out. Certainly a stretch; and ( but ) that being said, too many threatening factions refuse to believe what we are capable of doing if we are cornered. No matter how gentle a dog may be, if you kick him once too often, you’ll get bit. The final step in diplomacy is war. We are America; and we are never outgunned. One, just ONE of our subs has more firepower than all the wars in recorded history. Something to digest.

1 Like

I am with you in terms of wanting to stop the Jihad and using whatever methods are most likely to succeed, and hopefully doing it with the least amount of killing and wounding and destruction of America as is possible, but if killing, wounding and destruction of America cant be avoided, that the bottom line is that Jihad be stopped.

So I hope my loyalty to America and our values is clear.

But having said that, in reading your post my thoughts return to our nation’s experience with the Vietnam War.

What would prevent a repeat of our nation growing tired of a bloody violent, massively destructive Civil War to stop the spread of Islam and eventually wanting peace at any cost?

If Americans do not understand political Islam and Jihad (and we have shown ourselves mostly allergic to learning about it) now even after 9/11 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and multiple terrorist attacks and the rise of the “Crew,” the chances are that we would eventually cry for peace at any cost!

And due to our lack of knowledge we would be willing to accept peace terms favorable to the future Jihad if someone like Barack Obama would cleverly mediate as a double dealer.

And we would not know that he was selling us a bill of goods (or bads).

In effect, our blood and treasure already lost to trying to stop Jihad would have gained us nothing.

And the future war you advocate might also gain us nothing.

And for all the lives and trillions of dollars, the Jihadis might emerge in a better position than before the war which we hoped would stop them.

In other words, our violence will be used to degrade our infrastructure, our national cohesion and our will to continue the fight so that when we lost our will to continue accepting violence on our people, nation and society, we would eventually cry UNCLE and they would prevail.

Unless we killed every Muslim, (in a scary repeat of the Third Reich’s extermination campaign) AND every misinformed Leftist kafir who would fight to the death to oppose the USA (and tell us how to identify these people and I will say, lets identify them NOW and avoid the war) to defend the “wonderful” Jihadis against our supposed genocidal bigotry, there would always be resistance (!!!) fighters carrying out surise attacks and raids and sabotage and snipings until we grew war weary.

And we will have learned NOTHING from Vietnam.

But our enemies have learned EVERYTHING about how to defeat us.

Tell me, Jim, how do we avoid this?

Yeah, and it’s useless against 1.5 billion Muslims scattered about the world.

1 Like

Not useless in vaporizing major cities. Of course it would help to arm every rational thinking human also.

Absolutely correct.

:thinking:

Well, in your frustration I can see you’re becoming desperate. America is the only nation to have committed such a crime in the past, and its evident that nobody would stand for it again.

1 Like

If we could do that now, we could avoid the war being discussed here.

Tell us how.

What we have learned from Vietnam is, let the military run wars, not politicians. My father was with OSS 101; a seasoned jungle fighter. He told me Vietnam could have been laid to rest in 3 or 4 months. It would have been a simple matter of just pulling out all stops. The object of being involved in a war, is to win; and to win, you resort to every available resource. Yow, what a concept. Bring out the nightmares. Scary, yes, but it damn well makes for shorter wars. Conventional arms could have stopped Vietnam cold. Just a matter of where they were used. See that black spot on the map, well, that was Hanoi.

I will cut to the chase. RADICAL ISLAM HAS SET THE STAGE FOR ALL OF ISLAM ! Let the so called peaceful Muslims clean up the mess. The insanity of Islam existed long before there was an America.

So, do you believe Germany would not have vaporized London if Hitler had nukes?

So you’re advocating for a constitutional amendment.

It never fails that people are pro constitution, until they want to do something not sanctioned in it.

The Left has been programmed for 35 years to see or imagine themselves as the heroic characters in the film, The Terminator, who resist the government.

In the film, THEY WIN and we lose.

Hypothetical isn’t it…

America DID it.

Not sure how that speaks to the post you quoted…:man_shrugging:

No amendment; politicians should have just taken advice from military leaders and allowed them to run the show.

But the constitution doesn’t provide for that. Of course, it doesn’t even provide for the US engaging such wars to begin with.

I asked if you believe Hitler would have used nukes if he had them. So, yes or no? We just ran the race quicker.

It’s a hypothetical question that is impossible for me to answer. It’s also moot, as an American I’m concerned with what’s done in my name and with my money. And vaporizing innocent women and children isn’t on the list.

The German people have done well post WW2 in ensuring that they are never the ones to commit such a crime themselves.