The war on terror has changed - will the media?

Greetings,

According to the Mainstream Media, the Pope is now in the
same ethical position as the United States.

As reported today, Muhammad Umar, chairman of Britain's
Ramadhan Foundation, said: "This attack on Islam and
Prophet Muhammad by Pope Benedict is recognition that he
has fallen into the trap of the bigots and racists when it
comes to judging Islam on the actions of a small number of
extreme elements."

(See attached picture)

This week Henry Kissinger warned about the integration of
religion into Middle Eastern Governments. His article,
entitled "After Lebanon" says:

"The creation of organizations like Hezbollah and al-Qaida
symbolizes that transnational loyalties are replacing
national ones. The driving force behind this challenge is
the jihadist conviction that it is the existing order that
is illegitimate, not the Hezbollah and jihad method of
fighting it."

and

"We now know that we face the imperative of building a new
world order or potential global catastrophe. It cannot be
done alone by either side of the Atlantic. Is that
realization sufficient to regenerate a common purpose?"

I don't agree that a secular "New World Order" is the
answer, clearly only Muslims willing to speak and act are
the radical (sometimes militant) who encourage hate and
violence.

There are no Muslim peace groups criticizing the radicals.
There is no balance in the rhetoric, except occasionally by
some Governments and now the Pope.

The "balance" of Church and State in the USA, as
questionable as it has been in the court system, is an
easier, non violent way to keep the ideals of freedom of
religion as defined by our founding fathers in the
limelight.

At this time it appears that the world is slowly slipping
into the lifestyle of the middle ages, where countries were
controlled by elite families (and in this era including
corporations) and religions were at war.

My question is, when will the media stop promoting the
internal political battles within our country's eroding
borders, and focus on the real story which is the
International virus of activist/violent religions which
heavily influence international governmental responses?

The United States' stand is clear - we advocate capturing
and killing those who want to kill the innocent first. This
is one tactic. It is a response to the following Muslim
conversion scenario as dictated by Mohammed.

The 3 stages of a Muslim conversion are:

1) Ask if you are Muslim.
2) Ask if you want to convert.
3) If the answer is no, kill you for your insolence.

Other countries don't advocate a violent retort, but will
their "negotiations" only delay the ultimate radical goals
of complete religious conversion and agenda? No one knows.

What is certain is that the clock is ticking toward nuclear
fuel refinement in the Middle East. When the time is up,
will the western world trust that a nuclear bomb won't be
used against innocent western people who don't conform to
Islam?

I am not here to tell you what to think, decide the above
question for yourself. Civilian (non-conformist) deaths
have already occurred in the US, Spain, Britain, Morroco,
Syria, Tanzania, Kenya, Canada, Yemen, Saudi Arabia,
Denmark, Norway, Iraq, the Phillipines, and Indonesia to
name a few.

Notice that some of these countries are populated by a
majority of Muslims. Base Governmental belief systems don't
matter where terrorism occurs.

The number of deaths are comparatively low. However, a nuke
will kill and mame a very large number of innocents in one
second and do incredible enviromental damage. In one
second, a nuke will change the entire equation, and radical
tolerance level. Does the world have to wait that long?

Kissinger wrote:

"The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness
vs. European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now
faces.

"Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds
together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider
war merging into a war of civilizations..."

I personally believe this should be a global effort, not
just a Euro-American effort. However, Kissinger's writings
have long promoted a westernized NWO.

I am a firm believer in religion as a peaceful way to
express one's faith. But when the only quoted voice from a
religion is a radical one, and there is no "balanced
response", then that radical voice is what is reported.

Let's not allow ourselves, as Americans to continue to
ignore the current INTERNATIONAL religio-political crises
thereby slipping back into the lifestyles of earlier
centuries. The "'Lords and Governments' will protect the
peasants" mindset.

The media must begin to concretely analize, publicize and
project the results of potential radical religious
infiltration into governments and report current
Governmental "bending" to radical interests. Then the
radicals should be prosecuted, in whatever manner is
decided upon at that time.

Particular attention should be paid to the covert
activities of radical/militant Islamists who now live in
certain areas of South America. These people can easily
slip past the US's southern border.

If successful international consultants like Kissinger are
"pulling fire alarms" the public must pay attention!

The famous phrase "Those who do not learn from history are
doomed to repeat it" comes to mind.

Make no mistake, if the US public and media continue to
sleep, and pretend that someone "else" will protect them,
expect a very rude awakening after our next domestic terror
event.

Prepare now for the emotional shock(s) to come.