PA Denigrates American Symbols of Liberty and Democracy

I am uncertain as to how long the link to the these PA certified pictures will be available. In case it is available they are found on Palestine Media Watch. (Hat tip to WorldNetDaily)

The PA has been fomenting American hatred for some time. I was going to post the PA political cartoon a Palestinian child urinating on the Statue of Liberty; however good ole' blogger.com would not work with me. Palestine Media Watch has been tracking various Anti-American political cartoons. Here is a list of seven others:

1. The Statue of Liberty as a suicide terrorist.
2. The Statue of Liberty's torch igniting the world's fires.
3. The Statue of Liberty as a prostitute.
4. The Statue of Liberty being imprisoned by the FBI and CIA.
5. The Statue of Liberty as an evil Condoleezza Rice, representing Israel.
6. The Statue of Liberty destroyed with Superman at the "Gates of Baghdad".
7. The Statue of Liberty symbol as a heroic Palestinian woman. However, instead of representing freedom, the defiant Palestinian Statue represents violence and terror, wears a crown of machines guns and holds an infant grasping a stone.

I don’t know your take on this kind of disrespect, but it infuriates me. The PA ever since its inception has been anti-American because of America’s support for the Jewish State of Israel. And yet Hamas expects American money to support transforming the PA into a sovereign Palestinian nation. A nation that is wholly undeserved to exist. In 1948 these Arabs could have been taken in by neighboring Arab nations, however they were refused. The Palestinian-Arab was refused Arabic matriculation not because of some Palestinian identity, rather the refusal was based on perpetuating a reason to destroy the Jewish State of Israel from the Mohammedan mind of Dar al-Islam.

The basic concept behind this was that law and shari’ah prevail only in Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam) while dar al-harb (enemy territory) territories were lawless where rulers and dominant people forced their whims on residents and therefore one’s life or property was not safe there. This is why Muslims were discouraged from living in such areas. In other words, the basic difference between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb was the rule of law in the former and the lawlessness in the latter. So it is a dar al-Islam wherever Muslims’ lives and properties are legally safe and they are legally allowed to follow their religion. A place is not a dar al-Islam where Muslims’ lives, property and faith are not safe although its ruler may be a Muslim. (Millagazette.com)

Mohammedans cannot accept land once conquered by Dar al-Islam to be returned to Dar al-Harb (i.e. the enemy).

Land to a Muslim is everything. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. That is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you con­stant­ly hear about territory, territory, territory. Muslims can never accept Israel oc­cupy­ing a single inch of formerly Islamic territory. Peace in Islam can only exist between Muslim and Muslim. With the non-Muslim world, there can be only a ceasefire until Muslims gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come when the Islamic side wins.

Islamic law demands that at the first in­stance you are able, you must renew the jihad, thus breaking the “peace” agreement. There is no permanent peace with Muslims. Wher­ever you have Islam, you will have war. Often, the Islamic world fights it war in Dar al-Harb territory by infiltration. Muslims have migrated by the millions to Europe and America, and have gained tremendous politi­cal and religious power in the West. (Land for Peace)

Does anyone think that there is a peaceful solution Israel VS Palestinian-Mohammedans? For that matter, does anyone think there will be a peaceful solution to Western Democratic Principles VS Islamofascist Terrorism? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO.

There are only two solutions from a Western point of view. ONE: Mohammedanism as we know it today transforms into a tolerant spiritually peacefully evangelical-like religion. A kind of religion which offers a peaceful vision rather than a "convert or die" option. I can tell you “point of view” ONE is a preferred choice. TWO: The West gives up hope for a Mohammedan transformation and is forced to take a Neo-Crusader option to quash Mohammedanism as we know it. Much the same way the Allies quashed the Japanese Shinto State and Nazi German State of WWII.

The way things are escalating, option two will ultimately be the ONLY choice left for the West to survive.

There is only one solution from a Mohammedan point of view: Dar al-Islam to conquer Dar al-Harb. I don’t know about you, but that is not a view that I – a Westerner – finds viable or pleasant.