Christian

American

Conservative

Anti-Jihad

Pro-Israel

Pro-Humanity

Unashamed (2 Timothy 2:15)

I’ve been portrayed as one who “long[s] for the ‘clash of civilizations’ to reach a cathartic and violent conclusion.”

It appears that some have made a mistaken assumption based on the blog’s title, A Defending Crusader.  Please note that “Crusade” (croisade) means simply “marked by the cross.”  As a committed Christian I find that description appropriate.  Also please note the word “Defending”…I have never advocated any kind of violence against those professing the Muslim faith, or any other faith, nor do I encourage response in kind to any violence perpetrated by them.

The purpose of my site is to highlight what I am convinced is a true Jihad, with all that word means, being made against the West, to raise awareness of the plight of persecuted Christians around the world, and to support the state of Israel.   The only way those things can be the impetus for cataclysm is by overreaction on the part of the offended. 

1. You believe there is a clash of civilizations underway – a long, unfinished Jihad vs a decaying Western society?

The quick answer to this question is yes.  After reading a large chunk of the Qur’an, multiple Islamist and anti-Islamist web sites, and various books on history and Islamic conquest, I do believe that now that the ummah has a position of strength, there is an agenda being pressed by anti-Christian, anti-West, anti-Jew – basically anti-anything-other-than-Islam – religious leaders and lay people who are able to quote extensively from the Qur’an and ahadith to prove the point that they are waging the unfinished jihad to conquer the world for Islam (Fight them until there is no more fitnah, and all religion is for Allah – Qur’an 8:39).

2. You believe that separation is the answer? If the number of Muslims increases, then the US will cease to exist in its current form.

I don’t believe in separation, or segregation, other than that I think it unwise for our government to continue to supply money, arms, and legitimacy to regimes that are vocally against us.  I have no problem with Muslims in general, other than that I believe that their religion is false…which is what they believe about mine.  As long as there is no inclination or action on their part to undermine the freedoms that we enjoy, they’re fine with me.  I do have a problem with agencies and individuals who advocate and/or work for the increasing imposition of Shari’a-type regulations in the U.S., and for government-aided concessions to the religion.  I believe that if THAT is allowed to continue unopposed and unabated, the U.S. as we know it will disappear.

3. But you do not believe that the West should respond to the aggression it faces with violence?

I don’t have a hard-and-fast position on the use of violence as a response to violence.  For example, if Buffalo were being shelled daily by Toronto, I would advocate and expect a swift and decisive response.  I would absolutely condemn attacks perpetrated specifically against uninvolved individual Canadians.

I wanted to be clear about the line: “the only way those things can be the impetus for cataclysm is by overreaction on the part of the offended.” Does this mean (as it seems to): cataclysm will only result if we, the West, over-react to, say, another 911?

That statement is in reference to occurrences like the Rushdie nonsense versions 1 and 2, cartoon-rage versions 1 and 2, and the recent riots in India over a dropped Qur’an.  Since many Islamist apologists cite our free culture (things like the cartoons) as the basis for their hatred of the West, my experience (limited though it may be) shows that overreaction to being offended is a propensity shown mainly by them (the Islamists).  I was not in any way referring to something akin to 9/11.

Part of me wants to quibble with you on ‘Crusader’ – despite your use of the word ‘defending’. Isn’t your defense of the term very similar to the many Muslims who claim that Jihad is a spiritual matter not a battle against non-Muslims? And doesn’t your pen name underline the potentially aggressive connotation (especially GdB’s involvement in the sack of Jerusalem)?

I chose the blog title for a reason…as my “tag line” says, “the best defense is to be good and offensive”.  That many in the Islamic world continue to call Western leaders and soldiers “Crusaders” is indicative of the prevailing attitude of victimhood.  Everyone holds Christianity culpable for the atrocities of the Crusades…but nobody mentions the millions slaughtered in the Muslim conquest of north Africa, southern Europe, and India in the Jihad that preceded the Crusades.  Since the first crusade was a defensive (perhaps retaliatory is a better word) action in response to said jihad (GdB only participated in that one, was said not to have participated in the wanton carnage at the fall of Jerusalem, and refused to accept the title of king), I don’t mind the negative connotations associated with the term crusade or my nom de plume.  Because I feel like I’m a Christian attempting to hold back the tide of Islam that seeks to subjugate me, I am a Defending Crusader.

Respectfully,

~ GdB