Note: The first letter is from Sen

Note: The first letter is from Sen. Rod Adair, candidate for Lt. Gov. in NM. He is replying to an article from the Guardian (British publication)

Puerile, naïve, wishful thinking, or worse; name-dropping propagandizing disguised as thoughtful editorializing, (see the original Article following…).

Only people who do not:

1) pick up the Quran and read it themselves,

2) listen carefully to the weasel-word, mushmouth "diplomats" (like the Saudi Ambassador to the US),

3) pay close attention to the so-called "Palestinian" situation,

4) wonder what happened to the real dog that didn't bark (the so-called true "peaceful" Muslims who have, remarkably, not spoken out at all---or if so, very guardedly, against Sept 11, and other terrorism, or,

5) notice the overwhelming reaction of everyday Muslims around the world in favor of the attacks-----all this caught on film, tape, recordings and all other media (especially newsprint) before media outlets began to de-emphasize it; now it is no longer mentioned.

Now I have to tell you as an old Tory, I thought I would never see the day I acknowledged Tony Blair as a leader. But over the past couple of weeks I have listened to him on C-SPAN several times. He is cogent, eloquent, historically-based, intelligent, capable of making both sharp and subtle distinctions between different circumstances and points in history----indicative of critical-thinking skills (the kinds of skills almost no one in journalism, TV or print reporters----and certainly no liberals at all---are able to muster). There, I said it.

I know it is not politically correct, but I am submitting this:

THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS NOT A PEACEFUL RELIGION

It NEVER has been. Those who believe it is, have swallowed a load of bologna (Italian spelling) from the media "experts." As I have said, you should attempt to actually read a translated version of the Koran (however you want to spell it----and the orthography changed over the past decade) for yourself sometime-(a straight translation, not one with interpretations of some post-modernistic, pluralism-embracing, "moral relativisism evangelist" professor).

Here are my main points. According to the Koran itself:

· Islam is the ONLY true faith. ALL others are false religions. (All means ALL here - Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, Agnosticism, even Atheism. If it's not Islam, it is in the category of ALL OTHERS!)

· These false religions and their followers are referred to as "The Infidel."

· The purpose of Islam is perpetuate Islam throughout the world. (Translation: All peoples will be under the control of Islam.)

· If violence is necessary to subdue "The Infidel" then violence is condoned and applauded.

· There is no measure too extensive to take in order to bring all men under the control of Islam.

· If people will not submit they must be destroyed physically and wiped from the face of the earth.

· All of this is the will of Allah.

· The Allah of the Koran only goes by one name. He is Allah - totally different from the gods of "The Infidel".

· If you please Allah by helping to destroy "The Infidel" or subdue them, he rewards you in this life and the next. If you die in his cause, the rewards multiply.

· If you neglect the sacred duties of a Muslim (i.e.destroying the infidel and perpetuating Islam) then Allah will punish you fiercely.

That's it in a nutshell. I am not making this up. If you don't believe me, go read it for yourself. Islam is a religion of harsh absolutes. It encourages, promotes, condones and praises violence. Especially against other religions. You SHOULD be worried.

Those Muslims in America who act peacefully toward others of different beliefs are not practicing true Islam. They aren't even practicing mainstream Islam. They are practicing CULTURAL Islam and marginalizing the religion. They are not all-together different from Americans who attend church on Christmas and Easter. They have marginalized the faith and now adhere to the cultural norms of their middle-eastern heritage.

All Islamic believers have an aggressive mentally built into their faith. Add weapons, and you have a problem.

The purpose of this response is not to spread fear. It is simply to clear up the record for those of you who have allowed yourselves to be lied to and confused by people on TV who have a pluralistic mentality.

Pluralism is a nice idea, but let me save you some time-it is a fantasy. Millions of people with diametrically opposed worldviews and life purposes DO NOT just randomly decide to lay aside their fundamental life beliefs so that we can all just get along and be happy. That is simply a nice political carrot to dangle in front of the asses who buy into it.

We have laws for a reason. We have security measures because there is a real threat. We have an army because; from time to time a country needs to defend itself from those who would seek to destroy the people of it. (No matter what their motivation in destroying, or how misunderstood they supposedly are.)

----- Original Article -----

The threat of radical Islam is on the wane

By Fareed Zakaria

(Filed: 08/09/2002)

In one of his legendary moments of brilliance, Sherlock Holmes drew attention to the behaviour of a dog on the night of a murder: the dog had been silent. That, explained Holmes, was curious. Looking back over the last year, I am reminded of that story because the most important event has been a non event. Ever since that terrible day last September, we have been watching and waiting for the angry voice of Islamic fundamentalism to rip through the Arab and Islamic world. But there has been silence. The dog has not barked.

The health of al-Qaeda is a separate matter. Osama bin Laden's organisation may be in trouble, but it may simply be lying low, plotting in the shadows. In the past it has waited for several years between operations. Al-Qaeda, however, is a band of fanatics, numbering in the thousands. It seeks a much broader following. That, after all, was the point of the attacks of September 11.

Bin Laden had hoped that by these spectacular feats of terror he would energise radical movements across the Islamic world. But in the last year it has been difficult to find a major Muslim politician or party or publication that has championed his ideas. In fact, the heated protests over Israel's military offensives and American unilateralism have obscured the fact that the fundamentalists have been quiet and in retreat. Radical political Islam - which grew in force and fury ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979 - is past the peak of its power.

One needs to look at the situation that prevailed a decade ago. In Algeria, Islamic fundamentalists, having won an election, were poised to take control of the country. In Turkey, an Islamist political party was gaining ground and would soon also come to power. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's regime was terrorised by groups that had effectively shut down the country to foreign tourists. In Pakistan, the mullahs had scared parliament into enacting blasphemy laws.

Only a few years earlier, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini had issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie who was still living in hiding. Throughout the Arab world, much of the talk was about political Islam - how to set up an Islamic state, implement Sharia and practise Islamic banking.

Look at these countries now. In Iran, the mullahs still reign but are despised. The governments of Algeria, Egypt, Turkey and (to a lesser extent) Pakistan have all crushed their Islamic groups. Many feared that, as a result, the fundamentalists would become martyrs. In fact, they have had to scramble to survive. In Turkey, the Islamists are now liberals who want their country to join the European Union. In Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere they are diminished in power, many of them re-examining their strategy of terror.

If the governments bring them into the system, they will go from being mystical figures to local politicians. Many Islamic groups are lying low; many will still attempt terrorism. But how can a political movement achieve its goals if none dare speak its name? The Islamic radicals are quiet about their cause for a simple reason. Fewer and fewer people are buying it. This doesn't mean that people in the Middle East are happy with their regimes or approve of American foreign policy, or that they have come to accept Israel. All the frustration and rage remains strong.

That is why you will still find a not-so-secret admiration for Osama bin Laden among many Arabs, even those queuing up for green cards for the United States. But people have stopped looking at Islamic fundamentalism as their salvation. The youth of the 1970s and 1980s, who came from villages into cities and took up Islam as a security blanket, are passing into middle age.

The new generation is just as rebellious and bitter. But today's youth grew up in cities and towns, watch Western television shows and have relatives in the West. The Taliban holds no allure for them. They don't want to replace Western modernity; they want to combine it with Islam. Most have realised that Islamic fundamentalism has no real answers to the problems of the modern world; it has only fantasies.

Alas, none of this will mean the end of our troubles. The Arab world remains a region on the boil. Its demographic, political, economic and social problems are immense and will probably bubble over. Outside the Middle East, in places such as Indonesia, the fundamentalists are not yet stale. But you need a compelling ideology to turn frustration into sustained, effective action. After all, Africa has many problems. Yet it is not a threat to the West.

Nor does it mean, alas, the end of terrorism. As they lose political appeal, revolutionary movements often turn more violent. The French scholar Gilles Kepel makes a comparison to communism. It was in the 1960s, after communism had lost any possible broad appeal - after the revelations about Stalin's brutality, as its economic model was decaying - that communist radicals turned to terror. They became members of the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Shining Path. Having given up on winning the hearts of people, they hoped to intimidate them with violence. That is where radical political Islam is today.

For the West this means that there is no reason to be gloomy. History is not on the side of the mullahs. If the terrorists are defeated and the fundamentalists are challenged, they will wither. The West must do its part, but above all, moderate Muslims must do theirs. The cause of reforming the

Arab world is not as hopeless as it looks today. We do not confront a region with a powerful alternative to Western ideas; just a place riddled with problems. If the regimes of the Arab world become less repressive, if they reform their economies, the region will, over time, stop breeding terrorists. The Japanese once practised suicide bombing. Now they make computer games.

It might be difficult to see the light from where we are now, still deep in a war against terrorists, with new cells cropping up, new forms of terror multiplying and new methods to spread venomous doctrines. But at his core, the enemy is deadly ill.

Newsweek, Inc