The 64,000 dollar question-: Is from National review on line .

Defence in the age of jihad.

They have told us over and over that they are waging what they call a jihad . The policy of the current administration, and to a great extent the previous administration as well, has been to avoid such terminology

One notable exception: Just before she stepped down as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton spoke with rare candor.

We now face a spreading jihadist threat, she said, adding, we have to recognize this is a global movement .

I believe Mrs. Clinton was actuate. I have not a single reason to believe she is not. Observable reality seems to confirm this.

Yet so many people in government, the media, academia refuse to believe this, or at least refuse to acknowledge it.

Now here is anther opinion often times expressed.

I was on C-SPANs Washington Journal this week debating Hina Shamsi , director of the ACLUs National Security Project .

She declared, There is no global war. . . . There is no global jihadist movement.

Were that to be true (I know it's not) President Obama, would just be picking random Muslims to kill by remote control every month of his term in office for the hell of it. Thousands of them in fact according to reports. It would make him an international monster. A war criminal, it would make complicit in his crime, young men, and women, siting behind computer screens doing a job. America's Sons and daughters.

Of course Mrs.Shamsi is a "submitted" person herself, and most know that, similar was the thinking along the same lines of logic, used to justify the bombing at the Boston Marathon, by a young Bostonian Muslim. It was said by the surviving bomber, that he did it to defend Islam.

If President Obama is randomly killing Muslims for no reason (he is not), Islam is under attack. And a defence could be said to be justified

If the President has a reason ( I believe he does) Jihadists are in fact at war with America and all who refuse to submit. Those who deny this fact, are giving aid and comfort (propaganda) and empowering America's enemies, furthering their delusion of American and Western persecution of Muslims and the faith of "submission" (Islam) in general. Americana's have never been a very "submissive" bunch.

It's how you view this 64,000 $ question , that will shape the America your children grow up in.

Is The American President, Barrack Obama a monster, or is it that "protect" and serve thing he has "sworn" to do?

I understand an "oath of office" can change a man's mind on many things.

A pagan's perspective.

(The 800 pound "guerrilla" in the room) Is from the New York Times

He was looking for connections between the wars in the Middle East and oppression of Muslim population around the globe, Mr. Khozhugov said in an e-mail. It was very hard to argue with him on themes somehow connected to religion. On the other hand, he did not hate Christians. He respected their faith. Never said anything bad about other religions. But he was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.

When you're religious, and are upset others view your religion as violent, is it wise to kill random people and make many others amputees to express your displeasure at Islam's association with Islamic terror? (often said by islamophobes to be expressed by random killings ,and making sudden amputees of random innocent people)

The only Continent after all, without somebody, or a large organised group of somebodies, who is "struggling in the way of allah" (Jihad fi sabilillah) is Antarctica .

It's difficult, if not impossible not to notice that, unless of course you're either a politician, University professor, a professional apologist (main stream media journalist) or a CIAR spokesperson.

(and the man made disaster) is from a Quranic commentary or tafsir.

Two verses that may, or may not, have inspired him. There are so many more, that is but one of the problems. But these two, I find troubling. And they would have more than justified the act from an orthodox perspective. The act can not really be "judged" not to be halal (permitted)

The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas

Allah commands the believers to fight the disbelievers , the closest in area to the Islamic state, then the farthest. This is why the Messenger of Allah started fighting the idolators in the Arabian Peninsula. When he finished with them and Allah gave him control over Makkah, Al-Madinah, At-Ta'if, Yemen, Yamamah, Hajr, Khaybar, Hadramawt and other Arab provinces, and the various Arab tribes entered Islam in large crowds, he then started fighting the People of the Scriptures. He began preparations to fight the Romans who were the closest in area to the Arabian Peninsula, and as such, had the most right to be called to Islam , especially since they were from the People of the Scriptures.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1578&Itemid=64

(read more at link) Jihad (in this case) is a "call" to Islam.

Combine that verse, then this one, and an atrocity is manifested in Boston.

Shirk is worse than Killing

Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men , Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path , and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.' ' Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) "Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.''

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233

The little boy, Martin, who was killed by the bomb set at his feet by the devoted follower of the prophet was "guilty" of the same offence (disbelief) in the eyes of Mohammad. His disbelief, was worse than the act of killing him.