Turks Massacre Armenians Of Ismid -nyt19150903

[Gavur]

And now Turks are denying our bible
But one thing I don’t understand is; why are you guys wasting your time with such ignorant people like us?

No Re,
Natural was talking about "Martyr's of Anatolia" as the "Book"thatn distortes Islam ,you misunderstood.

[Reincarnated Am]

Reincarnated, according to our belief we believe all the books sent by God.

But we also believe that Gospel was sent to Prophet Jesus, and it was distorted after Jesus. This is our belief, I know most of the Christians do not admit Qur'an is word of God. ANd this is their belief, otherwise they would be Muslims. But we also believe that the words of Truth (Hak) remains in Bible. So it is logical not to defame Bible as a whole. There are certain things in Bible that we cant accept. This does not mean we deny Jesus or Bible as a whole. This is not our topic, so I wont go into details.

Who gives a ---- if you can or cannot accept our bible!(Partially or wholly), we accepted it and that’s enough!, no one is forcing you to accept it, that’s the difference between our religions, Christianity you should accept it willingly, only if you believe in it, but yours, you people force it on people by massacring them. You better stick to your book and we stick to ours

[Reincarnated Am]

No Re,
Natural was talking about "Martyr's of Anatolia" as the "Book"thatn distortes Islam ,you misunderstood.

Well this is what he said:
"PS. I've been reading the Bible and the Quran for years. The Quran makes up what the Bible lacks. I believe that once upon a time the Bible was divine but that is history now. In the mean time its been corrupted and tainted, therefore its invalid."

[Gavur]

I think natural is wrong in saying that .
he's just angry because I wont delete that mook Martyrs of Anatolia because I guess it slurs Islam in some parts ,I'll bet he would retract what he said if I withdrew that book.
I'll leave it to you guys I will deleted if you guys tell me it has no historical value whatsoever and/or is unreliable .It's at the beginning of this very thread.

Btw-I prefer talking about this subject w/Turq better.

[maral_m79]

You asked for it!

Jesus says that Elias has already come, he says that Elias is John the Baptist.
John then CONTRADICTS Jesus by saying that he is NOT Elias.

I just saw this .... And it seems that our friend here is trying to act smart or something.

First of all I want you to note that Matthew was NOT a Saint, he was an Apostle ... There is a difference in case you don't know.

Second, it is a huge mistake from your side to read the "New Testament" of the Bible in separate from the "Old Testament", and think that you can claim contradiction ...

Jesus's 'claim'.
The Gospel According to Saint Matthew.
17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. !]

Now, you say Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was Elijah.
Obviously that's not true, even the "translation" (I would like to know which one is it BTW) that you used, clearly stated that Jesus DID NOT SAY that John was Elijah.

Jesus was talking about the other prophets like Elijia, in their solid faith and the confrontaion of the sin and sinners without fear, and calling people to return to the Lord something that was already stated in Malachi's prophecy Malachi 4:5 "See, I will send you another prophet like Elijia ..."

Johns testimony.
The Gospel According to Saint John.
1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

Of course, John the Baptist was NOT Elijia resurrected. He was the prophet that was prophesied about by many previous prophets such as Isaiah (Isaiah 40:3) and Malachi (Malachi 3:1), who's duty was to prepare the road for the Messaiah and make it straight..

Let me complete the verses to you, in which John the Baptist was telling who is he...


from the Gospel of John

1:22 " Then who are you? Tell us, so we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you have to say for yourself?"

1:23 "He replied, ' I am a voice from the barren wilderness, shouting as Isaiah prophesied, 'Get ready for the coming of the Lord' "

Also in Matthew 3:3 , Mark 1:3 , Luke 3:4.


Now, is there something else you need to learn ? If so, then let me know.

[maral_m79]

I can sure you that Mathew is one of the 5039 Saints. He was an Apostle made a Saint.

Yes, maybe for the Catholics, not the Orthodox ...The Orthodox Church do not have that huge number of Saints by the way.

This contradiction that I provided as you quite rightly pointed out is only in the New Testament and has nothing to do with the Old Testament (BTW the Jews hate it when you call their holy scriptures "Old"). As this contradiction is only in the New Testament it only contradicts Christianity and not Judaism..

The Old Testament is NOT the Jew's compelete book of "Torah". Many chapters of the Torah are not in the Old Testament.

Mathew 11:14
11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

Now Mathew keeps up his idea that John is Elias.

Heres Mathew 17:13 in other versions of the Bible:

English: Weymouth NT
Then it dawned upon the disciples that it was John the Baptist about whom He had spoken to them.
English: Douay-Rheims
Then the disciples understood, that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist.
English: New Revised Standard Version
Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

Again I will repeat. The meaning was not that John the Baptist was the resurrected Elijah, but he was LIKE Elijah in the character and the means of calling people to follow God.

[maral_m79]

Aren't the Orthodox churches seen as "deviant" by mainstream Christianity?

No. Because Orthodox faith was the main faith since the time of the Apostles, then the Catholic church "deviate" with a slight difference at the 3-4th centurey... And at the 15th centurey or so, Martin Luther started the revolutionery movement and "Deviated" from the Catholic church, and stated what's known today as "Lutheran" or "Protestant" or "Evangelical" faith ...

These are the 3 main creeds of Christianity...

In UK the official faith is the Anglican Church follower ... Which was another offshot of the Catholic faith that was started by King Henry VI (If I'm not mistaken).

Now, Armenian Church untill 18th century was totally Orthodox, after that some of Armenians followed the Catholic faith, and the Evangelical one... But until today, these are very few, 95% of Armenians are followers of the Armenian Orthodox Church (Which is one of the 5 churches that have never changed faith since time of the Apostles ) .

For more info. you can read more about the History of the Churches...

Is there a completely different way of interpreting the bible in Orthodox Christianity compared to the other Christian denominations?

No. There is no difference in the interpretation of the Bible between Orthodox and Catholic Faiths, although there is a slight difference in the Liturgy.

The Sainthood of certain people, has nothing to do with the Interpretation of the Bible, therefore can't be considered as different interpretation. This is why I was saying that without any background about Christianity one can not judge and think that there is contradiction.

I was under the impression that the Torah (Pentateuch) is the first 5 books of the Tanakh.

Pentateuch are the first 5 Books of the Old Testament of the Bible, that's true, but it's NOT the compelete Holy book of the Jews...

Is this your own exegesis of the Bible?

No it's not.

Normally Bible contradictions can be easily resolved by examination of the preceding lines or the lines just before the contradiction is found.

Lets have a look at the previous line. My explanation is in the brackets and in red.
17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
("Jesus said Elias will come first and restore everything.")

The two lines in question.
Line 12
But I say unto you,("But I tell you")
That Elias is come already,("that Elias has already come")
and they knew him not ("but they didn't know who he was(they didn't recognise him)"
but have done unto him whatsoever they listed("but they did to him whatever they wanted").
Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.("the Son of Man(Jesus) will also suffer by them(because they did whatever they wanted)"
In conclusion Jesus insists that Elijah has come.

Line 13
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist("it then hit the disciples like a ton of bricks that Jesus was actually talking about John the Baptist.")

Thanks for the effort in translating it to easier english, but I do understand what the verses meant. I read them in 3 different languages, I don't think that I will need an explination.

I cant see at all how you "claim" that Jesus actually didn't actually mean that John the Baptist was Elijah but was "like" Elijah. I cant find anything to suggest that Jesus actually meant that John was "like" Elijah and not actually Elijah. Jesus says that John the Baptist is Elias, he doesn't actually say John the Baptist is like Elias. But maybe Orthodox Christianity has different bible interpretations compared to the other denominations???

If you can not see something that doesn't mean it does not exist.

Let me ask you this... Why would Elijah resurrct from death ?
What is the need for Elijah specifically at that particular time, where the Messiah Himself was there ?
John the Baptist's duty was to call people to God, and to prepare the way to the coming Messiah ... And a duty like that wasn't meant for Elijiah who lived centuries earlier.

On the other hand, I gave you verses from the Old Testament that "Clearly" states that there will come Other Prophets LIKE Elijiah, for example (Malachi 4:5)"See, I will send you another prophet like Elijia ..." .

You can not examine the Bible based on "Words" but you should understand the meaning, the circumstances and who said the particular line, and to whom it was said, and why it was said ... etc.


And as I said, Orthodox Church's interpretation of the Bible is not different from any other Church's interpretation ...And IF it was, then as I explained earlier, Orthodox Faith was the ONLY faith from time of the Apostles until 3-4th Century A.D.

If you are aiming at studying the Bible to find conradictions, then you need to spend much much more effort, read much more interpretation books, a lot of phelosophical manscripts, and have at least a background about the Old Testament , the History of the Church and Christianity...
Something that you obviously have no idea about whatsoever judging by your saying that Orthodox is a "Deviation" from the Christian Faith as far as the mainstream Christianity concerns.... I mean don't you know what is the translation of the word Orthodox at least ?!


Go learn your lessons, do more effort .... Then we'll talk.
Unfortunately my English language skills are not the best, if this converstation was in Armenian or at least Arabic, it would be easier to me to express myself better ... anyway, I guess that I made my points clear as much as my vocabulary in english can .


I rest my case .

[Gavur]

The real secret to defeating radical Islam

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47469

Posted: November 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Have you ever wondered why increasing numbers of Americans are calling President Bush a liar and urging a near-term withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, even though this would undoubtedly result in a major victory for Islamic terrorism? David Kupelian reveals the surprising reasons in this special report.
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


I'm looking at a photograph of a beautiful young Christian girl who has just been beheaded by a gang of six rampaging, machete-wielding Muslim radicals.

Her bloody body is lying on an autopsy table. A few inches to the left of her torso lies her severed head, nestled in a bunched-up black plastic trash bag. Delicate features, lovely dark hair matted with blood, eyes closed, her face appears sad and almost serene, prompting one to reflect on the incomprehensible brutality and terror she must have experienced.

Two other teenage girls, both Christian, were also decapitated during the same Oct. 29 massacre on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. The Muslim men, all dressed in black, savagely attacked the 16- to 19-year-old girls with machetes as they walked across a cocoa plantation on their way to the private Christian school they attended. Their heads were found some distance from the bodies, the head of one girl discarded mockingly in front of a Christian church.


Islamic attacks on Christians, including May's bombing in the nearby, predominantly Christian town of Tentena that killed 22 and injured over 30, are common in this area – with over 40 local attacks in the last two-and-a-half years. Analysts say Muslim militants are targeting central Sulawesi because they see it as a likely foundation for an Islamic state.

Global jihad

This scene, with all its attendant horror, is being duplicated all over the world, from Israel to India, from Russia to the Philippines, from Sudan to the Balkans, and right on into the heart of Europe with massive Muslim rioting in France and the terrorist train bombing in Spain, plus the subway bombings in London – and of course the 9-11 attacks in America that killed 3,000. Violent Islamic jihad, dormant for centuries, is once again on the move worldwide.

Islam has attempted global domination before. In past centuries it conquered not only Arabia, Persia, Syria and Egypt, but major parts of Africa, Asia and Europe, until it was ultimately defeated and lost its will to conquer – for a time, anyway.

And it's not just during Muhammad's era, or later medieval times, that militant Islam has savagely attacked neighboring cultures, either butchering "infidels" (non-Muslims) outright or converting them at the point of the sword. Jihad has always been a part of Islam.

For Americans, largely ignorant of world history, Islamic radicalism mysteriously appeared on their television screens for the first time on Sept. 11, 2001, and has dominated our national security concerns ever since. But for those more familiar with the major forces shaping world events, the violent spread of Islam is recognized as one of the most important geopolitical forces in the last 14 centuries, one that has touched billions of lives.

For instance, I personally lost dozens of family members – perhaps over 100 – in the genocide of the Christian Armenians by the Muslim Turks. I'll mention just one of those family members – my great grandfather, Steelianos Leondiades. A Protestant minister, in 1908 he was attending a conference of Armenian and Greek ministers in the major Turkish city of Adana. Here's how his daughter, my maternal grandmother Anna Paulson, recalled the terrible events that unfolded: "Some of the Turkish officers came to the conference room and told all these ministers – there were 70 of them, ministers and laymen and a few wives: 'If you embrace the Islamic religion you will all be saved. If you don't, you will all be killed.'"

Steelianos, my great grandfather, acting as a spokesman for the ministers group asked the Turks for 15 minutes so they could make their decision. During that time the ministers and their companions talked, read the Bible to each other and prayed. In the end, none of them would renounce their Christian faith and convert to Islam.

"And then," Anna recalled, "they were all killed.

"They were not even buried. They were all thrown down the ravine."

The only way we know any details of this massacre – one of many during that hellish period when 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated – is because one victim survived the ordeal. "One man woke up, he wasn't dead," my grandmother said. "He woke up and got up and said, 'Brethren, brethren, is there anybody alive here? I'm alive, come on, let's go out together.'" Had it not been for that survivor's account, no one would have known the circumstances of this modern-day martyrdom.

(By the way, details of the appalling decapitations of the three Christian girls in Indonesia also emerged thanks to a lone survivor – a fourth student who was also attacked and severely injured, but who survived to tell authorities about the attack.)

My great grandfather was a martyr, a real one. But today, we most often hear the word "martyr" being used to describe hypnotized Islamic jihadis who commit unspeakable mass atrocities against innocent people while dementedly chanting "Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar" to drown out what's left of their conscience.

That's not martyrdom. It's terrorism – and it's about time we realized what terrorism is all about.

How terrorism works

On one level, terrorism works by simply causing us so much pain, suffering and dread of future terror that we eventually weaken and give in to the terrorists' demands. But the ultimate goal of terrorism is to capture our hearts and minds – to convert us.

What? How can terrorizing us transform our attitudes in favor of the terrorists' viewpoint? Wouldn't we recoil in horror and, if anything, move farther away from sympathy toward the perpetrators? Not necessarily.

Remember, militant Muslims "convert" individuals to Islam by threat of death. Why shouldn't they try the same tactic on entire societies?

Stop and consider what happens when we're intimidated and frightened by terrorism, or even the threat of it. Wonder of wonders, some of us start to sympathize with our enemy.

There's a funny thing about appeasement. It's hard to give in to evil without first agreeing with that evil, at least a little. We have to allow our minds to be bent, our previous values and perceptions altered, even slightly; we somehow have to see the terrorists as not quite totally evil. "Yes, they may be angry and even murderous, but after all, don't they have legitimate grievances against us? Maybe we brought on this attack by our past actions. Maybe we're at fault. Maybe their cause is just. Maybe we're the real terrorists."

Does that sound like an exaggeration? Do you remember Cindy Sheehan, so lionized by America's "mainstream press" as the courageous public face of the antiwar movement? She referred to Islamic terrorists flocking to Iraq to kill American soldiers as "freedom fighters." Meanwhile she calls the president of the United States a "lying bastard," a "jerk," an "evil maniac," a "gangster," a "war criminal," a "murderous thug" and – of course – a "terrorist."

To become an appeaser, you have to sympathize with the enemy, either overtly like Sheehan, or secretly. How else can you look at yourself in the mirror and justify giving in to evil?

The question is, how do we come to side with those who are intent on destroying us?

Sympathy for the devil

On Aug. 23, 1973, a submachine-gun-toting escaped convict named Jan-Erik Olsson attempted to rob a bank in Stockholm, Sweden, and in the process took four hostages.

Incredibly, over the course of their five-and-a-half day captivity, the hostages developed a strong bond with Olsson and another ex-con who joined him – so much so that they came to sympathize with and support the criminals holding them captive at gunpoint, while fearing and disparaging the police who sought to free them. Some of the captives later testified on behalf of, or raised money for, the legal defense of their captors.

This phenomenon of captives developing an emotional bond with their captors, dubbed the "Stockholm Syndrome" after the bank hostage case, has been observed in many hostage situations over the years, and has also shed light on other seemingly inexplicable behaviors, such as battered wives who identify with and defend horribly abusive husbands.

Characteristics of the Stockholm Syndrome include:

1. The captives start to identify with their captors, at first as a means of survival, calculating that the captor won't hurt them if they are cooperative and supportive.

2. The captives realize a rescue attempt is dangerous and could result in their being hurt or even killed, and so they come to fear and oppose efforts to rescue them.

3. Longer-term captivity fosters an emotional attachment to the captor, as the victims learn of the captor's problems and grievances, as well as his hopes and aspirations. In some cases, the captives come to identify with and believe in the justness of the captor's "cause."

Is it possible that the Stockholm Syndrome – where victims are so intimidated and fearful that they end up sympathizing with and defending those threatening their lives, and disparaging those brave souls trying to save them – might help explain some of what has happened worldwide in response to the murderous outrages of radical Islam?

Could it be that many people are so intimidated by radical Islam, so fearful of being victims themselves, that their fear is transformed unconsciously into a strange sympathy and support for the terrorists, in an attempt to placate them?

Could this be a factor in the absurd political correctness we see in America and Europe with regard to Islam?


Why is it that since 9-11, increasing numbers of students on American college campuses are extolling the "Palestinian cause" and condemning Israel as a terrorist state, with some schools even hosting thinly disguised jihad recruitment rallies by radical Islamic groups?

Why is it that Muslims can riot day after day in and around Paris, burn over a thousand cars, ransack businesses and schools, rampage through 300 towns shooting police and firemen – and the international press barely mentions that the rioters are Muslims?

Why is it that every time a terror incident occurs in the U.S. – such as the Beltway snipers that terrorized the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area for weeks – the government and press bend over backwards to downplay any possible Islamic jihad connection? (The key Beltway sniper had converted to Islam, changed his name to "Muhammad" and had known sympathies for Islamic terrorists.)

Why do the government and news media treat the Council for American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, as a legitimate civil rights organization when it has been identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for Hamas, and several of its leaders have been convicted on federal terrorism charges since 9-11?
If you consider Americans' understandable fear of radical Muslims, and add to that fear our culture's knee-jerk multicultural dread of being perceived as "racist," you can start to understand today's bizarre deference to Islam in the West.

'Psychology of defeat'

Somehow, the West has lost its courage and has been intimidated by radical Islam into trying to appease it. It's easy for this to happen – even in a battle-hardened nation like Israel.

Once the Jewish state set the standard for the entire world in how to deal with terrorism. But in recent years Israel's leadership, along with a considerable segment of public opinion, have been seduced into pursuing appeasement as the road to peace.

Understandably, Israelis are tired and worn down after more than 50 years of fighting and dying just to defend their right to exist. But the problem is, the more Israel tries to display good will and make concessions for peace with the surrounding Arab states, the more terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians increase. Shouldn't the opposite occur? Wouldn't you think the more land giveaways and other concessions the Israelis make, the closer they would get to peace? No, the result is more terror and more pressure for more concessions.



Look at this simple and familiar syndrome on a personal level: If you cower before a bully in an attempt to placate him, all you accomplish is to make him more confident, more demanding, more contemptuous of you – in other words, your weakness literally transforms him into an even bigger and more dangerous bully.

Israel has made a string of major concessions – the most recent being the unprecedented, unilateral gift of Gaza to the Palestinians. Are the Palestinians happy as a result? Are they grateful to Israel? No, Gaza is becoming a Mecca for terrorists, a prime Middle East staging area for ever more terror attacks. Hamas and other terror groups believe they are seeing the fruits of their murderous attacks on Israelis – and are encouraged now to engage in more terrorism until they have "liberated" all of Israel, which they call "Palestine."

Appeasement always encourages violence. If more violence is not immediately forthcoming in response to appeasement, it's only a strategic delay. Israel should have learned this lesson from hard experience, such as when it made its disastrous, unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon, which resulted in widespread death among Lebanese Christians and the emboldening of the Hezbollah terror army.

The simple fact is, just as with Communists and Nazis, Islamo-fascists regard goodwill gestures and concessions as nothing more than contemptible weakness and an irresistible invitation to take advantage. Hitler, shortly after the appeasing Chamberlain arrived home proudly displaying his worthless peace treaty, turned around and attacked Britain. In the same way, Islamic militants consider it just good strategy to lie and break treaties.

It seems Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has somehow forgotten what he wrote in his autobiography, "Warrior." Reflecting on his years as a daring soldier fighting for his nation's survival, Sharon wrote that, in dealing with Israel's Arab attackers, he "came to view the objective not simply as retaliation, or even deterrence in the usual sense. It was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction they could never win."

Now we're getting somewhere.

Terrorism is intimidation. The terrorists' end-game is to so frighten us that we not only cower in fear, but are converted – that is, our fear actually causes a change in our attitudes and beliefs regarding the terrorists and their cause.

The antidote to this intimidation factor is self-evident: Terrorists (intimidators) must be super-intimidated into submission. Sorry, but it's the only language they speak. Anything else besides overwhelming, paralyzing, courage-destroying strength is perceived by them as weakness.

For example: In 1986, after America had suffered many casualties from a long string of terror activities fomented by Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, President Reagan bombed Libya. Called Operation El Dorado Canyon, the U.S. raids targeted specific sites, including Qaddafi's house, and killed 60 people, including Qaddafi's adopted four-year-old daughter.

As a result, most historians agree, Libya basically abandoned terrorism, with the notable exception of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, for which Libya formally accepted responsibility in 2003, paying each victim's family $8 million.

OK, you might well say, we can agree you have to crush terrorism so badly it can't get up. But what about efforts to influence the hearts and minds of the larger Muslim world – to nudge them toward moderation and away from radicalism and violence? Of course, such efforts are essential to prevailing long-term in the current clash of civilizations, a war that rages not just between Islam and the West, but between radical Islam and that religion's more moderate, modern elements. The great majority of Muslims worldwide, even those somewhat sympathetic to militant Islam, might well be susceptible to moving toward a more moderate worldview.

But whatever educational outreach the West might employ to the Muslim world to champion the joys of freedom and self-determination, of tolerance and women's rights and so on – and for that matter, whatever outreach moderate Muslims make to their Islamic brothers and sisters – they're all useless without the accompanying demoralization and destruction of the violent jihad movement.

[Gavur]

Let's learn a lesson from America's "Greatest Generation."

One of the most controversial actions in U.S. military history was dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to break the will of the maniacal Japanese war effort. Now, I know there are persuasive arguments both for and against America having used the atomic bomb in this way. But whether or not you agree, in retrospect, with the bombings of those two Japanese cities, what is undeniable is that doing so accomplished more than end the war with Japan. It broke Japan. It confronted the "evil spirit" that had possessed that nation – with its crazed kamikaze suicide pilots and its emperor who was regarded as a god – and it violently exorcized it. Having neutralized the evil that had captivated Japan, America became that nation's friend and helped massively reconstruct it, ultimately turning Japan into the civilized, successful, First World economic power it is today.

For that matter, after the Allies annihilated Hitler's war machine and along with it the German will and capacity to attack its neighbors, the U.S. also helped a newly sober Germany to become a great Western power. Our enemies, Japan and Germany, became our friends.

Once again, I am not saying "Nuke Mecca" or anything of the sort. I am saying what Arial Sharon said years ago: We must create in the enemy "a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction they could never win."

Hearts and minds

Of course, I am not preaching this sermon to America's military, which knows the truth of what I am saying here far better than I do. But, to America's citizens and political leadership, I'm saying the biggest danger to this nation in the global war against radical Islam is the specter of appeasement – in all its forms.

Remember, winning any war is not just about who has the greater number of soldiers and more advanced weapons. If it were, how could we explain America losing a war to North Vietnam? Although we won virtually every battle, we lost that war – at home.

Recently we've seen a burgeoning antiwar movement, reminiscent of that during the 1960s Vietnam era. Back then, widespread opposition to the Vietnam War was fueled by overtly leftist and even communist groups, whose efforts were multiplied by the news media, which opposed the war. The same phenomenon is happening today, including the far left and communist groups at the forefront. And the same terrible outcome is possible, if America loses its courage in this war. Only this time it would be much worse: No one was worrying about the North Vietnamese slipping across America's borders to detonate nuclear bombs or launch a biological weapons terror attack. But with our current enemy, that is this nation's No.1 concern.

Make no mistake, the leaders and organizers of current antiwar demonstrations, like the giant one in Washington, D.C., in September, are groups openly aligned with terrorist and communist regimes – groups like ANSWER, which the Washington Post described as "one of the main antiwar groups coordinating" the rally in the nation's capital. The Post didn't see fit to mention that ANSWER ("Act Now to Stop War and End Racism") is just a front group for the ultra-leftist Workers World Party, which enthusiastically supports North Korea and other dangerous, wacko regimes, and even worse – supports the "Iraqi resistance" which is killing American troops in Iraq.

Like Vietnam, the Iraq War is controversial. There are valid, honest and compelling arguments both for and against this war – that is, over whether we should have taken the terror war to that location in the first place.

However, there are few or no compelling arguments for abandoning the fight now that we are there. Virtually everyone, except the most radical appeaser, recognizes it would be disastrous to "cut and run," which would widely be perceived as a monumental victory for terrorism. It would undoubtedly fuel a new and much larger round of radical jihad recruiting and the violence that inevitably follows.

Fifteen years from now, the Iraq War may be considered to have been a mistake. Or it may be regarded by historians to have been strategically brilliant and visionary to have planted and nurtured a relatively free, democratic country right in the heart of the Arab-Muslim Middle East, in between "axis of evil" countries Iran and Syria. Time will tell.

But what is indisputable is that Islamic radicalism is very, very real, and is intent on 1) dominating the entire Middle East, 2) wiping Israel off the map, and later, 3) fulfilling what it sees as its mission of bringing the entire world into a state of submission to the religion of Muhammad. It's already happening in Europe.

This global jihad can succeed only if we lose the battle for hearts and minds – our own. Consider well the words attributed to Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenant, in his recent July 9 letter (captured by U.S. troops) to al-Qaida's top leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Despite claims by al-Qaida that it's a forgery, the U.S. government says it "has the highest confidence in the letter's authenticity."

"... I say to you that we are in a battle," Bin Laden's No. 2 man says to his Iraqi commander, "and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma ["Umma" means all Muslims worldwide]. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one-thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us."

In other words, although their military capabilities "will never be equal to one-thousandth of the capabilities" of America, they can still win. How?

During the 1960s, the antiwar movement, driven by profoundly anti-American groups – whose efforts were legitimized and multiplied by the news media – ultimately caused America to lose its courage and lose the war. What do you think? Is the same thing happening now? And isn't that exactly what our Islamo-fascist enemies would love most?

[1.5 million]

To all of the other Turks here - see - this is what I am talking about. Good luck.