Jamal is "Calling All Christians"

...and asks,

"With his release pending, Abdul Rahman has asked for asylum outside Afghanistan. Who will take him?"

Very first comment comes from a Muslim woman...

"Calling all Christians, who will take all the Sodomites of Iran? They face death too."

...to which I responded,

"I fail to see how the potential execution of a Christian convert in an Islamic nation equates with the same threat hanging over the heads of [Muslim] Homosexuals…

Homosexuality is abhorrent, and unnatural. Such people defile themselves, and are a reproach to God and His Holiness. This is not the same as believing in Messiah; God’s own Son… I know we disagree on this point, but my point is that both Islam and Christianity view Homosexuality as an affront to God’s Holiness.

What I see in the question you pose is this:
Iran wants every last Homosexual in its country gone; by emigration, or death, it doesn’t matter. So why not send them to Western nations, or America, where they’ll fit right in?

I have no illusions that they wouldn’t do just that… fit right in… but I’m commanded to pray for and witness to these people in hope that God will change their hearts, that they might turn from their wickedness. That doesn’t mean I have to accept what they do, or allow them membership in the Church.

You’ll get no argument from me that America embraces far more than it should, including homosexuality. But I see no hypocrisy in offering asylum to Abdul Rahman, and not "however-many" Iranian homosexuals."

Jamal then accuses me of hypocrisy...

"So youll accept the apostate but not the homosexual? Is it that you condemn Islam for imprisoning the Apostate, but would agree with Islam in not accepting homosexuality? If it is the case then you are the hypocrit if you side with Islam in one breath and then condemn it in the next. Why do you not also pray for a bible without errors, a religion without contradictions, and that people do not apostate from Islam?"

Apostate from Islam? A religion that still believes in stoning, maiming, beheading, and honor-killing... A religion whose only social grace-- if grace it can be called --is institutionalized hatred and a xenophobic zeal for destroying everything that is ideologically opposed to itself.

Islam is irrational. Case in point... consider the following commentary by Robert Pfriender... "Doomsday for Islam?" While Jamal preaches a brand of Islam no Islamic nation in the world would recognize, Robert Pfriender says bin Laden may very well be the religion of Peace's own worst enemy.

"The focus on the ports fiasco obviously would pale in comparison to a terror nuke actually detonating in one of our ports. But what about the flipside of that terrible event? What would happen to Islam as a result of a massive nuclear retaliatory counterstrike against Islamic targets?

"Perhaps this week's most ominous headline was "Islamic websites carry al-Qaida's Last Warning." The story in WorldNetDaily detailed how Osama bin Laden's terror group plans to bring destruction upon the United States and force it into surrender. Apparently this is more of the same threat that has been circulating for some time that al-Qaida plans to detonate seven nuclear warheads it claims to have acquired from Pakistan and the former Soviet Union in the United States. There have also been accompanying threats that al-Qaida planned to follow up the nuclear attacks with crop-dusting planes that would spread smallpox on American cities.

"Despite grandiose plans for such an attack on the United States, bin Laden has again failed to understand the nature of the American spirit and the likely vengeance such an attack would unleash from American military strategic nuclear forces. Since the United States entered the era of nuclear weapons technology many decades ago, it has always had detailed contingency plans on how the country would respond in a nuclear crisis.

"Perhaps best known among those contingency plans is the one drawn up during the Cold War with the Soviets commonly described as "MAD," or Mutual Assured Destruction. Simply, MAD is the doctrine whereby the United States sought to dissuade its adversaries from ever even considering a nuclear attack against our country by assuring that such an attempt would be met with such a hyper-violent nuclear response that would undoubtedly result in the annihilation of not just the United States, but also the enemy that initiated the attack..."

Hyper-violent? Islam thinks America is weak. We ran from Vietnam. We ran from Beirut. Left without finishing the job in the first Gulf War. We ran from Mogadishu. We did nothing when the Kobar Towers were destroyed. Nothing when the World Trade Center was bombed in the early 90's. Nothing when embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. Nothing when the USS Cole was attacked. And now thanks to our media, Americans are butchers and torturers, fighting an illegal, and losing battle... We can't even catch bin Laden with a multi-million dollar bounty on his head. Is it any wonder America, and Americans, are perceived as weak?

"For some odd reason, bin Laden and his fanatical associates seem to believe that the United States would back down in the face of a nuclear terror attack. It would seem that their psychotic thought processes have blinded their judgment in a profound and ultimately self-destructive way. Their warped perception leads them to believe that such an attack could not be traced back to their hands and hence the United States would be left with no retaliation targets. They obviously fail to see the difference between tactical and strategic planning and this error may ultimately lead Islam to disaster.

"Enter what history may someday describe as the Bush doctrine of "Terror-MAD," the likely response to a terror nuke attack on our country. Although no one in government will confirm such a doctrine even exists, simple common sense and past comments by government officials to the press would indicate that, in fact, it does exist. And herein is Mr. bin Laden's very fatal flaw.

"A terror nuke attack upon the United States would undoubtedly unleash a response by American strategic nuclear forces so violent and so encompassing that the very future of Islamic society around the world would likely be permanently wiped from the face of the planet.

"Bear in mind the reality of such an attack against the United States. Not only would the United States not be chastised by the international community for such a massive counterstrike, but no one in the American government would likely care about what others think under such circumstances. While we're busy throwing all those retaliatory nukes around, who is going to standup and object?"
--Emphasis Mine

America will not need a specific nation or target for a "in-kind" response. The gloves will come off quickly, and I venture to say Saudi Arabia will be on the phone immediately to whatever American entity is at that moment still in charge, begging for mercy... whether they're guilty or not. Islam has all kinds of interesting targets. Let's see, there's Mecca, Medina, Qom, and Mashhad. We can leave Jerusalem and Hebron off that list for obvious reasons-- I beg to differ with Mr. Pfriender on these two, as no attack on those two sites would ever prosper, let alone succeed.

"The likely target list for retaliation for a nuclear terror attack against the United States includes Iran, Syria, and Libya as the primary targets. We can supplement those targets with countries such as Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from (and that are most likely targeted with the "neutron bomb" designed with such a scenario in mind that kills with enhanced radiation levels but essentially leaves facilities and oil infrastructure intact – except for holy sites such as Mecca, Medina, Hebron, Qom and others, which planners might want to completely annihilate). There are likely other "Islamic" countries also on the potential target list and even ones we generally consider as being friendly to the U.S. such as Pakistan, especially if radicals gained control of its nuclear weapons..."

Much of the Middle East would go up in flames. And we can add Damascus to that list, for while Priender mentions Syria, Damascus is a doomed city according to Bible Prophesy [for those of you interested in prophesy... that's one city that is going up in flames, whatever happens].

"While the Pentagon was busy "cleaning house" our strategic nuclear force would also likely target North Korea just to be certain we don't face any additional threats while we are in a recovery mode from the terror attack..."

This bit caught me by surprise, but it makes perfect sense. Korea or China might see an opportunity to advance their own schemes should America find herself weakened, and distracted... best to take them out as well.

"Americans as a whole seem to have tremendous patience, much more so than say Islamic countries. The American flag is burned on a daily basis in many countries during what seem like endless protests against our country and it hardly elicits any response at all here. On the other hand, a few cartoons – even ones showing Muhammad in a favorable way – sends masses of violent protestors into the streets in Islamic countries. However, we do have limits to our patience. If we got nuked, there would undoubtedly be a tremendous outcry for massive retaliation. After all, the country quickly united on Sept. 12, 2001, and widely supported President Bush's initiative to attack Afghanistan."

I guess one could look at it in terms of patience, but I rather think this nation is simply loathe to do much of anything unless pushed into a corner. Considering America's military and economic might, it would take something considerable to make this nation rise up as one and say, "Kill them all, and let God sort them out!" Just look at how fractured we are now. This nation is already at war with some shadowy figure aptly named Terrorism, as well as with itself; right and against left, Democrats and Media against Republicans... and America it sometimes seems.

"Considering the huge number of nuclear weapons in the United State's inventory, there would be no need to pick and choose targets for economy purposes. While bin Laden's claim that he has a few nukes (which may or may not be still operational) may turn out to be true, there is the utmost certainty that the United States has a huge number (somewhere in the thousands) of extremely well-maintained and very reliable nuclear warheads in all shapes and sizes for every possible purpose.

"A nuclear attack on America by al-Qaida would – by many informed accounts – lead to a renewed crusade to destroy Islam throughout the world. Bin Laden's grandiose plan to destroy modern civilization and restore some absurd form of radical Islamic rule throughout the entire world will undoubtedly have exactly the opposite effect. Already we see a tremendous backlash against most things Islamic, the recent port fiasco is a perfect case in point. Imagine the reaction after a nuke attack."

For all of al Qaida's supposed sophistication, they seem oddly trapped in that proverbial 7th century mindset. And while Dems seem to have reverted back to a pre 9-11 mindset, Islam is emboldened. They have gleaned more from the lessons of Vietnam than have we... "Break the will of the people of America, and you will defeat America's military."

"In his fanatical zeal to convert the entire world to radical Islam, there will be two groups of victims resulting from bin Laden's insanity – innocent people just wanting to live their normal lives here in our country, and Islam itself with its followers throughout the world."

No one is safe. Not Jamal, not me, not anyone reading this post, and certainly not Abdul Rahman, who having been released has now disappeared into protective custody somewhere, hoping for asylum in another country.

Jamal wants to know where are the Christians? I want to know where are all these mythical Muslims he continually speaks of. I may find homosexuality abhorrent, but I don't advocate the wholesale butcher of Homosexuals because of their lifestyle.

There are bigger fish to fry in this debate. For Jamal, Abdul Rahman is merely a convenient streetlight under which to peddle his own brand of hypocrisy... A prime example of the greater issues that confront our world. No man should be threatened with life or limb because a government disapproves of the god he chooses to worship; in this case the God of the Bible. Because the God of the Bible has had a lot to say about the times we are in... and won't escape.

And God has yet to be wrong.