Powerful response to ‘peaceful Muslims’ rates standing ovation

In carnage around the world……“the peaceful majority were irrelevant”

Our thanks to WND for posting Brigitte Gabriel’s powerful response to a Muslim woman who attended a Heritage Foundation forum on Benghazi. The woman claimed Muslims are portrayed badly. Gabriel’s answer, complete with potent facts and figures, provides one of the best answers ever given to the constant harangue of ” the majority of Muslins are peaceful.”  Although Ms. Gabriel agrees, she also cites previous historical carnage perpetrated at the hands of Germany, Russia, China, Japan, and the events on September 11, 2001. In each case she concludes, “the peaceful majority were irrelevant”

This enlightening video clip is definitely worth your time.

 

5 Responses to Powerful response to ‘peaceful Muslims’ rates standing ovation

  1. American Dad says:

    Brigitte Gabriel is brilliant. Those facts and figures were not on note cards or a teleprompter. She is a renown speaker on this topic and not only knows her stuff, but presents it flawlessly. Bravo! I would be standing along with that Heritage Foundation forum crowd had I been at the event.

    Thanks for posting this!

  2. Matt DeGennaro says:

    Her words, “the peaceful majority were irrelevan,” are still reverberating in my ears. What an excellent point and made so articulately. It’s a difficult to absorb truth.

  3. Pima Pal says:

    Can anyone explain the difference between Islam, which seeks global domination, and “radical” Islam?

    • Night Owl says:

      Your excellent rhetorical question reminds me of the idiotic “coexist” bumper stickers that are usually sharing space on the back of cars with Obama/Biden stickers. How do Christians and Jews “coexist” with those who desire to annihilate them?

      Those stickers are the result of a psychobabble mentality, thinking the word made up of various religious and other symbols shows wise broadmindedness, when in fact it exemplifies abysmal ignorance of the actual universal dominance motives of Islamists.

  4. LEO IN TSN says:

    Ms. Gabrielle is brilliant, patriotic, dedicated to US and totally courageous in living daily under a muslim fatwah (order of death). Let’s remember our own Lisa Benson in Phx, heard on 960AM The Patriot every Sunday, educating about the dangers of Islam.

    Hmmm, perhaps the key to the distinction between muslims is that Islam seeks global domination, the annihilation of all Christians and Jews, and total control by the sword (Koran and hadith writings) while “radical” Islam seeks global domination, the annihilation of all Christians and Jews, and total control by the sword (world history since the 7th century A.D.).

    To better understand the American government regard for Islam, which has resulted in many muslim brotherhood operatives being imbedded in positions of authority in the obamao regime while euphemizing the dangers, consider these words from the Hoover Institution:
    “In foreign policy, however, the abuse of language is positively dangerous. Since 9/11, our failure to identity the true nature of the Islamist threat and its grounding in traditional Islamic theology has led to misguided aims and tactics. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, for example, the traditional Islamic doctrine of jihad––which means to fight against the enemies of Islam, which predominantly means infidels––has been redefined to serve the dubious tactic of flattering Islam in order to prevent Muslim terrorism.
    Thus in 2008 the National Terrorism Center instructed its employees, “Never use the term jihadist or mujahideen in conversation to describe terrorists,” … Similarly, CIA chief John Brennan has asserted that jihad “is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community,” despite the fourteen centuries of evidence from the Koran, hadiths, and bloody history that jihad is in fact predominantly an obligatory armed struggle against the enemies of Islam. The reluctance to put Muslim violence in its religious context reflects not historical truth, but a public relations tactic serving the delusional strategy of appeasing Muslims into liking us.
    That’s why, to this day, the 2009 murders of 13 military personnel at Fort Hood by Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan are still classified as “workplace violence” rather than an act of terror. This despite the fact that Hasan––whose business cards had the initials “SoA,” “Soldier of Allah,” on them––shouted the traditional Islamic battle cry “Allahu Akbar” during his rampage. Or that in a presentation at Walter Reed Hospital, Hasan had put up a slide with the great commission to practice jihad that Mohammed delivered in his farewell address: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’” This command to wage jihad was echoed in 1979 by the Ayatollah Khomeini, revered as a “Grand Sign of God” for his theological acumen, and by Osama bin Laden in 2001. Those ignoring this venerable jihadist tradition must use verbal evasions like “workplace violence” and “striving in the path of God” to hide the indefensible––and failed––tactic of appeasement that prevents us from accurately understanding the religious motives of Muslim terrorists, and the extent of the Muslim world’s support for them.
    No foreign policy crisis, however, is more illustrative of the “regime of lies” and abuse of language to serve “indefensible” aims than the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The Arabs’ aim, of course, is to destroy Israel as a nation, a policy they have consistently pursued since 1948. Since military attacks have failed ignominiously, an international public relations campaign coupled to terrorist violence has been employed to weaken Israel’s morale and separate Israel from her Western allies. An Orwellian assault on language has been key to this tactic.
    Examples are legion, but one is particularly insidious, here seen in a New York Times headline from 2011: “Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal.” The common reference to “borders” in regard to what is in fact the armistice line from the 1948 Arab war against Israel is ubiquitous. Yet there has never been recognized in international law a formal “border” between Israel and what the world, in another Orwellian phrase, calls the “West Bank,”… This may sound like quibbling over careless language, but the dishonest use of “border” reinforces and encodes in peoples’ minds the big lie of the conflict––that a Palestinian “nation” is being deprived of its “homeland” by Israel, a canard that didn’t become current among Arabs and the rest of the world until after the 1967 Six Day War. And this lie in turns validates the common use of “occupation”––which implies an illegal invasion into and control of another nation, as the Germans did to France in 1940––to describe Israel’s defensive possession of territories that have long served as launch pads for aggression against Israel.”

    Bruce Thornton, The Hoover Institution, June 25, 2014
    [Excerpt]
    http://www.hoover.org/research/language-despotism

    CIA director John Brennan, like Sec’y of Defense Chuck Hagel, is a closet muslim. And they, with obamao, are writing the rules for US. And that is why we never see any news reports in American media about the European jihad that is progressing so well.

    Thank you for your patience, SRA, and God bless America.