Streams

Peter Bergen: After Bin Laden

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst and author of The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict between America and Al-Qaeda, weighs in on the current state and future of the war on terror.

Guests:

Peter Bergen

Comments [14]

gary from queens

"high-five" me Martin!

NPR liberals can't handle the inconvenient truth.

Jun. 28 2011 02:21 PM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

GARY is absolutely correct about the hypocrisy of the leftist posters here.

Take the ridiculous early post by "Jacob Medoff" of New Haven (natch) who wants the ICC to prosecute Americans for Afghanistan and Iraq, but conveniently forgot Libya. What a phony.

One wonders just what extremes Obama could get away with before they would violate their oath of silence here. It really is sickening.

Jun. 28 2011 01:06 PM
gary from queens

I can only conclude by the lack of comments that liberals are hypocrites. And they lack principles.

The insisted under Bush that they held principled opposition to the war policies. they were vocal and nasty. If McCain were president, there would be 200 comments posted here.

But there are only 7. Why? Because Obama----their candidate----is president. and they are demoralized. and they don't hate obama. so they remain quiet.

hypocrites. no principles. no other explanation.

Jun. 28 2011 12:33 PM
gary from queens

Dear "John A."

The famous Michigan study, performed by an Islamist organization, found that 80% of Dearborne muslim residents support sharia law in muslim nations. When there is a muslim majority in the US, the US would become "Muslim", and consequently they would want sharia to supplant our constitution.

And so what that there are more muslims in the world? You say by 4:1? i dont agree, but its irrelevant. We have jurisdiction over our nation. They don't. They live in the 7th century. We don't.

Jun. 28 2011 11:40 AM
gary from queens

Dear "jacob Medoff from new haven, ct"

The answer to your question is:

1. The US is economically and militarily too powerful for the UN to indict our leaders. Shows you the importance of military power.

2. The US doesnt recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC.

3. And most importantly, they just gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize. And Obama is implementing every policy----from military tactics to detainee preventive detention and treatment----that Bush-Cheney began with. Thus, by NOT also indicting Obama, that would make the ICC appear like the hypocrites they are.

Jun. 28 2011 11:30 AM
Em

His unnecessarily partisan comments really spoilt his points, and made his whole position questionable. I suggest he look on Google. There are more than plenty of examples of human rights groups protesting drone attacks. A really ignorant comment.

Jun. 28 2011 11:28 AM

Some stats indicate drones kill 10 innocents to one militant.

10 to 1!!

At what price?!?!?

Jun. 28 2011 11:25 AM

The Obama Administration has killed more innocents with drones than Bush did.

Jun. 28 2011 11:23 AM

@ jacob Medoff from new haven, ct

Good point!! Or the Obama Administration, for that matter!!

Jun. 28 2011 11:22 AM
John A.

Gary, ruling Islam invalid seems to not be a viable choice as the USA is outnumbered 4:1 by the Islamic peoples. Second, most adherents, if silent, oppose your points 1:5 anyway.

Jun. 28 2011 11:20 AM
jacob Medoff from new haven, ct

Why hasn't the ICC charged Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld with war crimes, torture and a host of other charges for invading Iraq.

Jun. 28 2011 11:16 AM

... or the UNITED STATES!!!

Jun. 28 2011 11:10 AM
gary from queens

In anticipation of the typical liberal question: "What do we do, arrest every muslim in the US?"

Of course not. Islam could be challenged in U.S. Courts and declared a non-religion. If this were done it would remove all religious protections such as non-profit status. It would open their ideology to prosecution for sedition and treason. It would allow prosecution for hate crimes against other religions. It would open the door for prosecution for crimes against humanity and the promotion of genocide. In fact, if the designation of “religion” were removed from Islam, it would place Islam directly in the realm of a tyrannical organized criminal enterprise.

My question is, with all that we know of political Islam (which is integral to it's theological doctrines), can Islam even be considered a religion in Western culture.

1. Can a structure of beliefs that calls for the very destruction of Western Civilization be recognized as a valid religion?
2. Can a set of beliefs that deny any non-believer basic human rights be considered a legitimate religion?
3. Can a set of beliefs that deny equal rights to women be considered a legitimate religion?
4. Can a set of beliefs that does not make any distinction between religion, state, legal and every aspect of daily life be considered a legitimate religion?
5. Can a set of beliefs that allows lies, deception and violence to promote their beliefs be considered a legitimate religion?

For those who will say that any attempt to declare Islam a non-religion would promote a massive violent reaction in the Muslim world, I have only one answer. Western Civilization if it wishes to survive will have to take a stand sooner or later. The longer we put off the confrontation, the more violent it will be. The alternative is to just allow Islam to meet their goals and establish rule over the entire planet. If Islam acquires nuclear weapons, the threat of retaliation against them for using them will be no deterrent. Islam would accept huge martyred numbers to destroy Israel and Western Civilization.

I would like to emphasize that all the above information is contained in the Quran, Sharia law and Islamic ideology. Remember a Muslim is required to conform to all of Islam or face severe punishment or death. Are their any legal eagles reading this who can comment on when a set of beliefs moves an ideology away from a legitimate religion and into the realm of an organized criminal enterprise?

Jun. 28 2011 10:22 AM
gary from queens

In reference to Mr. Bergen's book title, I would like him to explain why we are at war with just one "battalion" (i.e. Al-Qaeda) of mainstream islamic ideology?

Islam’s ultimate goals:

1. To replace all other beliefs on earth with Islam. (total destruction of religious, political and personal freedom)

2. To destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. (promotion of genocide)

3. To replace western civilization with Islam religiously, politically, legally and in all aspects of daily life. (promotion of sedition) "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Sura 8.39).

4. To use Western Civilization’s laws to promote a “stealth jihad” and ultimately conquer from those civilizations from within. (promotion of sedition and treason)

At some point in history, Western Civilization is going to have to confront Islam. The whole ideology of Islam is in direct contrast to the ideals of Western Civilization. It is a totalitarian set of beliefs that are in direct conflict with the concepts of religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of association, Democracy, traditional western values and culture.

Jun. 28 2011 10:12 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.