Lt. General Michael T. Flynn Calls Muslims ‘Peacemaking’ and Isolates ‘Radical Islamists’
By Daily Bell Staff - July 22, 2016

We Will Win the Global War Against Radical Islamists … “What good comes from slowing down immigration of people from the Middle East?”  This is what we are hearing from the so-called smart pundits on the news this morning after a butcher dragged and crushed innocent people down a street for a mile in Nice France.   This is just the latest battle in a global war being waged against anyone that is not willing to bow down to violent radical Islamism.   We need to get in this war with all our might and bind the entire world together to hunt down the cowards that subscribe to the twisted ideology of radical Islamism. -Observer

This article makes a significant distinction between radical Islam and “US Muslim allies” around the world.

It is written by Lt. General Michael T. Flynn who “spent more than 33 years in Army intelligence, working closely with Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, Admiral Mike Mullen, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and other policy, defense and intelligence community, and war-fighting leaders.”

Flynn has also written a book about fighting against radical Islam. And Donald Trump may have considered him for vice-president.

The article is pertinent to DB because we published an article not long ago explaining that those who lived in Muslim countries were fairly civilized and democratic. You can see the article HERE.

We explained that New Gingrich, a member of CFR, was demonizing Islam for his own political purposes.We found it exploitative and even reprehensible.

We received a huge amount of commentary and condemnation, too. The basic thrust of the comments was that if you believed in Islam, you were a backer of Islam-based Sharia law and thus wished to convert the society in which you lived to radical Islam.

Every Muslim was a potential Islamic terrorist, in other words. And Sharia law was not only incompatible with the Constitution, it was inevitably going to be substituted.

We were urged to educate ourselves about the need to regard 1.5-2 billion Muslims as “enemies.”

But we argued, then as  now, that the vast majority of people who are Muslims are no different than Christians. Most relate to their religion at least partly as a matter of social convention. They have other, bigger, professional and personal worries  They are no more likely to insist that on Sharia law than Roman Catholics are to insist on the primacy of the Papacy in an Islamic country.

There is a huge difference between the current crop of Islamic fundamentalists and the average Muslim.

Let’s see what Flynn says about it.

-Violent radical Islamists do not follow the real message of the Quran. Its time our Muslim allies around the world make this clear. Say it every day with no caveats.

-Call them by precise language. Admit they are ideologues subscribing to radical Islamist political/religious views; that are an anathema to peace-seeking Muslims.

-As a wise Muslim scholar once said, “Islam is not a religion of peace; or war. Islam is a religion, just like any other. Peace and war depend on one’s interpretation and ends.”

-The religion of Islam has not declared war on the world. Those who would twist a few ideas taken from Islamic history and turn it into a call to wage mass violence against anyone that doesn’t think like them are the enemy.

-By segregating this small segment of violent sociopaths from the over 1.3 billion peace seeking Muslims around the world we can help those peace seeking Muslims to protect themselves so they can win the battle for the soul of Islam that is occurring today.

-We need to be disciplined in our use of the terms radical Islamism. This term separates over a billion Muslims from the enemy that butchered the innocents in Nice. We need to help the peace seeking Muslims of the world to root out this cancer.

-By segregating this small segment of violent sociopaths from the over 1.3 billion peace seeking Muslims around the world we can help those peace seeking Muslims to protect themselves so they can win the battle for the soul of Islam that is occurring today.

Good for Mr. Flynn. He separates out more than a billion peaceful Muslims from a handful of radicalized murderers.

Anyone can make an anti-religious argument and accuse believers of fanaticism. For those who will continue to insist that Islam itself is “bloody,” here’s a timeline of Roman Catholic Massacres:

The Bloody History of Papal Rome—A Timeline

Having done so well, it is too bad Mr. Flynn doesn’t follow his article’s logic to its ultimate conclusion.

He is so eager to create a war against radical Islam that he forgets – intentionally or not – to make the point that the “enemies” he identifies are in large part created and supported by his own country and by elements in Israel and other Western countries – significantly, London’s City.

There is no doubt that Al Qaeda and then ISIS are Western products.

Globalists created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State…

You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia…

America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terrorism…

CIA Agent Admits Obama Created ISIS To Invade Syria…

Even terror attacks themselves constantly raise questions about the reality of mainstream media reporting.

It has emerged, reportedly, that the white truck used to mow down 80-plus people presented not even a spatter of blood on its paint at the end of the massacre. If so, how’s that possible?

And of course, the knapsacks worn by the Boston bombers were not the same color as the knapsacks containing the explosives.


The current economic depression in which the entire world is embroiled is not a coincidence. It is a result of purposeful central bank policies. You cannot consistently debase money and expect to create wealth.

The second inevitable, element of the current plot to expand globalism involves setting up and expanding regional wars to ensure the current corrupt economic system is not taken down.

The US – not Islamic countries – has been fomenting and prosecuting serial wars killing and injuring millions ever since the end of World War II. The US even helped support a terrible war between Iraq and Iran.

Yes, in certain countries, Islamic culture involves honor killings of family members and other repugnant practices. But this part-and-parcel of non-Western societies.

Much of what Westerners consider “civilization” – licenses, government judiciary, local civilian and military policing – is actually part of a program of control that is supposed to collapse into chaos and despair before giving rise to hyper-internationalism.

As we noted the other day, honor killings take place in India too, among Hindus. But the current elite meme is aimed at Islam.

In Afghanistan, the US has long compensated families with financial settlements after killing innocent members. This is because the Afghan/Islamic legal system is an ancient one from simpler times.

It would never occur to many in Afghanistan that the preferred way of dealing with a crime is via long.-term lock up that deprives the family of sustenance and parental control.

One surely can ask if imprisoning millions of people for in many cases relatively minor infractions is preferable to an old-fashioned, “private” judicial system that allows people to settle their problems independent of “state justice.”

Which, really, is the more civilized alternative?

Certainly Western elites are taking advantage of a clash of cultures. Muslim emigration to Europe is being encouraged. It builds tension and creates the psychological soil available to nurture military actions. Upcoming, expanded wars are intended to distract people from what has been done to them financially.

Another Reason for Brexit: EU ‘Was a CIA Project from the Beginning’…

“The Migration Crisis: Victims of Western Wars Forced to Flee Their Countries”…

Those who currently demonize Islam – and “all” Muslims – are supporting and advancing globalist misinformation. They are ultimately, one way or another, contributing to their own enslavement.

None of this is new. The same tactics were used to generate two world wars in the 20th century.

Conclusion: There are many problems in the world today. One of the biggest is that people are either purposefully or mistakenly mis-identifying who and what is responsible for them.The West is at fault for supporting Saudi Wahhabism and creating radical Islam.


You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • notinmyname

    A most interesting take on the problem – with echoes of what is happening here, over the water, in the UK. Only this morning, Baroness Warsi is condemning the rise of “respectable racism” with the charge that it is feeding the far-right. Her point seems to be that xenophobia, Islamophia and antisemitism is creating the “other”. A key concept in the study of contemporary society. I am thus fascinated by the distinction drawn by Lt. Gen. Flynn between “radical Islam and “US Muslim allies” around the world,” for, in the first place, I am not at all certaIn that these “US Muslim allies” are necessarily our allies in Europe. If we have any that is? (I don’t want to confuse the issue too much, but the unpleasant little drama being played played out in Turkey at the moment is likely to have immense consequences for Europe and the wider arena. I am not certain that Erdogan-style mahommedanism is going to work to bring about co-operation and ally-style protection, especially when set against and running directly counter to Gulen’s brand. (And if you wanted an example of a stooge, in my opinion, there is a perfect illutration.) What Erdogan’s take on NATO membership and weaponry if the US is not very shortly forthcoming with the person of Fethullah Gulen will make what’s just happened look like a picnic. The auspices are not promising, either way. I notice another article in DB about this: excellent!) However, the theory that my frenemy’s frenemy is my frenemy seems now to hold good.
    While I take entirely the thrust of the central part of the article, viz. the false-flaggishness of much of what is reported in the MSM (the evidence, either way – is too obvious to ignore), I would still maintain that the provision of any effective solution to perceived division in society (however and for whatever reason that is brought about) devolves on to the “other”, as Lady Warsi puts it. Both problem, and answer lie in theological – not military soutions. And are, in consequence very, very cheap to provide. Militant theology – as opposed to hardware – is not expensive to provide no matter how costly the consequences. The equal and opposite must also be true.
    Allow me to illustrate: while it was interesting to read the timelines of Catholic atrocities over the centuries, it must be borne in mind that there was an equal and opposite reaction. Protestants accounted for a good many Catholic deaths in their time. (And both faiths, of course, took their toll of Jews. I myself would probably have been burned at the stake by all parties.) The essential difference between these is that when, in more reasonable times (as part of a gradual process from the early 19th century onwards) theologians in their respective Christian paths found excesses, they were extirpated or played down as a matter of public policy and general tolerance. Neither Protestant nor Catholics adhere any more to collective Jewish culpabiity for deicide in their pronouncements or ritual. When mullahs and madrassas publicly moderate their teachings and disavow those elements of the Koran that militate against public peace, then there will be a better chace for peace. Only interpretation of theology will achieve Lt. Gen. Flynn’s desired separation of peacemaking and radical.
    That, for me is why your conclusion that Wahabism is creating radiacal Islam in the UK is, in my opinion, wholly correct. To the best of my knowledge, it is claimed by some that the Saudi wahabists and salafists fund the vast majority of madrassas and mosque building in the UK. I may be wrong – please enlighten me if so. It is up to mullahs and religious teachers to bring about a process of assimilation and acceptance. Not soldiers.
    Apropos the expanding of regional wars and immigration into Europe, this is classic “divide and rule”. The only question that needs answering is who is doing the dividing, and who the ruling? As if we didn’t know! . . . I think a certain Mr Soros has something to do with it.
    A most excellent article. Thank you.

  • Praetor

    These tactics have been used for millennia! Yes!

    Questions, when and how to put an end to this ignorant and foolish way of life? Answer, ‘When’, We The People of earth say enough is enough and put an end to those that practice this foolish and ignorant form of life. ‘How’ by individual human action, by saying we will not live the life you foolish ignorant people offer.

    That way of life is the relic from the past and is a regressive backward looking dead end!!!

  • vongoh

    “We give thanks every day for the fact that the average human has a childlike misunderstanding of cause and effect’ — Every tyrant in all of history, ever.

  • Samarami

    “…Much of what Westerners consider “civilization”
    – licenses, government judiciary, local civilian
    and military policing – is actually part of a
    program of control that is supposed to collapse
    into chaos and despair before giving rise to

    Providential to say the least.

    And religion: few understand the interface between religious leadership at top levels and organized government — and the apparent overall intent of both to common goals. If your church or group has no leaders so involved, I don’t mean you.

    The article alludes to atrocities by Catholic leaders — and a commenter suggests concomitant murders of Catholics by “Protestants” — and on and on. Yet most of us are aware of many Catholic priests and nuns (as well as “Protestant” clergy) and lay-persons who would put all of us to shame in their devotion of their lives to helping the poor and keeping kids off the streets and off drugs, etc.

    Religion (“organized religion”) has always fit neatly into the science of rulership. One would have had difficulty existing and coming into the fore without the other. Control while not giving the appearance of control is the first step in that scientific method.

    Islam is merely one cog in the wheel of attempts to control every human being on earth. Yet there are many, many devout Muslims who believe in doing no harm, and who are a credit to us all.

    The enormity of the truth is incredible.


  • “honor killings take place in India too, among Hindus”
    this fact is quoted without context

    please stop this association; hindu and honour killings
    whilst other religions may have honour killings as part of their teachings hindus do not

    Honour killings in India are purely a cultural problem and nothing to do with the hindu religion. Hindu texts do not contain any of the horridness espoused by other religious texts, see dawkins on old testament

    you may well be aware of Indian/hindu history and choose to ignore it for ulterior motives, more on that later.

    I refer you to “the story of civilization” will and ariel durant v1 ch6 muslim conquest of india
    basically the natural progression of hindu society was halted in 600ad when barbarians first started banging on the gates. Having broken through in 1000ad these people held sway for 700 years..

    then came the turn of british imperialists through to 1947 and hence you have todays india divide and rule is how it works and the creation of the systems hindus have can be laid at the door of muslim invaders and british imperialist

    most of the damage was done in northern India,, in southern India the hindu religion was able to hold sway to an extent and I quote from the wikepedia page on honour killings

    “In contrast, honour killings are prevalent to a lesser extent but are not completely non-existent [200][201][202] in South India and the western Indian states”

    of course, I appreciate you are a north american publication and hence you may have a christian fundamentalist bent, in that case being part of the uscirf cabal where religious freedom means the rights of sundry american ngos/organizations/fundamentalists to destroy/proselytize hindus…

    I am sure you will carry on regardless

    whilst I commiserate for all those that lost their jobs with the closure of borders bookshop some time back I was glad to see the back of that place…..
    all the books pertaining to abrahmic/deseret bloc beliefs where filed under “religion” all the books pertaining to hinduism were in the “cult” section

    • We have great admiration for Hindus and the literature and have written about the wonderful and mysterious history of Indian civilization many times. We were simply making comparisons to make a point. At no time did we mean to imply that Hindu literature condones such practices.

      • no problem I am sure you were not meaning offence, you are my favourite publication. I was commenting for those readers that may not have the relevant knowledge and carry the usual espoused prejudices. for clarification i am not hindu merely a fan.. someone who can appreciate a great civilization and heritage when I see it. Sadly I feel I am minority and so I am very quick to jump to defence. Thanks

        • Very kind of you. We believe the ancient Indian culture may have been at the heart of a great, global civilization 10,000 or 20,000 years ago.

  • pcnot

    This article conveniently overlooks the Muslim takeover of places such as Dearborn MI and suburbs of Minneapolis and Detroit and many others. Many cities in Europe have “no go” zones, Sweden has just about committed suicide with Muslim immigrants who are raping their women and threatening the people. These are not the acts of just a few, these are the effects of a tide of people who have no intention of assimilating into society– their religion prohibits it. The sword is their missionary, not good will. I’m sorry, but the thrust of this article sounds more like something out of the NY Times than a supposedly realistic libertarian website.

    • This is what we call “directed history” – in which elite dominant social themes are turned to reality, certainly in limited environments. But this is a good deal different than deciding the entire Islamic culture is aimed at destroying the West. One point of view recognizes the reality of certain kinds of manipulation. The other point of view SUCCUMBS to the manipulation.

      1. It depends on who is immigrating.
      2. Islamic societies are not filled with murderous rapists.
      3. Neither are US neighborhoods.
      4. Muslims make up just one percent of the US population.

      It is very obvious that people are being “whipped up” – generally – into anti-Islamic sentiments. Strategic immigration creates the fertile soil. Questionable – possibly faked – terrorist actions allow the emotions to expand into hatred. Eventually it ends in violence – or possibly “civil war.”

      But that doesn’t mean the development of cultural antagonism is a normal evolution. It’s being manipulated. And as people succumb to anger and rage without anyone verbalizing the manipulations taking place, the results will inevitably be the “chaos” that a handful of scheming elites desire.

  • EDD

    This in response to the differences in religious thought; the Golden Rule. Stated in the world’s major religions in different words but all sharing the same concept. (Plus a quote from Edgar Cayce for those who are interested.)

    Christianity: “All things whatsoever that you would that men should do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.”

    Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man; that is the entire law; all else is commentary.”

    Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that yourself would find hurtful.”

    Zoroastrianism: “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto others whatsoever is not good for itself.”

    Islam: “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.”

    Brahmanism: “This is the sum duty, do not unto others which would cause pain if done unto you.”

    “Is there one maxim which ought to be acted upon throughout one’s whole
    life? Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”

    Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your loss.”

    Edgar Cayce: “Love is law, law is love; God is love, love is God.”

    Where is the argument? It comes from those who wish to codify the teachings of the individuals who gave the examples of how men should live with his fellow man. (Or if one is gender sensitive, the same concept is used in the feminine sense.)

    I agree with the assessment of the DB staff, Flynn does make excellent points in his commentary. Extremism in any form is destructive. When an individual is very rigid in his thoughts and takes the stance that all other philosophies are in error, he limits his potential for growth. It is a common theme in Christianity where. if you are not Christian, you won’t go to heaven. I cannot imagine an all loving Father/Mother who would relegate outside of Christianity to eternal darkness.

    The intentional corruption of religious thoughts has produced a fertile field for dissension for TPTB. They use the same process whether it pertains to religious principles or political persuasions or any other ways to divide the world’s citizens. It is time to call these forces for what it is: evil intent. The average person who does his best to live by the golden rule cannot in his wildest imagination understand unmitigated evil. I know I can’t. The best any of us can do is to help others understand the results of the evil intent demonstrated by those in a position of destructive influence.

    Will there ever be a day when the people of the earth will not have to deal with the negativity we see today? Will we ever see an earth where there is harmony in government, in religious thought, and in all other avenues for the pursuit of happiness? Only if we keep on keeping on.

    • notinmyname

      The answers to the questions you pose in your final paragraph, in short: no.

  • Bruce C.

    I would be more convinced of the DB’s and Flynn’s claim that most Muslims don’t subscribe to “radical Islam” if actual Muslims were saying this. Why are non-Muslims claiming this? How the heck do “you” know what most Muslims think? I rarely hear Muslims condemning the terrorists motivations. To me it’s very similar to a lot of blacks in this country who remain silent about the cop killings. Most may not be mad enough to kill a cop but they don’t seem to mind when someone else does.

    • You can’t be a “student” of Islam? In order to comment on Islam you actually have to be Muslim? Are you sure?

      • Bruce C.

        Well, that question (“how the heck do you know…”) was rhetorical because maybe you do. But my main point is actual Muslims (not just intellectual students of Islam) seem awfully mum on the topic, and that makes me suspicious that there is more of a gradation of beliefs or that there is a kind of deep cultural/religious bond in play. After all, nobody has to “believe” in Islam and call themselves a Muslim. They consciously choose to do that (or maybe they don’t which backs up my point of deep psychological and cultural bonds).

        Personally, I think Islam is the stupidest of the “Great Religions” and I find it hard to take any adult seriously who claims to believe it. They’re a little scary. “You” don’t refute their backward ideas on a lot of other things like their beliefs about women. A lot of primitive stuff is pretty mainstream among Muslims, at least from my little experience.

        I had a girlfriend once who had a boyfriend who was a prince in Saudi Arabia and she said he and his companions were weird. For example, instead of sitting in their seats on plane flights to/from Saudi Arabia they would all lie down in the aisle and pray for hours, and chant. It creeped her out and it was very hard for her to get away from him. He wanted to kidnap and enslave her. He had tons of money and looked good but he was creepy and sinister. Maybe he was Wahhabi. That I don’t know.

    • notinmyname

      A few salient points to help the discussion along – though as they were gleaned from a recent survey of British muslims prepared by Trevor Phillips, former Head of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission in February 2016, data might not be pertinent to the US. Phillips’ credentials and data gathering process are, without question, unimpeachable. (For those interested, a duckduckgo search with the terms Phillips, Muslim and attitude will bring up all you need to know.)
      11% of British muslims “sympathise with fighting against the West”, 20% believe that “Western liberal society can never be compatible with Islam”. Crucially “51% do not believe that Muslim clerics who preach for violence
      against the West are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion”. Only 34% interviewees would report familiy members involved with or supporting terrorism in Syria would report this to the police. 66% would turn a blind eye.
      Read that carefully again (because it has to do with Bruce C’s point above).
      31% of British Muslims “would like their own children to go to a Muslim state school”, “more than half of Muslims in Britain think homosexuality should be illegal, while 47% believe teachers should not be gay.”
      Sound like successful integration to you? It doesn’t to me.
      39% believe women should obey their husbands. (However, and to whatever extend you define “obey”.) A little light beating is OK? How about a bigger stick?
      Liberal? No.
      Now those are facts – well, data then.
      These are, it has to be said again, data gleaned from British Muslims, and so may not be applicable in the US or in any other mahommedan country. I very strongly suspect, however, they are also salient characteristics of mahommedan attitudes found in contemporary mixed German, Danish and Swedish societies. I should dearly love to be proved wrong. Phillips’ conclusions would certainly scare me if I felt I had a vested interest in the maintenance of Western liberal (dare I use the “D”, “democratic” word. Probably not,) values. Another suspicion is that those same values went to hell in a handcart a long time ago.

      I know nothing about violence against the police in the USA, but I can empathise with the conclusion “most may not be mad enough to kill a cop but they don’t seem to mind when someone else does”. That would be the 66%, then. Substitute whatever word you like for “cop” in the previous sentence.

      • Many Muslims and others have been coming into Britain and gradually changing the culture, that’s true. But the problem is government policies that are trying to destroy the British culture. Ideally, people would make up their own minds about who to invite. But now Britain has a sizable minority of “undigested” Muslims. Whipping up resentment against Islam just makes it worse. The British government is the real problem, not the immigrants.

        • notinmyname

          I concur with some of your response (such as people being able to make up their own minds and the factually unassalable observation that we have a “sizeable minority of “undigested” Muslims”; but not the final sentences.
          We have experienced in the UK over the last fifty years or so several waves (I mean no pejorative intent with the use of that word) of immigrants: usually as the direct result of government policy. In my own lifetime, the first two or three waves were, more or less, cheerfully accomodated and integrated sucessfully to a greater or lesser degree. In order, these were West Indians in the late 50s and 60s, Ugandan Asians following their expulsion by Idi Amin, and the first influx of migrants following accession of eastern European countries. Polish plumbers and labourers were the archetype: I will keep talking about Poles, for convenience. So far so good.
          There were problems: racism and xenophobia aplenty in the early years and, latterly, with regard to what was seen as excessive immigration from the Eastern EU, but the problems were usually seen, if not invariably, as being _economic_ in origin. A key difference. West Indian migration was highly necessary to assist with post-war construction. Ugandan Asians made themselves utterly invaluable, economically, following total and wholehearted assimilation into British society: they are the archetypal, much mocked but also much loved post-office and corner-shop owners. With growing population in the UK it is perfectly true that EU immigration provided a necessary workforce. For example, in my own little town in West Wales, we have a comparatively large Polish popuation who work in agriculture and food-preparation (slaughter-house). The local economy would collapse without them. The vast majority (of Poles) are catholic and, indirectly, share a cultural, if not linguistic heritage. Historically, they are old friends.
          Given that our West Indian and Ugandan Asian immigrants were acquired as a direct result of exercise of colonial power and post-colonial responisibilty and Poles flew in the RAF, served in the Allied armies and navies between 1939 and ’45 they actually represent no threat at all to authochthonous culture. I am no fan of multiculturalism. In fact, I’d maintain that that is the curse of the modern world. But, because they all – West Indian, Ugandan Asian and Poles (for instance) have roots in a shared political, cultural and religious heritage (pace Ugandan Asians regarding religion), any modification in prevailing British mores that results from assimilation over time represents no harm.
          As the “undigestedness” – an expressive, appropriate and eloquent term – is the the chief characteristic of the fourth wave to hit our shores, I cannot agree that failure of large mahommedan communities to assimilate is in any way the fault or responsibility of government. Forgive me; I’ve no wish to be rude, but your assertion in that regard is arrant nonsense.
          The British government may well be at fault for a great many things. (I voted conservative at the last election.) A change of government will not change the data. How can it?
          When you note that “whipping up resentment against Islam just makes it worse”, what, precisely is made worse by increased resentment? One sure-fire way of assimilating and integrating is to participate and share in the prevailing cultural and political values of the time. (I deliberately exclude religion.) The evidence shows that this is not the case.

          • It is not arrant nonsense. Islam worldwide is currently being used as a battering ram to destroy Western culture and create globalism. The only way to combat it is to confront the hatred and the lies and not fall prey to the state-sponsored propaganda surrounding these manipulations. Which you are suddenly doing.

          • notinmyname

            Peace! I think I hit a nerve. I like the DB too much to want to offend you. So I shall stop!

    • timamac

      Muhammad was a “radical” Muslim. Apologetic articles for Islam like this one that never mentions Muhammad, are pretty useless.

      • Bruce C.

        As I understand it there really is no such thing as “radical” Islam. Islam is what it says. The truer designation would be “moderate” Islamists, meaning those who pick and choose the parts they believe in or follow.

        Ironically, the “radical” term is the politically correct one because nobody wants to say that Islam is a stupid and primitive religion, and may not even be a religion but an intolerant and elitist political system instead.

  • What Muslims can do:
    1. Do not attend mosques that espouse radical Islam.
    2. Do not attend mosques that do not speak out against Islamic terrorism.
    3. Report mosques, imams and clerics that espouse radical Islam.
    4. Report people who espouse radical Islam.
    5. All prominent imams and clerics in the Islamic world should publicly denounce radical Islamic terrorism.

    • mary

      So you’re for snitching and prosecuting thought crimes. Very Western of you.

      • If you are talking about murdering people I would hope someone who hears you would snitch on that thought crime.

        • notinmyname

          66% of British mohammedans would not, it seems.

        • mary

          “Talking about murdering people” is a thought crime. Lots of people talk about things they will never do. Besides, your last three points don’t have anything to do with “talking about murdering people.” Just plain snitching.

          • Radical Islam is about killing people, they call them the infidel, which is anyone they disagree with.

      • timamac

        ?? You make no sense.

    • notinmyname

      I have appended some data below that may be of interest to you even though, clearly, it will strictly apply only to UK mohammedans.

    • timamac

      That’ll never happen. Consider the source of Islam, Muhammad.

  • mary

    Well done, DB. Just a quibble:

    “Certainly Western elites are taking advantage of a clash of cultures. Muslim emigration to Europe is being encouraged.”

    I think you don’t need to be so “diplomatic.” Try this

    Certainly Western elites are engineering and taking advantage of the clash of cultures. Muslim emigration to Europe is being encouraged and financed by various evil doers such as Soros, aided and abetted by European politicians who enforce neither their immigration laws or their laws against violent aggression.

  • timamac

    Not well done DB. Muhammad, the “The Great Prophet” was not peaceful. In fact, very evil. So called “radical” Muslims are doing what he said and did! Christians doing what Christ did NOT say or do is not the same.

    • Put the blame where it belongs, with the EU and British governments that allowed so many immigrants in. To now compound the problem by being hostile to Islam in the aggregate is to allow the meme to win.

  • Webforager

    Those that are reacting to muslim immigration and “radical Islam” by generalizing and denigrating the religious ideology of Islam are, in turn, being radicalized themselves via a disingenuous media narrative. The irony is incredible along with the seemingly willful ignorance regarding dominant interests that assert themselves covertly and violently in these regions which effect these outcomes.
    Personally, I think people concentrate too much on ideological justifications and media imagery and not enough on the patterns of behavior which continually reassert themselves through the march of history.
    Another well crafted article DB. Very courageous.

  • gordon

    I have not bothered to read the koran and have no intention of doing so. However i have read a well constructed thoughtful article written by a retired US general who made a strong case for recognising islam as a political movement wrapped in a religious cloak ,bent on world domination. His article was cogent and informative but unfortunately I cannot recall his name.

  • Bob

    If your theory is correct, then why do the millions of so called “peaceful” or “moderate muslims” not speak out in the face of the terrorist attacks all over the world…because they agree with them…just as the crowds in the soccer stadium after the Paris attacks shouted Allah Akbar over and over again during the match….polls in the US show an overwhelming majority of muslims living in the US favor Sharia law…we will not let that happnen!
    The quran is clear on its commands for killing or enslaving all those who refuse to convert…..its design is take over the world…those who foolishy or deviously try to deny this or act as apologists for them have blood on their hands….

    There may be powers behind the scenes provoking things…funding ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, and then setting them loose to commit a Christian genocide in the middle east, and then letting them into Europe where they have been cutting a wide swatch across it raping and assaulting women and children, rioting, and causing terrorist attacks….but let’s get real…we need to protect ourselves……

    Things will be much different when Trump becomes President, and if you think muslims are so peaceful…feel free to move to Turkey.

    The Religion Peace Kills Catholic Priest In Church

    • The French government is trying to destroy film of the truck attack. Something happened there that is far beyond a “terrorist attack.”

      • Bob

        All it would take is for the “moderate Muslims”, ie., those who do not follow what the quran says to do in its basic tenets, if one could even call them Muslims at that point, to all stand up and denounce this…which of course they are not…since this violence has been a part of Islam from its inception…when it was killing Jews and Christians, and declaring war on all of Europe (much like today) in its quest to conquer the world…cannot blame the NWO for that. Muslims are easy recruit and inflame, from the very fact that Islam is more a cult and political party than a religion.

        If your theory is correct, lets hear the millions of Muslims denounce Jihad, mass rape of women and children, Sharia Law, and all the rest….crickets

    • There is a big difference between “favoring” something and creating a revolution. Especially when the entire Islamic population is less one percent or less. This Evil Muslim meme is being whipped up by those who benefit from social and cultural polarization.

  • Bob