Reader comments on this item

Taliban is not interested in peace, only in your submission to sharia.

Submitted by Wallace Brand, Oct 15, 2012 09:36

What is the use of talking about peace to a group that is not interested in peace but only your submission to sharia law. That would require killing anyone who criticizes Islam or Mohammed, killing homosexuals, cutting off the hands and feet of anyone accused of stealing, stoning to death adulterers, killing apostates, and lashing girls who have been raped. This is a group that hunts down and attempts to kill a 14 year old girl because she didn't want to be excluded from school. I wouldn't talk to them. They are evil. I would kill them.

America doesn't "love" war. It hates war. But it loves freedom so much that it is willing to go to war to defend it.

The Russians have made great advances in their demonization of the US; their arguments appeal especially to those of the far left. Your comment seems to reflect that you have swallowed that garbage. See; Pacepa, Propaganda Redux,

"Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler -- as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink. " "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118645110306090056.html

The left has been soft putty in their hands.


Is Obama not the Manchurian Candidate but eh Muslim Brotherhood Candidate?

Submitted by Wallace Edward Brand, Oct 12, 2012 17:58

Obama has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood despite the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation case of their conspiracy, since 1987 to infiltrate our society in order to subvert it. This was taken from a document labeled Explanatory Memorandum on the Strategic Goals of the {Muslim Brotherhood] Group in North America.

In 2005, the Swiss authorities found a document providing a 100 year plan for Islamic World domination.

Frank Gaffney shows instances of Obama's administration selecting people with Muslim Brotherhood ties being placed in senior executive positions in the Department of Defense, the Department of State, Homeland Security and the "Ikhwan have even infiltrated the Republican Party.

In his first speech abroad, in Cairo, Obama asked Mubarak to permit the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend. They sat in the first row. Later, during the Tahrir Square riots, he insisted that Mubarak step down immediately. He was replaced by Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

All this leads, including the al-Maryati appointment, up to the question, is Obama not a Manchurian Candidate but a Muslim Brotherhood Candidate?


America Does Little to Build World Peace

Submitted by Philip Henika, Oct 12, 2012 13:13

America is at war with everything from cancer to climate change to terrorism etc. War is America's choice for conflict resolution. It was therefore of interest that the Obama Administration conducted both a military and civilian surge recently in Afghanistan. The civilian surge produced very little in results but there were two efforts that merit attention. One was the work of Carter Malkasian and two was the possible introduction of cotton as an economically viable alternative crop to poppies (see Little America: The War within the War for Afghanistan by Rajiv Chandrasekaran). The cotton idea was buried by obstruction the latter of which seems to the favored means of stalling peacebuilding efforts. The principles of obstruction were, as expected, the drug cartels and the Karsai government but one of the talking points of US Republicans is that any negotiation with terrorists is weakness. Neither Republicans or Democrats want to appear to be "soft" on terrorism so peacebuilding initiative which is dependent on negotiation really does not stand much of chance in American foreign policy. Finally, I read the quotes by Salam al-Marayati and IPT's return criticism and it seemed like Marayati made his points and IPT made its points. America, with its love for War, has committed its own atrocities and so why shouldn't Marayati speak of America's atrocities?


Comment on this item

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.

Click here to see the top 25 recent comments.